Reading procedural texts
Effects of purpose for reading and predictions of reading comprehension models
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11273654 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Carol Bergfeld Mills (Goucher College, corresponding author), Virginia A Diehl (b Western Illinois University), Deborah P Birkmire (c U.S. Army Research Laboratory , Aberdeen , MD), Lien‐Chong Mou (d Silver Spring , MD) |
| Year | 1995 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 79-107 |
| Publication date | 1995-07-01 |
| 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 | 10.1080/01638539509544932 |
| OpenAlex | W1972268135 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 22 |
This experiment tested the effect that purpose for reading or instructional set has on reading rates, recall, and task performance for procedural text. It also tested whether comprehension models proposed by Kintsch and van Dijk (1978) and Trabasso and Sperry (1985) are predictive of text processing for procedural text. Forty‐eight college students read text for one of two purposes: (a) to perform the task described by the text (Read‐to‐Do), or (b) to recall the text (Read‐to‐Recall). Participants read one of two procedural texts for two reading trials. The results showed that, as predicted, Read‐to‐Do participants performed the task better and Read‐to‐Recall participants recalled the text better. In addition, Read‐to‐Do participants recalled less of the information judged to be less important for performing the task than Read‐to‐Recall participants. Reading rate varied as a function of high and low importance of the information to task performance and varied more for the Read‐to‐Do participants than for Read‐to‐Recall participants. Reading rate also differed for the two texts and was faster for the second reading. Regression analyses showed that reading rate varied as a function of a number of variables based on the two models, but these variables did not account for a large proportion of variance in reading rate. Generally, different patterns of results were obtained for the two texts. Differences in the results for the two purposes and two texts are discussed, as well as the limitations in the predictive power of the two models of text comprehension for procedural text
Cognitive psychology · Comprehension · Free recall · Linguistics · Natural language processing · Reading (process · Reading comprehension · Recall · Recall test · Set (abstract data type · Task (project management · Computer Science · Educational Strategies and Epistemologies · Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism · Psychology · Reading and Literacy Development
The Role of pre-reading task instructions in reading comprehension
The Effect of Structure on the Memory for Procedural Text
Procedural Text Structure and Reader Perceptions and Performance
When Law Students Read Cases
Updating Situation Models From Descriptive Texts
Questioning and reading goals
The Relationships Between Need for Cognition, Boredom Proneness, Task Engagement, and Test Performance
Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events
Three components of understanding a programmer's manual
Causal relatedness and importance of story events
A theory of reading
Toward a model of text comprehension and production.
Strategies of discourse comprehension
Procedural text
A natural inquiry into the national enquirer
Effects of text organization on memory
Text Processing
Comprehension Processes in Reading
| Unique citing works | 7 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,27 |
| Citation span | 2000 - 2026 (27) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 7 |