Advances in Psychology Volume 8 Discourse Processing

DISCOURSE PROCESSING ADVANCES IN PSYCHOLOGY 8 Editors G. E. STELMACH P. A. VROON NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY AM...

Author: August Flammer | Walter Kintsch

62 downloads 1195 Views 34MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

DISCOURSE PROCESSING

ADVANCES IN PSYCHOLOGY 8 Editors G. E. STELMACH P. A. VROON

NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM. NEW YORK . OXFORD

DISCOURSE PROCESSING Edited by

August FLAMMER Department of Psychology University of Fribourg Switzerland and

Wa1ter KINTSCH Department of Psychology University of Colorado Boulder, Colorado, U S A

1982 NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM. NEW YORK . OXFORD

c North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, strored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic. mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN: 0 444 865 15 2

Publishers: NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM. NEW YORK . OXFORD

Sole distributors f o r the U.S.A.and Canada: ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. 52 VANDERBILT AVENUE NEWYORK,N.Y. 10017

PRINTED IN T H E NETHERLANDS

V

PREFACE

Research on d i s c o u r s e ( o r t e x t ) p r o c e s s i n g has o n l y r e c e n t l y come i n t o i t s own. I t b u i l d s , o f course, on t h e work on t e x t a n a l y s i s which has a l o n g and d i s t i n g u i s h e d h i s t o r y ; b u t modern developments i n psychology (e.g., memory r e s e a r c h ) , a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e , l i n g u i s t i c s and p h i l o s o p h y have c o n t r i b u t e d t o i t s emergence i n t h e l a s t decade as a l i v e l y and p r o m i s i n g research area.

As y e t , however, t h e domain o f d i s c o u r s e p r o c e s s i n g s t i l l has f l e x i b l e boundaries and l a c k s a s t a b l e p r o f i l e . One o f t h e purposes o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Symposium on T e x t P r o c e s s i n g i n F r i b o u r g 1981 was t o probe whate v e r consensus was b e g i n n i n g t o emerge i n t h a t r e s e a r c h domain, and t o t a k e a l o o k a t t h a t f i e l d now t h a t t h e g r o p i n g f i r s t s t e p s have been t a k e n and a more mature and o r d e r l y s t a g e o f development has been reached. A second purpose o f t h e Symposium, t h e importance o f which became f u l l y c l e a r o n l y d u r i n g t h e a c t u a l conference i t s e l f , was t o b r i n a t o g e t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s on d i s c o u r c e p r o c e s s i n g f r o m d i f f e r e n t n a t i o n a l i t i e s . The e v e n t t o o k p l a c e i n S w i t z e r l a n d ; h a l f o f t h e c o n t r i b u t o r s were Eurooean f r o m v a r i o u s l i n g u i s t i c backgrounds, a few were f r o m A s i a and A u s t r a l i a , and t h e r e s t came f r o m N o r t h America. Several o f us, t h e o l d - t i m e r s and e x p e r t s i n c l u d e d , were s u r p r i s e d t o f i n d o u t how much v a l u a b l e and i n t e r e s t i n g r e s e a r c h i s b e i n g c a r r i e d o u t i n h e r e t o f o r e unsuspected p l a c e s . Thus, t h e most i m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n o f t h i s book m i g h t be t o permanently open up channels of communication across t h e b a r r i e r s o f c o n t i n e n t s and language. B r i n g i n g t h e p e o p l e t o g e t h e r i s one t h i n g ; p u b l i s h i n g t h e i r C o n t r i b u t i o n s i n a common language i s a n o t h e r . We r e g r e t t h a t a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e papers g i v e n a t t h e Symposium had t o be excluded f r o m t h i s p u b l i t a t i o n , though t h e a b s t r a c t s o f t h e s e papers as w e l l as t h e addresses o f t h e i r a u t h o r s a r e r e D r i n t e d here. Thus, t h e f i n a l book c o n t a i n s 46 c o n t r i b u t i o n s , grouped t o p i c a l l y i n t o e i g h t c h a p t e r s . The g r o u p i n g was made a c c o r d i n g t o problem a r e a and n o t a c c o r d i n g t o methodology w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o t h e r e b y focus on t h e i m p o r t a n t i s s u e s i n t h e f i e l d o f d i s c o u r s e p r o c e s s i n g , and t o show how d i v e r s e approaches c o n t r i b u t e t o a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e problems i n v o l v e d . Obviously, t h i s book i s m e r e l y t h e f i n a l stage o f a m a j o r e n t e r p r i s e which s t a r t e d i n 1978 when t h e d e c i s i o n t o l a u n c h t h e Symposium was made. Many People have made s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h i s u n d e r t a k i n g though o n l y a few i n s i d e r s may be a b l e t o s p o t t h e i r t r a c e s i n t h e book i t s e l f . FranGois S t o l l , Z u r i c h , p r e s i d e n t o f t h e Swiss P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , which backed t h e Symposium, has h e l p e d us i n numerous ways on many occasions. On t h e s c i e n t i f i c committee f o r t h e Symposium we e n j o y e d t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f Urs Aeschbacher, F r i b o u r g ; Beat K e l l e r , F r i b o u r g ; FranGois Stall, Z u r i c h ; and Marianne Tauber, F r i b o u r g . The b u l k o f t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n a l work was done by Ruth L u t h i , F r i b o u r q , whom we c o r d i a l l y thank f o r t h e c a r e f u l and r e l i a b l e p l a n n i n g , e x e c u t i o n and debugging o f a thousand o p e r a t i o n s . Warm thanks a r e a l s o extended t o K e r r i e Oeuvray, R u t h ' s second hand, and t h e i r h e l p e r s t h e r e : I r e n e Weber, S t e f a n i e

vi

PREFACE

S t a d l e r , Andr& K a i s e r , and Raymond Geismar. F o r s p e c i a l s e r v i c e s b e f o r e and d u r i n g t h e Symposium we thank those s t a f f members o f t h e F r i b o u r g Deoartment o f Psychology who w i l l i n g l y assumed an e x t r a workload: A n i t a B u t t i k e r , C h r i s t i a n e S c h r o e t e r , U l l a Werren, Hansruedi K a i s e r . Besides a l l t h i s , t h e Symposium needed money, rooms and f a c i l i t i e s . We acknowledge t h e f i n a n c i a l h e l p o f o u r sponsors, t h e Swiss Academy o f Human Sciences, t h e S t a t e , t h e C i t y and t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f F r i b o u r g , Siemens AG, Z i i r i c h , t h e Swiss P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , and t h e Swiss Federal O f f i c e o f E d u c a t i o n and Sciences. We a r e g r a t e f u l f o r t h e moral and m a t e r i a l a s s i s t a n c e o f Bernhard Schnyder, R e c t o r o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f F r i b o u r g , Pascal Ladner, Vice-Rector, and Hans B r U l h a r t , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D i r e c t o r . Above a l l , o f course, we thank o u r a u t h o r s f o r t h e i r c o l l a b o r a t i o n , t h e i r enthusiasm and t h e i r p a t i e n c e . Our s p e c i a l a p p r e c i a t i o n goes t o those whom we had t o ask t o w r i t e t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s i n a f o r e i g n language, i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l communication. A l l papers a r e now i n E n g l i s h t h e common language o f t h e Symposium. Yet, i t i s h a r d t o see how t h i s would have been p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t t h e most e f f e c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f E i l e e n K i n t s c h , who a c t e d as t e x t e d i t o r and v e r y o f t e n as t e x t r e v i s e r f o r t h e papers w h i c h were more o r l e s s c l o s e apDroximations t o formal E n g l i s h . We a r e a l s o g r a t e f u l f o r t h e e f f i c i e n t and f l e x i b l e a s s i s t a n c e o f D r . K. M i c h i e l s e n , N o r t h - H o l l a n d P u b l i s h i n g Company, Amsterdam. On s i t e , t h e b u l k o f t h e work was done b y A n i t a B u t t i k e r , U l l a Werren and Vinzenz Morger, F r i b o u r g , and P e r l e Bochet, Boulder, Colorado. Both e d i t o r s a r e happy t o acknowledge t h e s u p p o r t o f r e s e a r c h sponsors who made some of t h i s work p o s s i b l e : t h e Swiss N a t i o n a l Science F o u n d a t i o n ( G r a n t No. 1.714-0.78), t h e N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e o f Mental H e a l t h ( G r a n t No. 15872), and t h e Center f o r Advanced Study i n t h e B e h a v i o r a l Sciences ( s u p p o r t e d by NIMH Grant No. 5132 MH14581-06 and t h e Spencer F o u n d a t i o n ) which p r o v i d e d s h e l t e r and a c o n g e n i a l atmosphere t o f i n i s h t h i s p r o j e c t . F r i b o u r g and B o u l d e r 30 June, 1982

