1985
DOI: 10.2307/748021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Text Processing: The Influence of Text Structure, Background Knowledge, and Purpose

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
4

Year Published

1988
1988
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
13
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Text comprehension is greatly influenced by the congruity between reader background and specific text content (e.g., Ohlhausen & Roller, 1988), which is facilitated by a greater amount of knowledge considered analogous to subject matter knowledge (Alexander, Pate, & Kulikowich, 1989;Hayes & Tierney, 1982;Kulikowich & Alexander, 1990;Walker, 1987) and expertise in the subject of the text (Meutsch, 1989). Of course, text comprehension is also related to the educational background of the reader (e.g., Anderson, Reynolds, Schallert, & Goetz, 1977;Birkmire, 1985), but beyond education, expertise differences in a particular domain have been directly related to differences in the ability to make inferences and construct-relevant schematic and conceptual models of text events (Singer, Harkness, & Stewart, 1997;Spilich et al).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Text comprehension is greatly influenced by the congruity between reader background and specific text content (e.g., Ohlhausen & Roller, 1988), which is facilitated by a greater amount of knowledge considered analogous to subject matter knowledge (Alexander, Pate, & Kulikowich, 1989;Hayes & Tierney, 1982;Kulikowich & Alexander, 1990;Walker, 1987) and expertise in the subject of the text (Meutsch, 1989). Of course, text comprehension is also related to the educational background of the reader (e.g., Anderson, Reynolds, Schallert, & Goetz, 1977;Birkmire, 1985), but beyond education, expertise differences in a particular domain have been directly related to differences in the ability to make inferences and construct-relevant schematic and conceptual models of text events (Singer, Harkness, & Stewart, 1997;Spilich et al).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It appears that some of the high level propositions were not recalled because they were assumed, -nd some of the low level propositions were well rec-alled because they contained details which were very salient (Birkmire, 1985). While not s~gnificant for the idea units, some trends were in opposite directions for ratings and recall.…”
Section: Ratings Versus Recallmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…In contrast, task-based importance was denned as text information that is important due to external constraints. Typical examples include reading for a particular type of information (Birkmire, 1985;Reynolds & Anderson, 1982), under an assigned perspective (Kardash, Royer, & Greene, 1988), or given different encoding instructions (Alexander, 1986). Schraw et al (1993) reported two main findings in their study: (a) Segments high on either the text-based or task-based dimensions were recalled better than segments low on these dimensions, and (b) segments high on the taskbased dimension were recalled well regardless of text-based importance.…”
mentioning
confidence: 83%