Procedural text: Predictions of importance ratings and recall by models of reading comprehension

Mills, Carol Bergfeld; Diehl, Virginia A.; Birkmire, Deborah P.; Mou, Llen‐Chong

doi:10.1080/01638539309544841

Cited by 24 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Importance ratings also correlate with the number ofcycles that propositions spend in working memory, according to the Kintsch and van Dijk (1978) model of comprehension. A similar pattern of findings has been reported for expository passages, although the correlations have been somewhat lower (Brown & Smiley, 1977;Meyer & McConkie, 1973;Millis, Simon, & Lucas, 1992;Mills, Diehl, Birkmire, & Mous, 1993). For the present study, we averaged importance ratings that were gathered from 35 independent subjects who, after reading each passage, rated each sentence on its importance to the overall passage.…”

Section: Predictor Variablesmentioning

confidence: 79%

Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific texts

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined how cognitive resources are allocated to comprehension processes across two readings of the same scientific texts, In Experiment 1, readers read and later reread texts describing scientific topics, The results indicated that across readings, readers decreased resources allocated to proposition assembly, increased resources allocated to text-level integration, and expended a similar amount of resources to lexical access, Subjects who reread the texts after a week delay showed a similar pattern, except that they did not show the increase for text-level integration. Experiment 2 revealed a similar pattern of results with a moving window procedure, except that there was a significant decrease in resources allocated to lexical access across exposures. This experiment also indicated that the rereading speedup was greatest at sentence boundaries, suggesting that the prior exposure enabled readers to immediately process each word. Overall, the results are consistent with the claim that readers allocate proportionally more available resources to text-level integration during rereading because proposition assembly, which enables text-level integration, can be completed with fewer resources.Readers typically require more than one reading to understand a difficult text. Students, for example, often read their texts multiple times in hope of increasing their comprehension. Theoretically, multiple readings should facilitate comprehension because there would be more than one opportunity to acquire information from the text. With each reading, the comprehender would be able to further elaborate, repair, verify, and strengthen the existing text representation. Therefore, if a process or operation is not completed during one reading, it might be completed during a subsequent reading. Empirically, processing times have been shown to decrease across repeated exposures (Kolers, 1976;Levy & Burns, 1990;Rothkopf, 1968), whereas the memory and the comprehension of the material increases (Bromage & Mayer, 1986;Mayer, 1983;Rothkopf, 1968). Although this body of research indicates that reprocessing facilitates comprehension, the exact nature of how comprehension changes across multiple readings is relatively unknown.The goal of the present research was to examine the on-line comprehension of scientific texts across two readings of scientific texts. We chose scientific texts because college students normally have difficulty comprehending these types of texts, and therefore would benefit from additional readings. The question of primary

show abstract

Section: Predictor Variablesmentioning

confidence: 79%

Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific texts

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the task engagement manipulation, all participants read How to Make and Use a Spool Vehicle (from Herbert, 1980, see Appendix A; see also Mills, Diehl, Birkmire, & Mou, 1993, which described how to make and use a rubber-band-propelled children's toy. This text was chosen because reading it creates a mental representation of both the text itself (i.e., the textbase) and the task described by the text (the situational representation).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationships Between Need for Cognition, Boredom Proneness, Task Engagement, and Test Performance

Diehl

Wyrick

2015

SAGE Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…L'objectif de la lecture d'un document procédural est de construire une représentation cognitive des activités à réaliser dans le but d'appliquer les connaissances délivrées par le document (Mills, Diehl, Birkmire & Mou, 1993 ;Wright, 1996). Ainsi, pour pouvoir réaliser la procédure, les uti lisateurs vont créer un plan d'action spécifiant la séquence d'actions à réaliser sur la base de la représentation de la situation ou du modèle mental qu'ils ont élaboré à partir des informations présentées dans le document.…”

Section: La Planification De L'actionunclassified

“…Selon que l'accent est mis sur la finalité, « apprendre », ou sur le médiat par lequel cet apprentissage est réalisé, « le texte », le fonctionnement d'un texte procédural est conceptualisé par les psychologues, soit comme une situation d'apprentissage qui fait intervenir le langage (i.e., apprentissage par le texte, George, 1991), ce qui conduit à reléguer les aspects langagiers au second plan (Anderson, , 1993(Anderson, , 1995, soit comme une situation de communication dont l'objectif est de permettre la transmission de connaissances, ce qui conduit dans ce cas à minimiser les aspects relatifs à l'apprentissage et à placer au premier plan les processus communicationnels et langagiers (Dixon, Harrison & Taylor, 1993 ;Mannes & Kintsch, 1991 ;Mills, Diehl, Birkmire & Mou, 1993). Une tro isième perspective, plus rare, consiste à accorder une importance égale à la dimension « apprentissage » et à la dimension « langagière » en considérant ces deux dimensions de front (cf.…”

Section: Le Pôle « Utilisation » : Du Texte à L'actionunclassified

L'étude des discours procéduraux aujourd'hui : travaux linguistiques et psycholinguistiques

Garcia-Debanc¹

2001

lgge

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Procedural text: Predictions of importance ratings and recall by models of reading comprehension

Cited by 24 publications

References 21 publications

Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific texts

Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific texts

The Relationships Between Need for Cognition, Boredom Proneness, Task Engagement, and Test Performance

L'étude des discours procéduraux aujourd'hui : travaux linguistiques et psycholinguistiques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About