August F1 ammer Walter Kintsch

v ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

v

TEXT STRUCTURE

1

Plans and Goals i n Understanding Episodes Gordon H . Bower What Makes a Good S t o r y ? Towards t h e P r o d u c t i o n o f Conversational Narratives Uta M. &uasthoff, and Kurt Nikolaus T e x t D i v i s i o n s and S t o r y Grammars Hans Christopk Micko C h i l d r e n ' s Knowledge o f S o c i a l A c t i o n : E f f e c t s on Comprehension and R e c a l l o f Simp7e S t o r i e s Hans Strohner, Gert R i c k h e i t , and Riidiger Weingarten L e v e l s o f F u n c t i o n i n g i n Semantic Memory and L e v e l s of Comprehension o f T e x t s StBphane E h r l i c h , Jean-Michel Passerault and Georges Personnier T h a t ' s I m p o r t a n t b u t i s i t I n t e r e s t i n g ? Two F a c t o r s i n Text Processing Suzanne H d i , W i l l i a m Baird and Angela Hildyard Expectancy S t r u c t u r e s i n Prose Reading Margret Rihs-Middel How do D i f f e r e n t Readers L e a r n w i t h D i f f e r e n t T e x t Organizations? Wolfgang Schnotz COHERENCE

2

16 29

42

53

63 76

87

99

Towards a P r o c e s s i n g Account o f Reference Anthony J . Sanford, and Simon C. Garrod

100

Towards a Model o f M a c r o s t r u c t u r e Search U l r i c h Glowalla, and Hans Colonius

111

A c c e p t a b i l i t y o f Story Continuations Riidiger F . Pohl

124

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Semantic D i s c o n t i n u i t i e s as T e x t P r o d u c t i o n S t r a t e g i e s Vanda L. Zammtiner INFERENCE

137

151

How Do You F i l l i n t h i s xxx? On some I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Processes Yvonne Waern

152

I n f e r e n c e Processes i n D i s c o u r s e Comprehension Measured by Sentence Reading Times KarZ F. Vender

166

Answering Q u e s t i o n s from T e x t : A Process Model ?%furraySinger MEMORY

172

185

Memory f o r T e x t Wa I t er Kint sch

7 86

Knowledge U p d a t i n g i n T e x t Processing Steen F. Larsen

205

R e t r i e v a l Cues and t h e Remembering o f Prose: A Review Ronald E. Johnson

21 9

Working Memory and C o n t e x t u a l Processing i n Reading Maryanne Martin

239

Age, Reading A b i l i t y , and Semantic I n t e g r a t i o n : An I n f o r m a t i o n P r o c e s s i n g Model John R. Kirby

251

The M o d a l i t y E f f e c t on T e x t P r o c e s s i n g as a F u n c t i o n o f Organ?z a t i on Machiko Sannomiya

263

Remembering what You S a i d versus Remembering what You Wrote: C h i l d r e n ' s R e c a l l o f t h e i r own O r a l and W r i t t e n Narratives AngeZa HiZdyard, and Suzanne Hidi E f f e c t s o f V e r b a l and P i c t o r i a l C o n t e x t Cues on F r e e R e c a l l and C l u s t e r i n g o f T e x t Themes Eugen Hinder

269

2 79

TABLE OF CONTENTS ATTENTION AND CONTROL Allocation of Attention During Reading

ix 291 292

Richard C. Anderson

Intentional Learning in Text Processing

306

Gery d'YdewaZle, Eddy M . Degryse, and An Swerts

Recall and Flexibility of Linguistic Processing

314

Gregory V . Jor.es, and Martin S . Payne

Activation and Restructuring of Prior Knowledge and their Effects on Text Processing

325

Henk G . Schmidt

Metacognitive Regulation of Text Processing: Aspects and Problems Concerning the Relation between SelfStatements and Actual Performance

339

Peter M . Fischer, and Heinz Mandl

Metacognitive Variables in the Learning of Written Text

352

F r e d i P. Bichel

GOAL PERSPECTIVES The Role of Problem Orientations and Goals in Text Comprehension and Recall

361 362

Norbert A . S t r e i t z

Changing the Reader's Perspective

379

August F l m e r , and Marianne Tauber

Influences of Titles on the Recall of Instructional Texts

392

N e h t M . Niegernann

The Impact of Prior Knowledge on Accessibility and Availability o f Information from Prose

400

Samuel R. Mathews 11

INSTRUCTIONAL IMPLICATIONS Pictures as Prose-Learning Devices

41 1 412

Joe2 R. Levin

Instructional Variables in Text Processing Richard E . Mayer

445

TABLE

X

OF CONTENTS

Concrete A n a l o g i e s as A i d s i n L e a r n i n g f r o m T e x t

462

P. RobertJan Simons S u b j e c t i v e versus O b j e c t i v e P r e - I n f o r m a t i o n as a Determinant o f S t u d e n t s ' Choices o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l T e x t s and t h e i r Subsequent L e a r n i n g Therefrom K a r l J . Klauer E f f e c t s o f E l a b o r a t i o n on R e c a l l o f Texts

472 482

Heinz Mandl, and Steffen-Peter BaZZstaedt Argument i n T e x t and Reading Process Peter Whalley S e l f - R e g u l a t e d versus Teacher-Provided Sequencing o f I n f o r m a t i o n i n L e a r n i n g from T e x t Hans G.L. C. Lodewij k s Text Processing: A Comparison o f Reading and L i s t e n i n g Marcel L. GoMschid, Pierre Moessinger, Tamar Ferber-Stern, And& Koerffy, and Jan Rozmuski The I n f l u e n c e o f W i t h i n - and Between-Sentence V a r i a b l e s on t h e Comprehension o f Newspaper A r t i c l e s by Two Reader Groups Marianne Tauber, and Francois StolZ Development and E v a l u a t i o n o f a T e x t Mapping S t r a t e g y

495

509 521

527 536

Donald F. Dansereau, and CharZes D. HoZZey Q u e s t f o r an " A " : A Case Study o f a U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t ' s Text Processing

555

Anthony M. Owens EXTENSIONS Processing Dream Texts

563 564

Ruedi Seitz Comprehending t h e D i s c o u r s e o f P o e t r y W. john Hmker

570

ABSTRACTS OF THE R E M A I N I N G CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON TEXT PROCESSING IN FRIBOURG 1981

583

AUTHOR INDEX

59 3

SUBJECT INDEX

605

ADDRESSES OF CONTRIBUTORS

609

TEXT STRUCTURE

DISCOURSE PROCESSING A. Flammerand W. Kintsch (eds.) 0North-Holland Atblishing Company, 1982

PLANS AND GOALS I N UNDERSTANDING EPISODES Gordon

H. Bower

Department o f Psychology Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Stanford, C a l i f o r n i a

P e o p l e ' s judgments about i m p o r t a n t elements i n n a r r a t i v e episodes were s t u d i e d . S u b j e c t s chose t h e p r o t a g o n i s t ' s goal as most i m p o r t a n t , t h e n a c t i o n s , outcomes, c o m p l i c a t i o n s , and l a s t l y background and m o d i f i e r s . A s t a t e m e n t ' s importance c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i t s l i k e l i h o o d o f r e c a l l and i n c l u s i o n i n a summary. R e l a t i n g episodes t o a P l a n schema, f u r t h e r experiments found t h a t r e a d e r s t a k e l o n g e r t o comprehend an a c t i o n i n l i g h t of a goal t h e g r e a t e r t h e " d i s t a n c e " between them i n a goal h i e r a r c h y . Furthermore, t h e t i m e t o comprehend a c h a r a c t e r ' s a c t i o n i n c r e a s e s t h e more independent goals the reader i s monitoring f o r t h a t character. INTRODUCTION T h i s symposium i s concerned w i t h how p e o p l e understand t e x t s , r e c a l l them, paraphrase them, summarize them, and answer q u e s t i o n s about them. The f a c t t h a t t h i s symposium i s b e i n g sponsored by a Psychology Department a t t e s t s t o t h e p r o g r e s s b e i n g made i n c o g n i t i v e psychology. P s y c h o l o g i s t s ' concern w i t h t e x t p r o c e s s i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t . E i g h t y e a r s ago a symposium l i k e t h i s c o u l d n o t have taken p l a c e because t h e r e s i m p l y was n o t enough r e s e a r c h on t h e t o p i c . But s i n c e 1974 t h e r e ' s been an i n c r e a s i n g stream o f r e s e a r c h on t e x t p r o c e s s i n g , a t t e s t e d t o by conferences and s p e c i a1 ized r e s e a r c h j o u r n a l s

.

