No abstract

In two experiments, subjects interacted to different extents with relevant devices while reading two complex multistep procedural texts and were then tested with task performance time, true/false, and recall measures, Whilereading, subjects performed the task (read and do), saw the experimenter perform the task (read and see experimenter do), imagined doing the task (read and imagine), looked at the device while reading (read and see), or only read (read only), Van Dijk and Kintsch's (1983) text representation theory led to the prediction that exposure to the task device (in the read-and-do, read-and-see, and read-and-see-experimenter-do conditions) would lead to the development of a stronger situation model and therefore faster task performance, whereas the read-only and read-andsee conditions would lead to a better textbase, and therefore better performance on the true/false and recall tasks. Paivio's (1991) dual coding theory led to the opposite prediction for recalL The results supported the text representation theory with task performance and recalL The read-and-see condition produced consistently good performance on the true/false measure. Amount of text study time contributed to recall performance, These findings support the notion that information available while reading leads to differential development of representations in memory, which, in turn, causes differences in performance on various measures, How do readers' interactions with the device described by a procedural text affect memory and comprehension of the text and the ability to perform the task described by a text? To answer this question, in two experiments we had readers interact with procedural texts to different extents and in different ways. For example, they performed the task while reading, only looked at the device described by the text while reading, or only read the text.Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) proposed that as a reader reads, propositional and situational representations are formed in long-term memory. The propositional representation (or textbase) holds the text's meaning, and the situational model represents the situation described by the text. Van Dijk and Kintsch have proposed that these representations can be developed differentially while reading and that the extent to which they are developed leads to differences in performance on various measures, For Experiment I was supported in part by a grant from the u.s. Army Human Engineering Laboratory (Contract DAAAI5-87-KOOO-4) to American Institutes for Research. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Corliss Cartier, Jill Crockett, Teresa Lachman-Jones, Sharon Metro, Lien-chong Mou, Deborah Quick, and Stacey Swain in running the subjects and/or scoring the data. We also thank Danielle McNamara, Ruth Maki, and Peter Dixon for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Requests for reprints may be addressed to Virginia A. Diehl, Psychology Department, Western Illinois University, Macomb, lL 61455. example, the development of a propositional represe...

No abstract

No abstract

The influence of appropriate contextual knowledge on the encoding of sentences was examined. Subjects read and were later asked to recognize sentences from Bransford and Johnson's (1972) passages. Subjects were informed of the passage title prior to encoding, prior to testing, or not at all. In Experiment 1, title availability during encoding significantly increased both recognition of target sentences and rejection of distractor sentences. Providing the title immediately prior to testing did not improve performance over the no-title condition. In a second experiment, performance in a title-before condition also exceeded performance in a no-title condition, even though distractor sentences were not included in the recognition test. Thus it appears that awareness of context during encoding enables subjects to engage in unique encoding processes which benefit recognition as well as recall memory.Research in human memory over the past 15 years has repeatedly demonstrated that the presence of appropriate contextual information during encoding facilitates sentence memory (Bransford & Johnson, 1972;Dooling & Lachman, 1971;Schustack & Anderson, 1979). The specific role that contextual information plays in aiding memory is not universally agreed on however. One widely held view is that prior contextual knowledge enables subjects to perform encoding operations which would not otherwise be carried out (Bransford & Johnson, 1972). These operations are assumed to lead to a unique and elaborated encoding of the test material which allows it to be more easily retrieved. Alba, Alexander, Hasher, and Caniglia (1981) offer an alternative to this "encoding" explanation. These authors point out that contextual information may aid recall performance simply by providing a retrieval cue. During retrieval contextual information may serve to link one sentence to the next, thereby facilitating recall without playing a major role in determining what has been encoded from each individual sentence.We wish to acknowledge Jani Gabriel Byrne for her help in constructing distractor sentences for Experiment I.Computing services were provided by the Computer Science Center of the University of Maryland.

No abstract

Processing speed subtests are components of widely used intellectual assessment instruments. Many researchers interpret these measures as assessing a unitary construct, but there is a question concerning the constructs assessed by these measures and, ultimately, their interpretative utility. Coding and Symbol Search from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (Wechsler, 1991), Visual Matching and Cross Out from the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability-Revised (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989), and Speed of Information Processing from the Differential Ability Scales (Elliott, 1990) were administered to 102 volunteer participants. Using regression analyses, performance on each of these tests was predicted by motor speed and/or number facility factors. Individual differences in motor speed were found to be related to each of the five processing speed measures, whereas number facility was related to three of the measures.

Participants read a procedural text describing how to make a wind-up spool toy while only reading, reading and watching the experimenter do the task, or reading and doing the task themselves. Afterward, task performance (measured by time to complete the task without the instructions and number of errors) and memory for/understanding of the text (measured with a Multiple Choice Test) were assessed. Participants then completed a packet that included the Need for Cognition and Boredom Proneness scales. Task performance was better under the Read & Do and Read & Watch conditions, indicating that those participants were more engaged in the task than Read Only. Need for Cognition was positively related to Multiple Choice Test score (after controlling for boredom proneness and task experience) only under the Read & Do conditions (and marginally for Read & Watch). This suggests that level of task engagement may moderate the relationship between need for cognition and test performance. The Boredom Proneness subscales of Perception of Time and Affective Responses were negatively related to need for cognition.