Interest and Learning from Text

Garner, Ruth; Alexander, Patricia A.; Gillingham, Mark G.; Kulikowich, Jonna M.; Brown, Rachel E.

doi:10.2307/1163152

Cited by 29 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was consistently found that college students who read a passage with seductive details recalled fewer structurally important ideas and generated fewer transfer solutions than those who read the same passage without seductive details. These findings were replicated across all four experiments reported here and are consistent with previous findings of the seductive details effect (Garner et al, 1991;Garner et al, 1989;Harp & Mayer, 1997;Shirey & Reynolds, 1988;Wade & Adams, 1990). Combined with previous research on seductive details, the results reported in this article provide converging evidence that adding emotionally interesting adjuncts can hurt student learning of an explanative science lesson.…”

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…These results appear to be inconsistent with those of Garner et al (1991), who by presenting seductive details together in a separate paragraph found that varying the placement of seductive details made no difference in students' recall patterns. However, Garner et al's failure to find a differing effect may have been because they placed the seductive paragraph toward the middle of thenpassage.…”

Section: How Do Seductive Details Do Their Damage?contrasting

confidence: 95%

“…On the other hand, emotionally interesting adjuncts, such as seductive details, appear to promote affective arousal in the reader (Kintsch, 1980). Research on the seductive details effect suggests that this kind of emotional arousal does not lead to better understanding of textbook lessons (Garner et al, 1991;Garner et al, 1989;Harp & Mayer, 1997).…”

Section: In Support Of Cognitive Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning.

Harp¹,

Mayer²

1998

Journal of Educational Psychology

638

486

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 4 experiments, students who read expository passages with seductive details (i.e., interesting but irrelevant adjuncts) recalled significantly fewer main ideas and generated significantly fewer problem-solving transfer solutions than those who read passages without seductive details. In Experiments 1, 2, and 3, revising the passage to include either highlighting of the main ideas, a statement of learning objectives, or signaling, respectively, did not reduce the seductive details effect. In Experiment 4, presenting the seductive details at the beginning of the passage exacerbated the seductive details effect, whereas presenting the seductive details at die end of the passage reduced the seductive details effect. The results suggest that seductive details interfere with learning by priming inappropriate schemas around which readers organize the material, rather than by distracting the reader or by disrupting the coherence of the passage.

show abstract

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: How Do Seductive Details Do Their Damage?contrasting

confidence: 95%

Section: In Support Of Cognitive Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning.

Harp¹,

Mayer²

1998

Journal of Educational Psychology

638

486

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, students reading a passage about Horatio Nelson are much more likely to remember content related to his sexual conquests than his naval ones (Wade & Adams, 1990). Likewise, students reading a passage about Stephen Hawking are more apt to remember information about a wager Hawking made with a colleague than they are to remember anything about his research on Grand Unification Theory (Garner, Alexander, Gillingham, Kulikowich, & Brown, 1991). Because of their effect on text processing, referred to these highly intriguing but relatively unimportant text segments as "seductive details.…”

Section: Journal Of Reading Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting Instructional and Structural Importance: The Seductive Effect of Teacher Questions

Alexander

Jetton

Kulikowich³

et al. 1994

Journal of Reading Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies were conducted to investigate the nature of teacher questioning and its relationship to what learners consider important to remember when processing exposition. Specifically, we wanted to determine if teachers who are asked to write questions over an expository passage focus those questions on segments of text that have been determined to be of high, medium, or low structural importance. Further, we wanted to compare the questions that teachers ask with those that their students predict they would ask in order to assess students' strategic ability to determine what information is instructionally important. The results of the initial study demonstrated that neither teachers nor their students are highly influenced by structural importance when writing questions. The results generally supported the hypothesis that students are cognizant of what teachers value in text (i.e., instructional importance) and seem guided by this understanding when processing exposition. In Study II, we examined the questioning patterns of three physical science teachers as they developed quizzes and led discussions over a segment in their course textbooks. Results again demonstrated that students are relatively aware of the information that their teachers will test and that this information is not necessarily structurally important. Other similarities and differences between teacher and student questions are discussed and implications for research and practice presented. 20 Journal of Reading BehaviorThe role of interest and importance in text comprehension has become the focus of much research in the past decade (e.g., Anderson, Shirey, Wilson, & Fielding, 1987;Garner, Gillingham, & White, 1989;Hidi & Baird, 1986Hidi, Baird, & Hildyard, 1982;Schank, 1979;Wade & Adams, 1990). Some researchers concerned with interest and text learning have investigated those aspects within the text itself that have captured students' attention and have thus affected comprehension. Schiefele (1991) classifies this dimension of interest as "situational" interest. Because the text is the means by which students' interests are gauged, Hidi (1990) more specifically refers to this dimension as "text-based" interest. One outcome of the research on situational, text-based interest is the realization that readers' attention during text processing is often drawn to information that appears highly interesting but of little structural importance (e.g., Wade & Schraw, 1991). For instance, students reading a passage about Horatio Nelson are much more likely to remember content related to his sexual conquests than his naval ones (Wade & Adams, 1990). Likewise, students reading a passage about Stephen Hawking are more apt to remember information about a wager Hawking made with a colleague than they are to remember anything about his research on Grand Unification Theory (Garner, Alexander, Gillingham, Kulikowich, & Brown, 1991). Because of their effect on text processing, referred to these highly intriguing but relatively unimportant text segments as...

show abstract

“…For example, a person may relate certain known facts to one another and discover that they contradict one another, or his or her reflections may create uncertainty about some previous knowledge. Perplexity can also be triggered by external cues, by events or phenomena in the environment of the questioner (e.g., Berlyne & Frommer 1966;Garner, Alexander, Gillingham, Kulikowich, & Brown 1991;Markman 1979;Chinn & Brewer 1993). For example, a surprising fact or theory presented in a textbook can elicit questioning.…”

Section: Stage 1: the Onset Of Questloningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student questioning: A componential analysis

Meij

1994

Learning and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:This article reviews the literature on student questioning, organized through a modified version of Dillon's (1988aDillon's ( , 1990) componential model of questioning. Special attention is given to the properties of assumptions, questions, and answers. Each of these main elements are the result of certain actions of the questioner, which are described. Within this framework a variety of aspects of questioning are highlighted. One focus of the article is individual differences in question asking. The complex interactions between students' personal characteristics, social factors, and questioning are examined. In addition, a number of important but neglected topics for research are identified. Together, the views that are presented should deepen our understanding of student questioning.The focus of this review is on spontaneous student questioning. Questioning is depicted from start to finish, from the onset of perplexity until the learning that may result. In addition, the characteristic features of questions are described, the assumptions that underlie them, and the answers that follow. Special attention will be given to individual differences in question asking per se and to individual differences in general constructs such as verbal ability and self-esteem that are related to question asking. All of these ideas will be presented within the general framework of the (slightly modified) componential model of questioning of Dillon (1988aDillon ( , 1990. This model gives a coherent view on questioning in which the many and diverse studies that relate to student questioning can be placed. That this is not a trivial matter should be clear considering the fact that relevant findings on the topic of student questions can be found in more than a dozen disciplines (e.g., logic, computer science, linguistics, pedagogy and psychology, see Dillon, 1982aDillon, , 1986aDillon, , 1990, all of which have their own terminology and variety of dependent measures detailing some aspects of questioning.Another reason for using the componential model was to discover unexplored Direct all commondance to: Hans van der Meii.

show abstract

Interest and Learning from Text

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning.

How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning.

Contrasting Instructional and Structural Importance: The Seductive Effect of Teacher Questions

Student questioning: A componential analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About