Several y e a r s ago when I f i r s t began s t u d y i n g t e x t comprehension w i t h my student, P e r r y Thorndyke (see Bower, 1976; Thorndyke, 1977), we adopted t h e story-grammar approach t h e n proposed by Dave Rumel h a r t ( 1 975) and Tuen van I have come t o r e a l i z e o v e r t h e e n s u i n g y e a r s t h a t my D i j k (1972). i n t e r e s t i s n o t so much i n s t o r i e s as i n how p e o p l e understand episodes and a c t i o n sequences. S t o r i e s have episodes, o f course, and t h e t e l l i n g of t h e episodes i s arranged s o as t o arouse suspense, s u r p r i s e , mystery, humor, o r i r o n y , t h u s t o e n t e r t a i n and h o l d t h e r e a d e r ' s a t t e n t i o n . B u t I have n o t been s t u d y i n g t h e s e a f f e c t i v e , e n t e r t a i n i n g f e a t u r e s o f s t o r i e s ; r a t h e r , I ' v e s t u d i e d o n l y how p e o p l e understand and remember episodes and e v e n t sequences. I t t u r n s o u t t h a t t h e c e n t r a l p a r t o f s t o r y grammars i s t h e way t h e y analyze s i m p l e episodes. N e a r l y a l l t h e s t o r y grammars assume t h a t an i n t e r e s t i n g episode must have a t l e a s t f o u r p a r t s : a goal f o r t h e p r o t a g o n i s t , some o b s t a c l e o r c o m p l i c a t i o n t o a t t a i n m e n t o f t h a t g o a l , some a c t i o n s designed t o overcome t h o s e o b s t a c l e s , and some outcome o f these 2

PLANS AND GOALS IN UNDERSTANDING EPISODES

3

actions. Another way t o say t h i s i s t h a t an episode c o n s i s t s of a problem and i t s resolution. The problem can be characterized as stemming from the p r o t a g o n i s t ' s goal plus a complication or obstacle; the resolution i s comprised of the p r o t a g o n i s t ' s action plan plus i t s outcome. To describe these elements more f u l l y , the complications t y p i c a l l y a r i s e e i t h e r from physical o b s t a c l e s , o r from the c o n f l i c t of several goals within t h e same individual, or the c o n f l i c t o f goals between two competing individuals or teams. The resolution of an episode describes e i t h e r the winning, losing, o r compromising of a goal, abandoning i t , or regaining a l o s t s t a t e of b l i s s . I n order f o r t h e episode t o be i n t e r e s t i n g , the problem must be s i g n i f i c a n t and the resolution must be novel o r unexpected. Dull episodes deal e i t h e r with small problems or ones which have r o u t i n e , f a m i l i a r solutions. The s t o r y grammars assume t h a t people have acquired an i m p l i c i t schema o r prototype about episodes. This schema has various uses. One function of the schema i s as a source of questions f o r readers. In h i s theory of question-asking, August Flammer (1980) suggests t h a t people ask questions about gaps o r c r i t i c a l s l o t s in the episode schema t h a t a r e not f i l l e d in by, o r i n f e r a b l e from, the t e x t . I t i s f u r t h e r assumed t h a t the schema helps readers i d e n t i f y the c r i t i c a l elements of a t e x t . I f episode schemas a r e used in analyzing t e x t s and in parsing episodes i n t o s i g n i f i cant c o n s t i t u e n t s , then subjects should be able t o r e l i a b l y i d e n t i f y these allegedly important elements from a mass of t e x t . Certainly, i f naive readers do not agree with t h e s t o r y grammars about what a r e the e s s e n t i a l , important elements in an episode d e s c r i p t i o n , then we a l l have surely been following the wrong leads. After a brief survey of the relevant l i t e r a t u r e , however, I was unable t o find much d i r e c t empirical study of which p a r t s of episodes readers consider t o be important and necessary. IDENTIFYING EPISODE CONSTITUENTS The question I asked i s whether college readers will i d e n t i f y a s important those elements of n a r r a t i v e episodes which s t o r y grammars claim t o be c r i t i c a l . Furthermore, I wondered whether people would summarize t h e episode and r e c a l l i t l a r g e l y in terms of these same c r i t i c a l elements. As I noted, the elements a r e the problem (with constituents of goal and comp l i c a t i o n ) and the resolution (with constituents of actions and outcome). I n order t o study r e a d e r ' s i n t u i t i o n s , we wrote two six-episode n a r r a t i v e s and had people read them, judge them, and r e c a l l them. The s i x d i s t i n c t episodes were printed one per page in a booklet. Each episode was written t o s e t f o r t h a d i s t i n c t goal, complication, actionplan, and outcome, these comprising four sentences. Among these we mixed f o u r f u r t h e r statements which s e t f o r t h d e s c r i p t i v e information, giving background o r elaborating on the properties o f the other c o n s t i t u e n t s . From t h e viewpoint of s t o r y grammars these d e s c r i p t i v e elaborations were i n e s s e n t i a l f i l l e r s , although they tended t o make t h e prose somewhat more readable and natural. One of the s t o r i e s was about a male university student, Paul, and h i s Problems in paying f o r his schooling, g e t t i n g good grades, holding down a Part-time job, and having an a c t i v e social l i f e . Here, f o r example, i s the f i r s t episode in the Paul s t o r y .

4

TEXT STRUCTURE

(Goal ) ( F i 1l e r ) (Compl ic a t i on)

Paul wanted t o go t o c o l l e g e . He decided on a u n i v e r s i t y i n C a l i f o r n i a . B u t he d i d n ' t have enough money f o r expenses.

(Filler)

He had o n l y $535 i n a savings bank.

(Action)

He a p p l i e d f o r a f o o t b a l l s c h o l a r s h i p .

(Filler)

He had p l a y e d h a l f b a c k i n h i g h s c h o o l .

(Outcome)

A f t e r r e v i e w i n g h i s case, t h e coaches g r a n t e d him an award e n a b l i n g h i m t o go t o s c h o o l .

(Filler)

Paul hoped he c o u l d p l a y f i r s t s t r i n g .

The second s t o r y was about a female u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t , G a i l , who had a c o n v e n t i o n a l s e t o f problems--making f r i e n d s , l o s i n g w i e g h t , g e t t i n g more e x e r c i s e , b r e a k i n g up w i t h a b o y f r i e n d . We had two groups of 30 c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s r e a d t h e s e s t o r i e s . Some subj e c t s s i m p l y r e a d t h e s t o r i e s , a t 45 seconds p e r episode, t h e n 15 m i n u t e s l a t e r r e c a l l e d b o t h s t o r i e s when cued w i t h t h e c h a r a c t e r s ' names. O t h e r s u b j e c t s r a n k - o r d e r e d t h e e i g h t statements i n each episode a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r importance o r s i g n i f i c a n c e w i t h i n t h e episode. A f t e r t h e y ' d s o ranked a l l statements, t h e y r e - r e a d them and w r o t e a summary o f each episode i n two o r t h r e e sentences, u s i n g l e s s t h a n 15 c o n t e n t words. They were i n s t r u c t e d t o imagine composing a t e l e g r a m t o r e l a y t h e e s s e n t i a l g i s t o f t h e episode i n as few i n f o r m a t i v e phrases as p o s s i b l e w h i l e r e m a i n i n g f a i t h f u l t o t h e l i t e r a l events. (This i n s t r u c t i o n prevented people f r o m composing a b s t r a c t morals as summaries.) These two groups o f s u b j e c t s t h u s assessed each s t a t e m e n t f o r i t s import a n c e r a n k i n g w i t h i n t h e episode, i t s l i k e l i h o o d o f i n c l u s i o n i n a summary f o r t h a t episode, and i t s l i k e l i h o o d o f r e c a l l w i t h i n t h e e n t i r e s t o r y . The t e x t grammar h y p o t h e s i s c l a i m s t h a t t h e statements w i t h i n each e p i s o d e can be d i v i d e d i n t o two s e t s , those t h a t a r e i r r e l e v a n t o r n o t e s s e n t i a l versus t h o s e t h a t a r e e s s e n t i a l p a r t s of any e p i s o d e t h a t has a p o i n t namely, t h e g o a l , c o m p l i c a t i o n , planned a c t i o n , and outcome. The hypothes i s does n o t p r e d i c t whether elements w i t h i n t h e " e s s e n t i a l " s e t w i l l v a r y i n importance. The main r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y a r e shown i n Table 1 g i v i n g t h e average importance r a n k i n g , p r o b a b i l i t y o f b e i n g i n c l u d e d i n a summary, and proba b i l i t y of r e c a l l f o r each t y p e of statement, averaged o v e r t h e s i x episodes w i t h i n each s t o r y . The f o u r background f i l l e r s were combined i n these s t a t i s t i c s . Table 1 contains several i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g s . F i r s t , t h e d e s c r i p t i v e e l a b o r a t i o n s were indeed j u d g e d as i r r e l e v a n t and unimport a n t , were l e a s t l i k e l y t o be r e c a l l e d , and l e a s t l i k e l y t o be i n c l u d e d i n Summaries of t h e episodes. Thus, s u b j e c t s ' i n t u i t i o n s about what a r e e s s e n t i a l elements i n an e p i s o d e agree w i t h o u r t h e o r y o f t h e episode schema.

A second c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g i s t h a t s u b j e c t s u s u a l l y r a t e t h e g o a l s t a t e ment as t h e most i m p o r t a n t statement i n t h e episode. T h i s average o r d e r i n g arose f o r e l e v e n of t h e t w e l v e episodes ( t w o s t o r i e s each w i t h s i x e p i s o d e s ) . T h i s i s n o t s i m p l y a " f i r s t sentence" e f f e c t : h a l f t h e e p i sodes had some background f i l l e r s b e f o r e t h e g o a l , y e t even i n t h o s e cases

PLANS AND GOALS I N UNDERSTANDING EPISODES

5

s u b j e c t s s t i l l r a t e d t h e g o a l h i g h e s t i n importance. Table 1 Importance r a n k i n g , p r o b a b i l i t y o f i n c l u s i o n i n a summary,and p r o b a b i l i t y o f r e c a l l by statement t y p e , averaged o v e r t h e s i x episodes i n each s t o r y . Importance s c a l e d f r o m 1 (most i m p o r t a n t ) t o 8 ( l e a s t ) STATEMENT TYPE Goal

Complication

A c t i o_ n ~

PAUL STORY

Importance Rank Summary I n c l u s i o n Free R e c a l l

1.75 .57 .65

2.82 .51 .66

3.83 .50 .79

Outcome _ _ 3.62 .83 .76

F i l l e_ rs _ 5.57 .10 .53

Importance Rank Summary I n c l u s i o n Free R e c a l l

1.71 .74 .82

4.33 .18 .63

3.85 .67 .79

3.81

GAIL STORY

5.57 .16 .54

_

.__________________-_-------__-----------_---------------------................................................................... .63 .59

________________________________________-----------------

A t h i r d f i n d i n g i s t h a t t h e importance o r d e r i n g o f t h e c o m p l i c a t i o n , act i o n , and outcome v a r i e d across t h e two s t o r i e s . Thus, t h e d a t a do n o t s u p p o r t t h e o r i e s which a s s i g n importance t o t h e s e elements s i m p l y on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r r o l e i n t h e e p i s o d e s t r u c t u r e . I n r e v i e w i n g o u r two s t o r i e s , I n o t i c e d a n o t h e r f a c t o r t h a t seemed c r i t i c a l i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e importance r a t i n g s u b j e c t s gave t o t h e non-goal elements of t h e episode. T h i s o t h e r f a c t o r was how i n f o r m a t i v e , nonredundant, o r unusual a g i v e n s t a t e m e n t was i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e c h a r a c t e r ' s g o a l . Some C o m p l i c a t i o n s o r A c t i o n s were v e r y r o u t i n e and expected; s t a t i n g them conveyed l i t t l e new i n f o r m a t i o n beyond what one c o u l d a l r e a d y i n f e r from t h e c o n t e x t . Consider a few o f o u r C o m p l i c a t i o n s : an example o f an i n f o r m a t i v e C o m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t P a u l ' s p l a y i n g f o o t b a l l f r u s t r a t e s h i s goal of d o i n g w e l l i n h i s c l a s s e s ; an example o f a r o u t i n e , r e d u n d a n t C o m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t G a i l l a c k e d m o t i v a t i o n t o g e t more e x e r c i s e ; a n o t h e r i s t h a t G a i l d i d n ' t know what t o do t o become l e s s shy, so she asked a f r i e n d who sugg e s t e d an a s s e r t i v e n e s s c l a s s . Among American c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s G a i l ' s " C o m p l i c a t i o n s " a r e so s t a n d a r d and r o u t i n e t h a t t h e y a r e h a r d l y w o r t h men t i o n i ng.

I t h o u g h t t h a t t h i s redundancy f a c t o r would i n f l u e n c e t h e importance People assigned t o t h e e s s e n t i a l episode elements. So I had some new subj e c t s r a t e t h e elements w i t h i n each episode on a s c a l e o f i n f o r m a t i v e n e s s o r u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i n c o n t e x t . T h i s enabled us t o s e p a r a t e t h e episode elements somewhat more. Thus, C o m p l i c a t i o n s j u d g e d t o be " i n f o r m a t i v e " had e a r l i e r r e c e i v e d mean importance r a n k i n g s of 2.93 ( r e c a l l , 1 i s t h e most I m p o r t a n t ) whereas C o m p l i c a t i o n s j u d g e d as more p r e d i c t a b l e and redundant had r e c e i v e d average importance r a n k i n g s o f 5.08, which i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower. A s i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e i n importance r a n k i n g s was found f o r A c t i o n s r a t e d as i n f o r m a t i v e (3.60) versus t h o s e r a t e d as redundant (4.77) w i t h t h e Goal o r C o m p l i c a t i o n . Outcomes d i d n o t d i f f e r o f t e n enough i n redundancy r a t i n g s f o r us t o compare t h e importance assigned t o h i g h vs. l o w redundant outcomes. The c o n c l u s i o n f r o m t h i s post-hoc a n a l y s i s i s t h a t t h e importance assigned t o a C o m p l i c a t i o n o r A c t i o n w i l l u s u a l l y be h i g h e r t h e more unexpected and i n f o r m a t i v e i t i s i n l i g h t o f t h e goal and t h e o t h e r elements.

6

TEXT STRUCTURE

Consider now the likelihood t h a t d i f f e r e n t episode elements a r e included in the telegraphic summaries ( s e e l i n e s 2 and'4 of Table 1 ) . I r r e l e v a n t f i l l e r s hardly appear a t a l l i n summaries; Actions, Complications, and Outcomes a r e l i k e l y t o appear, b u t t h e i r exact ordering v a r i e s . For example, Complications appear in summaries of the Paul s t o r y b u t hardly ever in summaries of the Gail s t o r y . This difference probably r e f l e c t s again the predictable versus unpredictable nature of the complications in the two s t o r i e s . Across the two s t o r i e s , Complications rated as highly informative were included in episode summaries 74 percent of t h e time, whereas Complications judged t o be redundant and predictable were included only 15 percent of the time. Thus, deletion of predictable Complications in summaries seems t o follow G r i c e ' s Conversational Postulate--that i s , one should be brief and not say w h a t your audience can readily i n f e r . Table 1 a l s o shows t h a t f r e e r e c a l l percentages were r e l a t e d t o the importance ranking of the elements of the episode. We computed the Spearman c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t among the three v a r i a b l e s - - r e c a l l , summary, a n d importance--across the f i v e categories and two s t o r i e s ( s o N=10). The r e s u l t s show moderately strong c o r r e l a t i o n s : importance c o r r e l a t e s .72 with likelihood of inclusion in a summary and .62 with f r e e r e c a l l ; and the likelihood of inclusion in a summary c o r r e l a t e s .70 with likelihood t h a t the statement will be r e c a l l e d . While much common variance i s being captured by these measures, the variance unaccounted for s t i l l always exceeds 50 percent. Some of t h i s i s due t o uncontrolled differences in content, in redundancy of the s t r u c t u r a l elements of the several episodes, and so on. However, perhaps we should be s a t i s f i e d with ihe conclusion t h a t t o a f i r s t approximation, readers may be viewed as identifying and assigning g r e a t e s t importance t o statements s t i p u l a t i n g the goal, the complications encountered, the actions undertaken, and the outcome, whereas they devalue and skip over background statements, d e s c r i p t i v e e l a b o r a t i o n s , and d e t a i l s . Readers then use these s t r u c t u r a l l y c r i t i c a l elements they've i d e n t i f i e d in order t o reconstruct the t e x t in r e c a l l . EPISODES ELABORATE UPON PLAN SCHEMATA

One may notice t h a t the c o n s t i t u e n t s of episodes which we have i d e n t i f i e d a r e almost the same as t h e elements of a Plan schema underlying intentional actions. Plans have goals, a c t i o n s , outcomes, and may encounter complicat i o n s . Thus, people's knowledge of n a r r a t i v e episodes c e r t a i n l y includes t h e i r knowledge about Plans. I n t h i s view, readers use t h e i r general Plan schema t o understand intentional action sequences, and t h e Plan organizes behaviors according t o t h e i r goals. Studies by John Black and I (1980) and Edward Lichtenstein and William Brewer (1980) have found t h a t action Plans have a hierarchical s t r u c t u r e , t h a t goal-directed actions a t higher-levels of the goal-tree a r e remembered b e t t e r than non-goal-directed actions a t lower, more d e t a i l e d l e v e l s . Also, people do best a t processing and r e c a l l i n g a t e x t when i t mentions the Plan elements in t h e i r s t e r e o t y p i c order. I want t o examine more closely now how plans and goals a r e used by readers in processing n a r r a t i v e s . This topic i s discussed in d e t a i l in t h e book by Roger Schank and Bob Abelson, (1977) and t h e i r student, Bob Wilensky, (1978), wrote a computer simulation program which understands plan-based s t o r i e s . The program was c a l l e d PAM, the i n i t i a l s standing f o r Plan Applying Mechanism. T h e basic assumption i s t h a t people understand events o r statements in n a r r a t i v e s by trying t o explain them. Thus, actions a r e

PLANS AND GOALS IN UNDERSTANDING EPISODES

7

t o be understood by reference t o the a c t o r ' s plan; plans a r e understood by reference t o the goal they serve; goals a r e understood by reference e i t h e r t o a superordinate goal, or a s t a t e or theme t h a t gives r i s e t o t h e goal. Wilensky's PAM program follows a s p e c i f i c algorithm in understanding each event as i t occurs. F i r s t , i t checks whether t h e action s a t i s f i e s an on-going expectation--for example, whether i t f i t s i n t o a known plan f o r the a c t o r . I f so, then t h a t ' s the explanation of the event and i t i s thus incorporated i n t o the r e a d e r ' s developing representation of the s t o r y . Second, i f t h e immediate predictions f a i l f o r t h i s a c t i o n , then the reader t r i e s t o i n f e r a plan which includes t h i s a c t i o n , then checks t o see whether t h i s plan serves a known goal. Third, i f a goal i s s t a t e d or inf e r r e d , the reader supposedly checks whether i t i s c o n s i s t e n t with a higher goal o r theme the a c t o r has. THE DISTANCE EFFECT IN GOAL-ACTION PAIRS You might have noticed t h a t some actions will be psychologically close t o a

given goal b u t f a r t h e r away from other goals. That i s , a given action may r e l a t e t o i t s goal e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y t h r o u g h several i n t e r mediate s t e p s or sub-goals. This i n t u i t i v e notion of the logical distance between a goal and an action can be explained using t h e idea of a goalsubgoal hierarchy o r a goal-reduction t r e e . A goal reduction t r e e decomposes a top-level goal i n t o subgoals, and those i n t o f u r t h e r subgoals or actions t h a t can be performed. Figure 1 i l l u s t r a t e s p a r t of a goal reduct i o n t r e e f o r someone's knowledge about how t o s t e a l money, which can be done, l e t ' s say, through embezzlement, armed robbery, or s t e a l t h y burglary. To carry out armed robbery, one should have a gun, a get-away plan, and s e l e c t a s u i t a b l e t a r g e t l i k e a bank. To rob a bank requires t h a t you get information about the bank's cash reserves, what kind of s e c u r i t y systems STEAL they have, and so on.

YOU1

FIX

Figure 1

8

TEXT STRUCTURE

I n such a goal-reduction t r e e , "understanding an action in l i g h t of a goal" would mean finding or computing a connecting l i n k of the c o r r e c t kind between the two elements in the t r e e . Notice t h a t c e r t a i n goal-to-action p a i r s a r e q u i t e close in the t r e e whereas others a r e f a r t h e r away. When someone thinks about t h i s plan or goal-reduction t r e e , i t would not be a v a i l a b l e in a c t i v e memory a l l a t once; r a t h e r , i t would be r e t r i e v e d piecemeal from long-term memory. We may think of t h e links in t h i s f i g u r e as a s e t of one-step productions in memory which encode r u l e s of the form " I F you want t o achieve goal G , THEN do subgoals or actions A , B , and C . " T h u s , i f one wants t o f i n d a connection between a goal and some a c t i o n , the productions s t a r t i n g from t h a t goal will be f i r e d , entering i t s subgoals i n t o a c t i v e memory, and these i n t u r n will f i r e t h e i r productions, entering t h e i r subgoals i n t o a c t i v e memory. I f in t h i s expanding a c t i v a t i o n process the s p e c i f i e d action i s encountered, then a connection has been found, so we can say t h a t the reader has understood the action in terms of t h e plan. I f the r e t r i e v a l and a c t i v a t i o n of each link in the goal-tree takes time, then comprehension o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n time should take longer f o r those action-goal p a i r s t h a t a r e f a r t h e r a p a r t in the network. For instance, an action l i k e "John checked out t h e s e c u r i t y guards a t t h e bank" w o u l d be understood quickly when preceded by a Near goal l i k e "He wanted t o r o b a bank" b u t more slowly when preceded by a Far goal l i k e "He wanted t o s t e a l some money". DISTANCE EFFECT WITH NATURAL GOAL TREES

A Stanford student, Carolyn Foss, and I performed a n experiment t o see whether t h i s analysis was worthwhile. F i r s t , we had t o make up many p a i r s of goals and actions which were psychologically Near o r Far from one another according t o a plausible goal-reduction t r e e . Unfortunately these materials could only be chosen informally, by guessing about prototypical goal t r e e s f o r many standard plans of our s u b j e c t s . A principled way t o s e l e c t Near versus Far goal-action p a i r s i s t o choose t h r e e elements along a goal-reduction chain, as in the example above of a top-goal ( " s t e a l i n g " ) , a subgoal ("armed robbery"), and a lower action ("check o u t s e c u r i t y guards"). I n our experiment, we fixed the action and then preceded i t e i t h e r with a Near subgoal o r with a Far, higher goal. Thus, the Near subgoal-action p a i r was nested within the Far goal-action p a i r , with a s h o r t e r distance. Subjects were timed as they read each statement within a number of fourl i n e episodes. They read f o r comprehension and had t o answer a question a f t e r reading each episode. The subject pressed a button t o present hims e l f with each successive statement of the t e x t on a CRT. Subjects were not aware t h a t they were being timed f o r line-by-line reading. The time between button-presses presumably measures t h e time t h e subject required t o read the statement, comprehend i t , and i n t e g r a t e i t i n t o h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the t e x t . We expect t h a t actions will be understood f a s t e r when they follow Near r a t h e r t h a n Far goals. I ' v e discussed only the case where the goal precedes t h e a c t i o n , and where we measure t h e time required t o understand the a c t i o n . However, i f understanding simply requires connecting u p a goal with a n a c t i o n , then one might expect a s i m i l a r distance e f f e c t when the goal follows t h e action and we measure t h e time required t o comprehend t h e goal and i t s connections t o t h a t p r i o r action. Thus, t h e subject would be timed on the second sentence


9

as he r e a d t h e Near sequence "John decided t o r o b a bank. He wanted t o s t e a l some money" versus t h e F a r sequence "John checked o u t t h e s e c u r i t y guards a t t h e bank. He wanted t o s t e a l some money." Presumably, when t h e a c t i o n i s s t a t e d f i r s t , t h e person i n f e r s a p l a n and goal f o r i t ; then when t h e t a r g e t goal i s read, i t w i l l produce e i t h e r a r e l a t i v e l y d i r e c t match t o t h e p r e d i c t e d goal i n t h e Near case o r w i l l r e q u i r e s e v e r a l s t e p s of i n f e r e n c e i n o r d e r t o l i n k up t h r o u g h s u b o r d i n a t e g o a l s i n t h e Far case. T h e r e f o r e , we p r e d i c t e d t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f d i s t a n c e on comprehension would be about t h e same whether t h e s u b j e c t were comprehending t h e a c t i o n i n l i g h t o f t h e goal, o r v i c e versa. To t e s t t h i s , we had o u r s u b j e c t s r e a d f o u r - l i n e episodes where t h e m i d d l e l i n e s were e q u a l l y o f t e n i n t h e a c t i o n goal o r d e r and i n t h e g o a l - a c t i o n o r d e r . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s experiment a r e shown i n F i g u r e 2, which d e p i c t s t h e average t i m e r e q u i r e d t o comprehend a t a r g e t sentence. The t o p l i n e d e p i c t s

