Novice strategies for processing scientific texts

Dee-Lucas, Diana; Larkin, Jill H.

doi:10.1080/01638538609544646

Cited by 39 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3 As can be seen in Figure la, the difference in the estimated times for definitions and facts is greater for novices than experts, with novices spending more time on definitions and less time on facts compared with experts. This is consistent with the type x group interaction found by Dee-Lucas and Larkin (1986) with importance judgments and summaries. It suggests that novice importance rules are reflected in attentional processes, in that novices differentiate between definitions and facts more than experts do in both judged importance and reading time.…”

Section: Reading Timessupporting

confidence: 80%

Attentional strategies for studying scientific texts

Dee-Lucas

Larkin

1988

Memory & Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Content-area novices develop rules as to what types of information (e.g., definitions, facts, equations) are important in texts (Dee-Lucas & Larkin, 1988).The study reported here indicates that these rules influence text learning. Experts and novices read and recalled science texts. Reading times and recall for different types of content were compared for the two groups. Results indicate that novices' importance rules function as part of novices' control schema during reading, influencing their attentional processes and the resulting representation formed for the text. This was evident in qualitative differences between experts and novices in their attentional patterns and text recall. The study also found that the number of passage readings and the passage topic have a greater influence on the reading times of experts, but both groups adjust processing time according to the hierarchical level of the passage content. The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for novices learning from texts.

show abstract

Section: Reading Timessupporting

confidence: 80%

Attentional strategies for studying scientific texts

Dee-Lucas

Larkin

1988

Memory & Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…experts' and novices' judgments of what is important to This indicates that novices do not distinguish between the learn in natural texts indicate that novices do not dis-important and unimportant content within these type criminate among the important and less important con-categories. As noted earlier, novices (but not experts) tent within type categories to the same degree as do ex-judge definitions as more important than facts, even when perts (Dee-Lucas & Larkin, 1986).…”

Section: Recent Research On Text Comprehension Has Exploredmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…1985Kieras & Bovair. tures are difficult to characterize due to their transient na-1981) showed that readers can identify thematic informature (i.e., they are continually updated and modified as tion in texts by using surface-level text features (e.g.. the more knowledge is acquired) and the potential variabil-topic-comment structure of sentences, passage organizaity among people beginning to learn about a content area. tion, signaling phrases) and a limited, or "shallow," unHowever, Dee-Lucas and Larkin (1986Larkin ( , 1988 have be-derstanding of the semantic relations among the content gun to describe the knowledge structures of novices learn-(e.g., using semantically entailed information from ing physics. They have found that people learning physics familiar terms to infer the nature of unfamiliar terms).…”

Section: Recent Research On Text Comprehension Has Exploredmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novice Strategies for Comprehending Technical Texts

Dee-Lucas¹,

Larkin²

1991

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Novice importance rules have been investigated in research comparing the importance judgements of expert and novice physicists for different types of information in physics texts (Dee-Lucas & Larkin, 1986). Although this research found that experts and novices generally agreed on the relative importance of various types of information, the novices did not ,-, distinguish between the important and unimportant content within type categories.…”

Section: 'mentioning

confidence: 98%

Novice Importance Rules: Definitions and Equations

Dee-Lucas¹,

Larkin²

1987

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aporoved for oublic retease; dstrnbutton unkmited. .,ZThis report. as submitted by thee contractor, has been cleared fcoa release to Deense Technical Information Center"(OTIC) to comply with regulatory requirer"Sns. it has been given no Primary distribution other than to DTIC and well be available only thro'ugh DTIC or other referencet tervices such at the National Technical Information % * S4rvlce (NTIS). The wiws. cn-p. n, anelor fending. contaiined in thit report are tho-se of the authorlel and ishould not be consttoue as an Oticom; .epajernei of the Army position policy, or decision. unlest to des-gnal t"" Approved for public release distribution unlimited. This research note indicates that novices judge importance in texts according to sentence type category (definitions, facts, equations, etc.). Subjects varying in expertise judged the importance of sentences in physics texts when < these sentences were presented in one of two forms: 1) definitions or facts, 2) equations or verbal formulae. Experts and subjects without physics training judged these variants similar or equal in importance. However, beqinninq physics students judged definition and equation versions as more important. " (OVEP) Novice RulesList of Tables r Table 1: Sample target sentences 38 Table 2: Parameter estlma!es, standard errors, and ratio of estimates to standard 40 errors for a loglinear model of the ratings data from the experimental groups (Experiment 1).Asterisks indicate coefficients that differ from 1"zero by more than 2 standard errors. Table 3: Parameter estimates, standard errors, and ratios of estimates to 42 standard errors for a loglinear model of the ratings data from the control groups (Experiment 1). Asterisks Indicate coefficients that differ from zero by more than 2 standard errors. Table 4:Parameter estimates, standard errors, and ratios of estimates to 43 standard errors for a logistic regression model of the sentence selection data from the experimental groups (Experiment 1). Table 5:Parameter estimates, standard errors, and ratios of estimates to 44 _ standard errors for a logistic regression model of the sentence selection data from the control groups (Experiment 1). Table 6:Parameter estimates, standard errors, and ratio of estimates to standard 45 errors for a loglinear model of the ratings data from the experimental groups (Experiment 2).Asterisks indicate coefficients that differ from zero by more than 2 standard errors. Table 7:Parameter estimates, standard errors. and ratios of estimates to 47 standard errors for a loglinear model of the ratings data from the control groups (Experiment 2). Asterisks indicate coefficients that differ from zero by more than 2 standard errors. Table 8: Parameter estimates, standard errors, and ratios of estimates to 49 standard errors for a logistic regression model of the sentence selection data from the experimental groups (Experiment 2). Table 9:Parameter estimates, standard errors, and ratios of estimates to 50 standard errors for a logistic regression model of the sen...

show abstract

Novice strategies for processing scientific texts

Cited by 39 publications

References 9 publications

Attentional strategies for studying scientific texts

Attentional strategies for studying scientific texts

Novice Strategies for Comprehending Technical Texts

Novice Importance Rules: Definitions and Equations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About