Investigating the Processes of Reading-to-Assess among Dutch Legislators

The Role of Reader Characteristics in Processing and Learning From Informational Text

“…They overviewed the text before reading it, jumped around more in the text, and skimmed looking for anticipated information (Charney, 1993;Lundeberg, 1987;Shearer et al, 1997;Wyatt et al, 1993). They generated main ideas for the text more automatically (Afflerbach, 1990b;Fox et al, 2005), questioned readily (Charney, 1993;Neutelings & Maat, 1997;Schooler et al, 1996;Wyatt et al, 1993), and used domain-specific strategies and standards both to evaluate the appropriateness and credibility of what they were reading (Fox et al, 2005;Schwegler & Shamoon, 1991;Shearer et al, 1997;Wineburg, 1991aWineburg, , 1991bWineburg, , 1998Wyatt et al, 1993) and to distinguish important from peripheral information (Lundeberg, 1987;Neutelings & Maat, 1997;Wineburg, 1991aWineburg, , 1991bWineburg, , 1998.…”

“…Readers at a high level of domain expertise were highly purpose-driven in their reading, particularly when reading as they typically would in the practice of their expertise (Neutelings & Maat, 1997;Shearer et al, 1997;Wyatt et al, 1993). On occasion, they bypassed the goal of developing complete local-level understandings by skimming or skipping around in the text (Charney, 1993;Shearer et al, 1997;Wyatt et al, 1993) or by being satisfied with a top-down interpretation that might not match the text well (Fox et al, 2005).…”

“…In the expertise-related studies discussed thus far, participants were engaged in the processing of domain-related argument, a type of learning from reading that is an important aspect of being an expert in a domain (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991) and that is among the typical professional practices associated with maintaining expertise. Another aspect of typical expert reading was investigated by Neutelings and Maat (1997), who considered how readers with strong experience in a particular domain read technical documents specifically intended to support their professional practices in that domain. Neutelings and Maat observed the reading behaviors of eight experienced Dutch legislators reading a self-selected policy document on which they would make a speech.…”

“…In addition, the possession of relevant prior knowledge enabled readers to construct an elaborated situation model of the text more successfully, as shown by their performance on tasks assessing their ability to interpret and infer beyond the direct information in the text (Fox et al, 2005;Pritchard, 1990). Movement between bottom-up textbase construction and top-down situation-model integration was seen for readers both low and high in prior knowledge (Elshout-Mohr & van Daalen-Kapteijns, 2002;Fox et al, 2005;Neutelings & Maat, 1997;Pritchard, 1990), with the influence of the more or less knowledge-based situation model occasionally resulting in the intrusion of appropriate elaborations or inappropriate distortions (Kendeou & van den Broek, 2005;Pritchard, 1990) into the textbase-level representation constructed. Readers' beliefs about learning were also related to the presence of distortions in their recall of a text, in that readers who believed learning to be quick and easy were more likely to recall a text inaccurately (Kardash & Howell, 2000).…”

“…Readers' beliefs about learning were also related to the presence of distortions in their recall of a text, in that readers who believed learning to be quick and easy were more likely to recall a text inaccurately (Kardash & Howell, 2000). Readers' construction of a situation model of the situation, event, or phenomenon being discussed in the text or across multiple texts appeared to be assisted by accurate prior knowledge (Kendeou & van den Broek, 2005) and by domain-specific expertise (Neutelings & Maat, 1997;Wineburg, 1991aWineburg, , 1991bWineburg, , 1998.…”