I Figure 2

I NEAR

I

FA~R

t h e t i m e t o understand a goal f o l l o w i n g a Near o r F a r a c t i o n ; t h e bottom l i n e i s t h e t i m e t o understand an a c t i o n f o l l o w i n g a g o a l . The f i r s t conspicuous r e s u l t i s t h a t a t a r g e t sentence t h a t i s Near t o i t s p r e c e d i n g c o n t e x t sentence i s comprehended about o n e - t h i r d second f a s t e r t h a n a r e t a r g e t s t h a t a r e F a r f r o m t h e i r p r e c e d i n g c o n t e x t . So, t h i s i s t h e d i s t a n c e e f f e c t we were seeking. A second r e s u l t i n F i g u r e 2 i s t h a t r e a d e r s a r e about one h a l f second f a s t e r i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g an a c t i o n f o l l o w i n g a goal t h a n i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a goal f o l l o w i n g an a c t i o n . T h i s g o a l - t h e n - a c t i o n sequence i s , of course, t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l as w e l l as causal o r d e r o f t h e s e elements i n t h e P l a n schema. Thus, we may conclude t h a t p e o p l e more q u i c k l y understand s t a t e ments when t h e y o c c u r i n t h e same o r d e r as t h e s l o t s i n t h e schema used t o encode t h e sequence. F i g u r e 2 shows no i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e o r d e r o f t h e goal and a c t i o n , and t h e d i s t a n c e between them. The two f a c t o r s have a d d i t i v e e f f e c t s on comPrehens ion t i me. DISTANCE EFFECT WITH SPECIALLY TRAINED GOAL TREES A l t h o u g h t h i s experiment succeeded i n d e m o n s t r a t i n g d i s t a n c e e f f e c t s , C a r o l y n Foss and I were b o t h e r e d t h a t we had no measure o f t h e d i s t a n c e between a goal and a c t i o n e x c e p t o u r i n t u i t i o n s , which a t b e s t p r o v i d e o n l y an o r d e r i n g o f more o r l e s s d i s t a n c e w i t h i n a g i v e n goal-subgoal c h a i n . Our i n t u i t i v e guesses m i g h t be wrong about t h e goal t r e e o f many of o u r s u b j e c t s . A l s o , i t ' s n o t c l e a r t o what e x t e n t t h e i n t u i t i v e sense of

TEXT STRUCTURE

10

goal-action distance we were using was j u s t a s s o c i a t i v e strength of connect i o n between the two predicates. Thus, t o take j u s t one example, " s t e a l " and "rob bank" a r e more c l o s e l y associated than a r e " s t e a l " and "gun". To counter-argue t h i s point, i f one accepts the idea t h a t people s t o r e plans, then "associations" a r e j u s t the consequence of the causal order of these events in the Plan.

For such reasons, we decided t o stop using n a t u r a l i s t i c materials of u n known organization and instead have the subject learn a novel goal hierarchy which we could specify precisely. Therefore, Carolyn F o s s and I ran a second experiment i n which we f i r s t had s u b j e c t s read a t e x t describing a novel procedure; then, a f t e r they had thoroughly learned the goal-tree o f t h a t procedure, subjects made a number of timed judgments using t h e i r knowledge of t h i s t r e e . The t e x t the subjects studied described the procedure f o r joining a f i c t i t i o u s Top Secret Club., The goal-hieraichy i m p l i c i t in the t e x t i s shown in Figure 3 below. JOIN TOP SECRET CLUB

DO INITIATIONRITES

SPY ON ZERO CLUB

INFILTRATE

GET OUTSIDE INFO

BLUE M A W M

CUJRAGEOUS Wssy)w

DRIW

M T O

STUNT

CRAC%

LOCATE

METINOS

REOS

CRYPTIC

HIDDEN

LUGE

CODE

EARN

FLU0

I 1

S E

S€CY

FWD

LEARN

I eRIBE VP.

DESIGNATED

IN OtlRGE OF

SrrE

STRANGE STUFF

PAY rssoC. TREASURER

FIGURE 3 GOAL-STRUCTURE

FOR

EXPERIMENT 2

PLANS A N D GOALS IN UNDERSTANDING EPISODES

11

Thus, in order t o j o i n the Top Secret Club, the candidate must spy on i t s enemy, the Zero C l u b , and perform several i n i t i a t i o n r i t e s . To spy on the Zero C l u b , the candidate has t o i n f i l t r a t e the club and a l s o get some outs i d e information about i t . To get t h a t required t h a t he crack a c r y p t i c code and l o c a t e t h e i r treasury in a hidden barn, and so on. This goal-tree c o n s i s t s of 16 subgoals nested along s i x branches. I t was rendered i n t o prose resembling i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r imaginary games l i k e "Dungeons and Dragons" or "Startrek" with which most of our subjects were f a m i l i a r . The subjects never saw the goal t r e e as s e t f o r t h in Figure 3. Rather, they studied t h e t e x t u n t i l they learned i t well before t h e t e s t i n g phase began. For the t e s t phase, subjects were t o l d t h a t some CIA agents had f o u n d burned and shredded copies of the procedure for joining the club, and they were t r y i n g t o piece together the original complete procedure. These agents would formulate a plan and submit i t f o r evaluation t o the s u b j e c t , since he was the expert; he was t o decide quickly whether o r not the proposed plan was well formed. The proposed plans were formatted as two separate clauses: f i r s t , a clause would appear on t h e CRT such as "In order t o ( i n f i l t r a t e the Zero Club)"; a f t e r the person read t h a t , he pushed a button which showed the second clause, somcbhing l i k e "John had t o see t h e secretary". The subject had t o decide whether t h e a c t i o n i n the second clause was a subordinate o r descendant o f the goal mentioned i n the f i r s t clause. Thus, i t i s proper t o say t h a t " I n order t o i n f i l t r a t e the Zero club, John had t o see the secretary"--that i s a c o r r e c t plan because the action in the second clause f a l l s below the goal in the f i r s t clause. An Incorrect plan i s one where t h e second clause r e f e r s t o an action t h a t i s e i t h e r above i t in the t r e e or on a s i d e branch from the f i r s t clause. Thus, i t i s incorrect t o say t h a t " I n order t o see the s e c r e t a r y , John i n f i l t r a t e d the Zero Club" or " I n order t o i n f i l t r a t e t h e Zero Club, John had t o carry out a courageous mission". Training our subjects on t h i s novel goal hierarchy provides several theoret i c a l advantages. Importantly, we know what t h e goal s t r u c t u r e i s , and know t h a t i t ' s roughly the same f o r each subject. Also we know t h a t the degree of learning of the various l i n k s in the t r e e i s about the same, so a s s o c i a t i v e strengths w o n ' t be varying randomly. F i n a l l y , we now have a simple measure of distance between any two nodes in the network as well as the amount of branching o r fanning t h a t occurs between two nodes. This measure enables us t o p l o t parametric functions. I n the experiment subjects judged 56 plans once, then repeated the t e s t s e r i e s . There were s l i g h t l y more Correct than Incorrect plans, and half o f each type were Near or Far goal-action p a i r s . The basic r e s u l t i s shown in Figure 4 . Importantly, t h e time t o decide t h a t a goal-action plan i s c o r r e c t i n creased nearly l i n e a r l y w i t h the number of s t e p s between the elements i n the hierarchy. Each step increased reaction time by about half a second. Such a function would be expected i f t h e person searched l i n k s downward from t h e goal a t about half a second per s t e p . Second, Figure 4 shows t h a t subjects answer quicker the second time t h r o u g h the t e s t s . This would occur e i t h e r i f the subject i s strengthening and f a c i l i t a t i n g the same l i n k s he'd used before, o r i f he i s learning d i s t a n t goal-action dependencies, accessing them d i r e c t l y , and by-passing derivat i o n of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p the second time.

