Do different kinds of introductions influence comprehension and memory for scientific explanations
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11273552 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Michael C Mensink (0000-0001-9019-5195, University of Wisconsin–Stout, corresponding author), Panayiota Kendeou (0000-0002-0392-7659, University of Minnesota), David N Rapp (0000-0003-4515-5295, Northwestern University) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 58 |
| Issue | 5-6 |
| Pages | 491-512 |
| Publication date | 2021-07-03 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Discourse Processes (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0163-853X • E-ISSN: 1532-6950 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/0163853x.2021.1904754 |
| OpenAlex | W3149144971 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 79 |
Compelling and interesting introductions are considered an important way of fostering reader engagement with expository-text content. But only a handful of projects have examined this prescriptive advice. In three experiments, we examined the effects of two different genres of introductions—narrative and expository—on comprehension and memory for texts providing scientific explanations. In Experiment 1, participants read texts without introductions and subsequently completed either an immediate recall or a delayed recall seven days later for a subset of the texts. In Experiment 2, participants read the same texts including either all narrative or all expository introductions and after reading were asked to complete an immediate recall. In Experiment 3, participants read the same texts, this time half including narrative introductions and half including expository introductions, and completed a delayed recall seven days later for all the texts. Across all experiments, participants recalled more of the scientific explanations when they were preceded by introductions than when they were not, and narrative introductions were better recalled than expository introductions. Participants who read both types of introductions were also slower to read scientific explanations that followed narrative introductions compared to expository. Taken together, these results indicate that introductions influence memory and reading times for scientific explanations but not always in ways that align with popular instructional prescriptions and advice
Cognitive psychology · Cognitive science · Comprehension · Linguistics · Mathematics education · Natural language processing · Programming language · Computer Science · Educational Strategies and Epistemologies · Psychology · Science Education and Pedagogy · Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts
Emmeans
The Role of Narrative in Communicating Science
How seductive details do their damage
The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts
Relevance and Goal-Focusing in Text Processing
A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Vivid elements in Dutch educational texts
Effects of Task Relevance Instructions and Topic Beliefs on Reading Processes and Memory
Prereading Questions and Online Text Comprehension
Getting a Grip
Knowledge Revision Processes in Refutation Texts
Perspective Effects on Expository Text Comprehension
Strategies for Increasing Text-Based Interest and Students' Recall of Expository Texts
Giving a Text Voice Can Improve Students' Understanding
How Relevance Affects Understanding of Conflicts Between Multiple Documents
A Deafening Silence
Learning and memory of factual content from narrative and expository text
Processing and memory of information presented in narrative or expository texts
Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,33 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2023 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |