Evaluación de las estrategias de comprensión lectora de la formación inicial de maestrosInfluencia del momento formativo y del formato textual sobre el producto-resumen

  1. María José Rodríguez Conde 1
  2. Gabriel Herrada Valverde 1
  3. Azucena Hernández Martín 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Salamanca

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Profesorado: Revista de curriculum y formación del profesorado

ISSN: 1138-414X

Year of publication: 2019

Volume: 23

Issue: 3

Pages: 431-451

Type: Article

DOI: 10.30827/PROFESORADO.V23I3.11237 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Profesorado: Revista de curriculum y formación del profesorado


Cited by

  • Dialnet Metrics Cited by: 2 (25-01-2023)

SCImago Journal Rank

  • Year 2019
  • SJR Journal Impact: 0.318
  • Best Quartile: Q3
  • Area: Education Quartile: Q3 Rank in area: 699/1544

Índice Dialnet de Revistas

  • Year 2019
  • Journal Impact: 0.820
  • Field: EDUCACIÓN Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 35/235


  • Social Sciences: B

Scopus CiteScore

  • Year 2019
  • CiteScore of the Journal : 0.7
  • Area: Education Percentile: 32

Journal Citation Indicator (JCI)

  • Year 2019
  • Journal Citation Indicator (JCI): 0.31
  • Best Quartile: Q3
  • Area: EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Quartile: Q3 Rank in area: 531/723


Knowledge building is linked to the reading comprehension involved in the creation of summaries. However, summarising effectively favours knowledge creation only when one starts from an adequate task model: to express in a personal and brief way the macrostructure of the text. This research consists of a quasi-experimental study with a group of students starting the Degree in Primary Education and another group who had already graduated from it and were studying a Degree in Psyhopedagogy. The aim was to verify the influence of the type of text, printed or hyperlinked, on the usage of reading comprehension strategies needed to create a summary. Results suggest that, regardless of the educational stage of the student and the text format, the reader does not start from an adequate task model that allows them to obtain a satisfying product. The relevance of this study lays in the type of students surveyed, who are future Primary Education teachers, and the consequences that it entails for the approach to the initial training of teachers.

Funding information


Bibliographic References

  • Álvarez, M. & Yáñiz, C, (2015). Writing practices in Spanish universities/ Las prácticas escritas en la Universidad española. Cultura y Educación, 27(3), 594- 628.
  • De Miguel, M. (coord.) (2005). Modalidades de enseñanza centradas en el desarrollo de competencias orientadas para promover el cambio metodológico en el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo.
  • De Pablos, J. (2010). Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento. Las competencias informacionales y digitales. RUSC, 7(2), 6-15.
  • Dunlonsky, J. Rawson, K.A., Marsh, J.E., Nathan, M.J., & Willingham, D.T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Sciencie in the Public Interest, 14 (1), 4-58. Doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266.
  • Felipe, A. & Barrios, E. (2016). Evaluación de la competencia lectora de los futuros docentes. Investigaciones sobre lectura, 7, 7-21.
  • Graham, S. & Herbert, M. (2010). Writing toread: evidence for how writing can improve reading. Washintgton: A Carnegie Corporation time to act Report.
  • Granado, C. & Puig, M. (2015). La identidad lectora de los maestros en formación como componente de su identidad docente. Un estudio de sus autobiografías como lectores. Ocnos. Revista de Estudios sobre lectura,13, 46-63. Doi: 10.18239/ocnos_2015.13.03.
  • Hirvela, A. y Du, Q. (2013). Why am I paraphrasing: Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 87-98. Doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005.
  • Kintsch, E. (1990). Macroprocesses and microprocesses in development of summarization skill. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 161-195. Doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0703_1.
  • Leopold, C., Sumfleth, E. & Leutner, D. (2013). Learning with summaries: Effects of representation mode and type of learning activity on comprehension and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 27, 40-49.Doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.003.
  • Madrid, R.I. & Cañas, J. (2009). The effect of reading strategies and prior knowledge on cognitive load and learning with hypertext. The Ergonomics Open Journal, 2, 124-132. Doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.06.005.
  • Madrid, R.I., Van Oostendorp, H. & Puerta, M.C. (2009). The effects of the number of links and navigation support on cognitive load and learning with hypertext: The mediating role of reading order, Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 66- 75.Doi: 10.2174/1875934300902010124.
  • Mandin, S., Lemaire, B. & Dessus, P. (2007). Modeling summarization assessment strategies with LSA. En F. Wild, M. Kalz, J. van Bruggen & R. Koper (Eds.), First European workshop on latent semantic analysis in technology enhanced learning (20-21). Heerlen: Open University of Netherlands.
  • National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups. Recuperado de: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/documents/report.pdf Doi: 10.1598/rrq.36.3.5.
  • O´Reilly, T. & McNamara, D.S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43 (2), 121-152. Doi: 10.1080/01638530709336895.
  • Ozoru, Y., Dempsey, K. & McNamara, D.S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19 (3), 228-242. Doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003.
  • Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: plagiarism and patch writing in academic second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 317-345. Doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.004
  • Rouet, J.F. & Britt, M.A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. En M.T. McCrudden, J.P., Magliano G. y J. Schraw (Eds.), Relevance instruction and goal-focusing in text learning (19-52). Greenwich, CT: Information age publishing.
  • Salmerón, L., Cañas, J., Kintsch, W. y& Fajardo, I. (2005). Reading Strategies and Hypertext Comprehension. Discourse Processes, 40 (3), 171-191. Doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4003_1.
  • Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W. & Cañas, J. (2006a). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory and Cognition, 34 (5), 1157- 1171. Doi: 10.3758/bf03193262.
  • Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W. y Cañas, J. (2006b). Coherence or interest as basis for improving hypertext comprehension. Information Design Journal, 14 (1), 45-55. Doi: 10.1075/idj.14.1.06sal.
  • Sandoval, P.R. & Maldonado, A.C. (2010). Evaluación de las habilidades en matemática y comprensión lectora de estudiantes que ingresan a pedagogía en educación básica: un estudio comparativo en dos universidades del Consejo de Recotres. Curitiva, 2, 73-102.
  • Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J. & Anderson, M. (2010). Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes, 47,331-362. Doi: 10.1080/01638530902959927.
  • Westby, C., Culatta, B., Lawrence, B. & Hall-Kenyon, K. (2010). Summarizing expository texts. Top Lang Disorders, 30 (4), 275-287. Doi: 10.1097/tld.0b013e3181ff5a88.