Cargando…
Levels of Reading Comprehension in Higher Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Higher education aims for university students to produce knowledge from the critical reflection of scientific texts. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a deep mental representation of written information. The objective of this research was to determine through a systematic review and meta-analysi...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8371198/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34421765 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712901 |
_version_ | 1783739590810533888 |
---|---|
author | de-la-Peña, Cristina Luque-Rojas, María Jesús |
author_facet | de-la-Peña, Cristina Luque-Rojas, María Jesús |
author_sort | de-la-Peña, Cristina |
collection | PubMed |
description | Higher education aims for university students to produce knowledge from the critical reflection of scientific texts. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a deep mental representation of written information. The objective of this research was to determine through a systematic review and meta-analysis the proportion of university students who have an optimal performance at each level of reading comprehension. Systematic review of empirical studies has been limited from 2010 to March 2021 using the Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, and PsycINFO databases. Two reviewers performed data extraction independently. A random-effects model of proportions was used for the meta-analysis and heterogeneity was assessed with I(2). To analyze the influence of moderating variables, meta-regression was used and two ways were used to study publication bias. Seven articles were identified with a total sample of the seven of 1,044. The proportion of students at the literal level was 56% (95% CI = 39–72%, I(2) = 96.3%), inferential level 33% (95% CI = 19–46%, I(2) = 95.2%), critical level 22% (95% CI = 9–35%, I(2) = 99.04%), and organizational level 22% (95% CI = 6–37%, I(2) = 99.67%). Comparing reading comprehension levels, there is a significant higher proportion of university students who have an optimal level of literal compared to the rest of the reading comprehension levels. The results have to be interpreted with caution but are a guide for future research. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8371198 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83711982021-08-19 Levels of Reading Comprehension in Higher Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis de-la-Peña, Cristina Luque-Rojas, María Jesús Front Psychol Psychology Higher education aims for university students to produce knowledge from the critical reflection of scientific texts. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a deep mental representation of written information. The objective of this research was to determine through a systematic review and meta-analysis the proportion of university students who have an optimal performance at each level of reading comprehension. Systematic review of empirical studies has been limited from 2010 to March 2021 using the Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, and PsycINFO databases. Two reviewers performed data extraction independently. A random-effects model of proportions was used for the meta-analysis and heterogeneity was assessed with I(2). To analyze the influence of moderating variables, meta-regression was used and two ways were used to study publication bias. Seven articles were identified with a total sample of the seven of 1,044. The proportion of students at the literal level was 56% (95% CI = 39–72%, I(2) = 96.3%), inferential level 33% (95% CI = 19–46%, I(2) = 95.2%), critical level 22% (95% CI = 9–35%, I(2) = 99.04%), and organizational level 22% (95% CI = 6–37%, I(2) = 99.67%). Comparing reading comprehension levels, there is a significant higher proportion of university students who have an optimal level of literal compared to the rest of the reading comprehension levels. The results have to be interpreted with caution but are a guide for future research. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8371198/ /pubmed/34421765 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712901 Text en Copyright © 2021 de-la-Peña and Luque-Rojas. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology de-la-Peña, Cristina Luque-Rojas, María Jesús Levels of Reading Comprehension in Higher Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title | Levels of Reading Comprehension in Higher Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Levels of Reading Comprehension in Higher Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Levels of Reading Comprehension in Higher Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Levels of Reading Comprehension in Higher Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Levels of Reading Comprehension in Higher Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | levels of reading comprehension in higher education: systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8371198/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34421765 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712901 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT delapenacristina levelsofreadingcomprehensioninhighereducationsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT luquerojasmariajesus levelsofreadingcomprehensioninhighereducationsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |