Reading procedural texts: Effects of purpose for reading and predictions of reading comprehension models

Mills, Carol Bergfeld; Diehl, Virginia A.; Birkmire, Deborah P.; Mou, Lien-Chong

doi:10.1080/01638539509544932

Cited by 32 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results from the true/false test were somewhat inconsistent across the two experiments, although, in both, reading while seeing the device led to very good performance on this task, which was predicted by the text representation theory. The pattern of results from these experiments extends the findings of Schmalhofer and Glavanov (1986), Mills et al (1995), and Mannes and Kintsch (1987).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…The results of both Schmalhofer and Glavanov (1986) and Mills et al (1995) suggest that readers who read with the purpose of understanding the task described by the text focus more on the parts of the text that describe the task. On the other hand, readers who read with the purpose of recalling the text allocate similar processing resources to all parts of the text, and longer reading time leads to better recall (Mills et aI., 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…This suggests that one's focus during learning affects the strength of the representations that are formed, which, in turn, influences recognition performance. Mills, Diehl, Birkmire, and Mou (1995) investigated the effect ofa reader's goal when reading a procedure (to perform the task or to recall the text) on recall, task performance, and reading rate. The task-performance subjects spent less time reading the parts of the text that were unimportant for task performance than did the textrecall subjects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effects of interaction with the device described by procedural text on recall, true/false, and task performance

Diehl

Mills

1995

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

mentioning

confidence: 92%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of interaction with the device described by procedural text on recall, true/false, and task performance

Diehl

Mills

1995

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The situation model is, thus, derived from inferences about the text which rely on reader's relevant knowledge. This being the case, it is clear that the formation and richness of the situation model depend strongly on the extent of the reader's domain knowledge and the effort made by the reader to draw inferences from the text (Mills, Diehl, Birkmire, and Mou, 1995). Pennington's model of program comprehension (1987aPennington's model of program comprehension ( , 1987b) applies the layered model of text comprehension to program texts.…”

Section: Background and Prior Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical study of novice program comprehension in the imperative and object-oriented styles

Ramalingam

Wiedenbeck

1997

Papers Presented at the Seventh Workshop on Empirical Studies of Programmers - ESP '97

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to determine whether the mental representation of object-oriented programs differs from imperative programs for novice programmers. In our study novices who had little or no previous programming experience studied and answered questions about three imperative and three object-oriented programs. The questions targeted information categories making up the program model and the domain model representations of the programs. It was found that there was a sharp contrast between the mental representations of the imperative and object-oriented programs. While the comprehension of the imperative programs was better overall than that of the object-oriented programs, the mental representations of the imperative programs focused on program-level knowledge. On the other hand, the mental representations of the objectoriented programs focused more strongly on domain-level knowledge. The results tend to support the view that language notations differ in how well they support the extraction of various kinds of information.

show abstract

“…This distinction between different types of texts is seen as relevant and essential since the notions of conceptual and procedural knowledge are central to mathematics (Hiebert, 1986) and also to aspects of reading comprehension (Mills, Diehl, Birkmire, & Mou, 1995).…”

Section: The Textsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the Basis for Self-assessment of Comprehension when Reading Mathematical Expository Texts?

Österholm

2015

Reading Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PostprintThis is the accepted version of a paper published in Reading Psychology. This paper has been peerreviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination. Citation for the original published paper (version of record):Österholm, M. (2015) What is the basis for self-assessment of comprehension when reading mathematical expository texts?. Reading Psychologyhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/02702711.2014.949018 Access to the published version may require subscription. The purpose of this study was to characterize students' self-assessments when reading mathematical texts, in particular regarding what students use as a basis for evaluations of their own reading comprehension. A total of 91 students read two mathematical texts, and for each text they performed a self-assessment of their comprehension and completed a test of reading comprehension. Students' self-assessments were to a less degree based on their comprehension of the specific text read, but more based on prior experiences. However, the study also produced different results for different types of texts and when focusing on different aspects of reading comprehension.Keywords: anchoring; adjustment; metacomprehension; reading comprehension; selfassessment BASIS FOR SELF-ASSESSMENT OF READING COMPREHENSION 2 The purpose of this study was to examine an aspect of metacognition among students when trying to learn something new by reading, specifically when evaluating their own comprehension. In general, aspects of metacognition can be seen as crucial if an aim is to have independent learners that have an awareness of, and take responsibility for, their own learning process. Furthermore, a focus on metacognitive aspects in the teaching and learning can also be directly beneficial for students' learning (e.g., see Dignath & Büttner, 2008).Some aspects of metacognition have been studied through different 'self'-notions, such as self-concept (Guay, Marsh, & Boivin, 2003), self-efficacy (Lent, Lopez, Brown, & Gore, 1996), self-assessment (Brookhart, Andolina, Zuza, & Furman, 2004), self-evaluation (Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Rolheiser, 2002), and self-regulation (De Corte, Verschaffel, & Op't Eynde, 2000). Sometimes the same notion can have somewhat different meaning in different studies and different notions sometimes seem to have very similar meaning. However, common for all these notions is that they focus on situations where students in some way reflect on themselves as learners. In this article, focus is on self-assessment, a notion here used to refer to students' evaluations of some aspect of their own knowledge. More specifically, the situation examined in this study is when students read an expository mathematical text. Within this situation, focus is on characterizing students' self-assessments, concerning what students seem to use as a basis for evaluations of their own reading comprehension. Students' Self-Assessments of Reading ComprehensionMany studies focusing on self-assessment in reading let students read a text, eval...

show abstract

Reading procedural texts: Effects of purpose for reading and predictions of reading comprehension models

Cited by 32 publications

References 19 publications

The effects of interaction with the device described by procedural text on recall, true/false, and task performance

The effects of interaction with the device described by procedural text on recall, true/false, and task performance

An empirical study of novice program comprehension in the imperative and object-oriented styles

What is the Basis for Self-assessment of Comprehension when Reading Mathematical Expository Texts?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About