Strategic reading behavior as a function of perception of prior knowledge

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of readers' perceptions of topic-specific prior knowledge and the accuracy of that assessment on reading behaviors of readers classified as balanced, egocentric, and non-integrative. It was hypothesized that type of reader--balanced, egocentric, or non-integrative--predicted accuracy of reader's perception of prior knowledge. Further, it was expected that these patterns would exist regardless of actual reading ability. Good and poor readers alike were predicted to vary in their preferred reading behaviors and strategies in direct relation to the accuracy of the perception of their prior knowledge.;Twenty-six seventh grade students were assessed on perception of topic-specific prior knowledge, actual prior knowledge, and performance scores on the Degrees of Reading Power Test. Comprehension monitoring was also assessed to reveal a reader's perception of what was understood during reading. Additionally, reading behaviors reported by readers using a think-aloud procedure were analyzed to provide a priori categories of reading styles.;Findings from this study reveal that the three types of readers were not significantly different in their assessment of their prior knowledge, their perception of their prior knowledge, or their ability to discriminate between their perceived and actual knowledge. Additionally, there was no significant difference in their comprehension monitoring. While readers were generally more accurate in their comprehension monitoring than they had been in their assessment of their prior knowledge, this difference was not evident across reader types. There was a significant positive relationship between the readers' accuracy of perception of prior knowledge and the accuracy of their comprehension monitoring.;I expected to find that individual differences unrelated to actual reading skill contributed to a reader's selection and use of ineffective strategies on the Degrees of Reading Power Test. I predicted that these individual differences, reflected in a reader's perception of relevant prior knowledge, would contribute to inaccurate assessments--that is, to overestimate or underestimate general reading competence and prior knowledge. In turn, these inaccurate assessments of prior knowledge were believed to foster the selection and use of reading strategies resulting in scores that misrepresented reading ability.