12

TEXT STRUCTURE

Figure 4

100

Dl3'ANCt

I

I

I

Y

1

2

3

4.5

A t h i r d e f f e c t n o t shown i n F i g u r e 4 was an i n t e r f e r e n c e o r f a n e f f e c t of s l o w e r search due t o b r a n c h i n g : f o r a g i v e n s t e p - d i s t a n c e between t h e g o a l and a c t i o n , t h e d e c i s i o n t i m e was l o n g e r t h e g r e a t e r t h e b r a n c h i n g a l o n g t h e p a t h c o n n e c t i n g them. T h i s would r e s u l t if t h e l i n k - s e a r c h i n g process i s slowed by d i v i d i n g i t s r e s o u r c e s a t b r a n c h i n g p o i n t s . T u r n i n g t o t h e F a l s e judgments, we were s u r p r i s e d t o f i n d no d i f f e r e n c e whatsoever between Near, Far, o r L a t e r a l F a l s e p a i r s . Mean RT f o r t h e Near, Far, and L a t e r a l f a l s e s were 2212, 2162, and 2132, r e s p e c t i v e l y . These do n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . A downward search a l g o r i t h m f o r t h e g o a l - t r e e i m p l i e s no d i f f e r e n c e f o r t h e s e cases. Downward search means t o s t a r t from t h e goal i n t h e f i r s t c l a u s e and r e t r i e v e i t s descendants below i n successive g e n e r a t i o n s ; i f any o f them matches t h e a c t i o n i n t h e second clause, respond " C o r r e c t " ; i f none of t h e descendants match, respond " F a l s e " . T h i s downward search a l g o r i t h m e x p l a i n s t h e l a c k o f d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e Near, Far, and L a t e r a l f a l s e s because i n t h i s experiment t h e y a l l had t h e same average number o f descendants. However, I should p o i n t o u t t h a t t h i s was n o t a planned o r c o n t r o l l e d comparison i n t h i s experiment, so we a r e n o t c e r t a i n about o u r c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g F a l s e d e c i s i o n s . As noted, we can r e p r e s e n t t h e p r o c e d u r a l h i e r a r c h y i n t h i s experiment as a s e t of one-step p r o d u c t i o n s i n memory t h a t l i n k g o a l s t o subgoals. The process of s e a r c h i n g t h r o u g h t h e graph s t r u c t u r e would t h e n be s i m u l a t e d by t h e f i r i n g of p r o d u c t i o n s , whereby a goal a c t i v a t e s i t s immediate descend a n t s , which f i r e t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n s , a c t i v a t i n g t h e i r descendants. Thus w i l l a c t i v a t i o n spread across g e n e r a t i o n s . T h i s i s one way t o implement t h e node-search procedure t h a t i s s o f a m i l i a r i n semantic networks. To summarize, we've found t h a t t h e t i m e t o d e c i d e t h a t an a c t i o n i s p l a u s i b l e i n l i g h t o f a goal i n c r e a s e s almost l i n e a r l y w i t h t h e d e r i v a t i o n a l d i s t a n c e between t h e two i n t h e goal t r e e . B r a n c h i n g slows down t h e search, and r e p e t i t i o n o f p a r t i c u l a r pathways s t r e n g t h e n s them and speeds up t h e search.


13

FURTHER EXPERIMENTS ON GOAL-HIERARCHIES T h i s e x p e r i m e n t w i t h a novel goal h i e r a r c h y has y i e l d e d o r d e r l y r e s u l t s on t h e t i m e p e o p l e t a k e t o p e r f o r m memory search and v e r i f i c a t i o n . The t e c h n i q u e can be e x p l o i t e d t o examine a number o f q u e s t i o n s , some of which we p l a n t o pursue. F i r s t , we p l a n t o l o o k a t r e a d i n g t i m e f o r t h e second c l a u s e r a t h e r t h a n d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g p r o p e r p l a n s ; r e a d i n g comprehension s h o u l d be q u i c k e r f o r s h o r t e r g o a l - a c t i o n pathways. Second, t h e g o a l - t r e e i t s e l f can be v a r i e d s t r u c t u r a l l y s o t h a t one can s t u d y more s y s t e m a t i c a l l y t h e e f f e c t s o f branching i n the goal tree. Third, the t e s t could l i s t a c o n j u n c t i o n o f a c t i o n s and ask t h e s u b j e c t t o decide whether a l l of them were necessary and s u f f i c i e n t t o achieve some s u p e r o r d i n a t e g o a l . Fourth, i n t h e Foss experiment, t h e s u b j e c t l e a r n e d one l a r g e g o a l - t r e e and t h e t e s t s checked t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d t o r e t r i e v e d i f f e r e n t segments o f t h e t r e e ; no novel compositions o r arrangements were r e q u i r e d . The r e q u e s t f o r nov e l t y i n p l a n n i n g suggests f u r t h e r experiments i n which we f i r s t t e a c h t h e s u b j e c t s e v e r a l p i e c e s o f d i s j o i n t p l a n h i e r a r c h i e s , and t h e n measure how l o n g he t a k e s on t a s k s t h a t r e q u i r e him t o r e t r i e v e and assemble t h e p l a n pieces i n a p a r t i c u l a r order. CURRENT EXTENSIONS ON GOAL MONITORING I w i l l b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e two e x t e n s i o n s o f o u r g o a l - a c t i o n r e s e a r c h . One p r o j e c t concerns how t h e r e a d e r m o n i t o r s s e v e r a l g o a l s f o r t h e a c t o r . Imag i n e t h a t t h e opening of a s t o r y d e s c r i b e s s e v e r a l separate, independent g o a l s t h a t t h e a c t o r wants t o achieve as t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s a r i s e . We conc e i v e o f t h i s as t h e r e a d e r s e t t i n g up a g o a l - l i s t f o r t h a t c h a r a c t e r i n s h o r t - t e r m memory, and t h e n m o n i t o r i n g f o r an a c t i o n r e l e v a n t t o any o f these a c t i v e g o a l s . L a t e r when t h e t e x t d e s c r i b e s an a c t i o n , we imagine t h a t t o understand i t , t h e r e a d e r t r i e s t o connect i t up t o some one of t h e a c t i v e g o a l s f o r t h i s c h a r a c t e r . We may l i k e n t h i s process t o S t e r n b e r g ' s memory-scanning t a s k i n w h i c h t h e s u b j e c t searches f o r a probe d i g i t amongst a memory l i s t . Therefore, one p r e d i c t s a s e t - s i z e e f f e c t : t h a t i s , t h e more independent g o a l s one has t o keep i n mind f o r a c h a r a c t e r , t h e l o n g e r i t s h o u l d t a k e t o d e c i d e t h a t an a c t i o n f i t s i n t o a p l a n f o r some one of t h e s e g o a l s . The m a t e r i a l s o f t h i s experiment a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 5. The e x p e r i mental s u b j e c t reads many s m a l l v i g n e t t e s i n which a l i s t of 1, 3, o r 5 g o a l s i s i n t r o d u c e d , t h e n 0 o r 3 i r r e l e v a n t i n t e r p o l a t e d sentences o c c u r t o produce d i f f e r i n g amounts o f d e - a c t i v a t i o n , t h e n an a c t i o n s t a t e m e n t occurs. The s u b j e c t decides as q u i c k l y as he can whether t h e t e s t a c t i o n i s p l a u s i b i l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h some one o f t h e g o a l s . F i g u r e 5 i l l u s t r a t e s a t r i a l w i t h 3 goals, w i t h 3 i n t e r p o l a t e d sentences, and shows an example of a True a c t i o n as w e l l as a F a l s e a c t i o n ( o n l y one would be p r e s e n t e d p e r tri a1 )

.

f a r t h e r e s u l t s a r e c o n f i r m i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s . D e c i s i o n t i m e f o r an act i o n i n c r e a s e s w i t h t h e number o f a c t i v e g o a l s , and t h e s l o p e ( i n c r e a s e p e r g o a l ) i s l e s s f o r True t h a n f o r F a l s e a c t i o n probes. The s t e e p e r s l o p e f o r F a l s e s would a r i s e i f each g o a l - a c t i o n comparison t a k e s much l o n g e r t o decide mismatch t h a n t o d e c i d e match due t o s e a r c h i n g f o r e v e r more remote connections between mismatching elements. We a r e a l s o f i n d i n g t h a t t h e i n t e r p o l a t e d m a t e r i a l slows down a l l d e c i s i o n t i m e s and i n c r e a s e s e r r o r s ; t h i s was p r e d i c t e d s i n c e i n t e r p o l a t e d m a t e r i a l d e a c t i v a t e s t h e goal e l e ments, so t i m e i s needed t o r e a c t i v a t e t h e g o a l s t o compare t o t h e a c t i o n Probe. SO

TEXT STRUCTURE

14

J W WANTED

TO CATCH A FISH, LISTEN TO PIJSIC, TELEPHONE SALLY )

JOHii IS A H A R V MnN, ~~ HARVARD IS I N CAMBRIDGE, I T HAS ABOUT 6ooo UIlJlERGRADUATES, SO, JOHN GOT OLJT [HIS PHONOGWH] (OR) [HIS CHAINSAW ]

I

INTERPOLATED FILLERS

TRUE ACTION FALSE ACTION

Figure 5 I n sum, t h i s e x p e r i m e n t seems t o be w o r k i n g r a t h e r w e l l , w i t h r e s u l t s as expected. We p l a n t o e x t e n d i t t o s t u d y t h e e f f e c t s o f keeping t r a c k o f two c h a r a c t e r s ' goal l i s t s , d e l e t i n g g o a l s from t h e l i s t as t h e y ' r e achieved, u s i n g a c t i o n probes t h a t s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s a t i s f y s e v e r a l o f t h e g o a l s , and so on. The e x p e r i m e n t a l paradigm seems useful f o r answering many q u e s t i o n s about how p e o p l e t r a c k m u l t i p l e g o a l s and up-date t h e a c t i v e g o a l - l i s t f o r p a r t i c u l a r characters i n a s t o r y .

A second e x t e n s i o n C a r o l y n Foss and I a r e c u r r e n t l y e x p l o r i n g i s t o measure comprehension and d e c i s i o n t i m e u s i n g g o a l - h i e r a r c h i e s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a c t u a l s t o r i e s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , most of t h e f a i r y t a l e s C a r o l y n examined had v e r y s h a l l o w g o a l - t r e e s , which a r e n o t i d e a l f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g causal d i s t a n c e e f f e c t s . One s t o r y t h a t i s n o t o r i o u s f o r h a v i n g a l o n g c h a i n o f subgoals i s "The O l d Farmer and H i s Stubborn Donkey" (Rumelhart, 1975), s o we a r e u s i n g t h a t i n a c u r r e n t experiment. The e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s a r e b e i n g t i m e d w h i l e d e c i d i n g t h e t r u t h o f causal i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e f o r m " I n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e X, t h e f a r m e r d i d Y " . As before, t h e b a s i c q u e s t i o n i s whether d e c i s i o n t i m e w i l l i n c r e a s e w i t h t h e d i s t a n c e between t h e goal and t h e a c t i o n i n t h e h i e r a r c h y . I ' m hoping t h a t t h e r e s t i l t s o f t h i s s t u d y w i l l c o n f i r m o u r e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s b u t w i t h a goal h i e r a r c h y t h e s u b j e c t has learned w i t h i n a r e a l s t o r y . CONCLUDING REMARKS I t i s t i m e t h a t I b r i n g t h i s paper t o a c l o s e . I have been d i s c u s s i n g episodes and t h e p l a n - g o a l a n a l y s i s o f a c t i o n s , and have i n v e s t i g a t e d how p e o p l e comprehend a c t i o n s i n t i g h t o f goals, o r g o a l s i n l i g h t of a c t i o n s . The g u i d i n g theme i s t h a t r e a d e r s search f o r e x p l a n a t i o n s o f n a r r a t i v e e v e n t s , and t h a t t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f comprehension, and hence r e a d i n g t i m e , i n c r e a s e s t h e g r e a t e r t h e d e r i v a t i o n a l d i s t a n c e between a goal and a r e l e v a n t a c t i o n i n a p l a n n i n g space. A l s o , t r a c k i n g t h e g o a l s o f a c h a r a c t e r

15

PLANS A N D GOAL IN UNDERSTANDING EPISODES

can be thought of as maintaining those goals in a c t i v e memory a s explanatory sources f o r l a t e r events, with t h e time t o find a given goal-to-action linkage depending on how many goals a r e a c t i v e , how long i s t h e l i n k u p , how activated a r e the c o r r e c t versus incorrect goals, and so on. These findings a r e n o t e s p e c i a l l y s u r p r i s i n g given the t h e o r e t i c a l analysis of the comprehension tasks in terms of goal hierarchies and memory search t h r o u g h activated elements in short-term memory. B u t the power o f such ideas from cognitive psychology i s t h e i r a b i l i t y t o explain d i f f e r e n t phenomena. The value of a t h e o r e t i c a l framework i s sometimes j u s t t o enable us t o think systematically about c e r t a i n phenomena and t o frame questions about them in such manner t h a t the answers seem almost obvious. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , researchers' f e e l i n g of understanding events in nature by s u b s t a n t i a t i n g t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l expectations runs almost exactly p a r a l l e l t o readers' f e e l i n g of understanding s t o r y events because they s u b s t a n t i a t e predictions t h e y ' r e made about the characters. This seems e n t i r e l y f i t t i n g since b o t h the s c i e n t i s t and t h e comprehender a r e j u s t t r y i n g t o explain events t h a t engage t h e i r a t t e n t i o n .

FOOTNOTE Research reported here was supported by a grant MH-13905 t o the author from the United S t a t e s N . I . M . H . REFERENCES Black, J . B. & Bower, G . H . Story understanding as problem-solving. Poetics, 1980, 9,223-250. Bower, G. H . Experiments on s t o r y understanding and r e c a l l . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976, 8, 511-534.

Quarterly

ammer, A. Toward a theory of question-asking. Research B u l l e t i n , Nr. 2 2 , University of Fribourg, Psychologisches I n s t i t u t , Fribourg, CH. 1980. chtenstein, E. H. & Brewer, W . F. Memory f o r goal-directed events. Cognitive Psychology, 1980, 12, 412-445. Rumelhart, D. E. Notes on a schema f o r s t o r i e s . I n : D. Bobrow and A. Collins ( E d s . ) , M r e s e n t a t i o n and understanding. New York: Academic Press, 1975, P p . 237-272. Schank, R. C . & Abelson, R. P . S c r i p t s , plans, goals, and understanding. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. 1977. Thorndyke, P. W . Cognitive s t r u c t u r e s in comprehension and memory of n a r r a t i v e discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 2, 77-110 van Dijk, T .

Some aspects of t e x t grammars.

The Hague:

Mouton.

1972.

Wilensky, R . Understanding goal-based s t o r i e s . P h . D . D i s s e r t a t i o n , Research Report 11140, Computer Science Dept., Yale University, 1978.

DISCOURSE PROCESSLNC A . Flammerand W. Kintsch (eds.) @ North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982

WHAT MAKES A GOOD STORY? Towards t h e production of conversational narratives'

Uta M . Quasthoff and Kurt Nikolaus Freie Universi t a t Berlin Fachbereich Germanistik Habelschwerdter Allee 45 1000 Berlin 33 This paper presents l i n g u i s t i c c r i t e r i a f o r the evaluation of conversational n a r r a t i v e s . These c r i t e r i a a r e derived from a theory of n a r r a t i v e t e x t s which i s based on a d e s c r i p t i v e mapping of t h e process of planning a n d producing a non-fict i o u s s t o r y in conversation. The theory includes not only aspects of discourse s t r u c t u r e , b u t a l s o s i t u a t i o n a l and functional v a r i a b l e s . The empirical basis of the study i s a l a r g e tape-recorded corpus of everyday s t o r i e s in natural conversation ( i n German).

1 . PRODUCTION OF CONVERSATIONAL NARRATIVES Though well in l i n e with the t r a d i t i o n derived from B a r t l e t t (and o t h e r s ) , o u r own approach t o t e x t processing d i f f e r s from mainstream cognitive s c i ence in t h r e e major r e s p e c t s : a ) Since discourse production i s l o g i c a l l y p r i o r t o discourse comprehens i o n , we deal with t h e former aspect of processing r a t h e r than t h e 1a t t e r . b ) Since written t e x t s r e l y on basic forms encountered in everyday communication, we focus on oral discourse. (Moreover, written language i s subject t o a higher degree of normative r i g i d i t y , whereas everyday speech i s much more variable and f l e x i b l e . ) c ) Since laboratory experiments do n o t provide an easy basis f o r general i z i n g t o "normal" l i f e , we t r y t o i n v e s t i g a t e discourse production in natural s e t t i n g s . 1 . 1 . The notion of "conversational n a r r a t i v e "

As linguists,we focus on t h e sometimes s u b t l e s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between d i f f e r e n t kinds of t e x t s . So we tend t o l i m i t our subject t o r a t h e r s p e c i f i c discourse u n i t s : i . e . , we shall deal only with w h a t we have called "conversational n a r r a t i v e s " .

+This

research was supported by a grant of the Volkswagen-Stiftung f o r our research p r o j e c t "Kognitive u n d sprachliche Entwicklung am Beispiel des frzahlens in naturlichen Interaktionssituationen". The c r i t e r i a were developed t o enable the ranking of c h i l d r e n ' s n a r r a t i v e s . 16

WHAT MAKES A GOOD STORY?

17

A conversational n a r r a t i v e i s a n o r a l l y realized discourse u n i t , which emerges spontaneaously in conversation. I t i s a communicative way of forming experience a n d coping with i t . I t i s constrained by t h e following semantic and formal conditions: Semantic conditions:

-

The r e f e r e n t of the n a r r a t i v e discourse i s some fragment of r e a l i t y in the p a s t , in our c u l t u r e , a sequence of actions and/or events. This r e f e r e n t i s c a l l e d "episode". The episode i s uniquely i d e n t i f i a b l e by a c e r t a i n point in time and a c e r t a i n place. I t i s not a habitual happening o r behavior. The episode i s reportable (Labov and Waletzky 1967 and Labov 1972). The r e p o r t a b i l i t y of an episode i s the r e s u l t of an a t l e a s t minimal unusualness r e l a t i v e t o the expectations o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t in t h e episode and/ or expectations t h a t a r e based on general norms or frames. The n a r r a t o r i s i d e n t i c a l with one of the p a r t i c i p a n t s ( " c h a r a c t e r s " ) in the episode (agent, p a t i e n t , o b s e r v e r . . . ) .

Formal conditions: Compared t o other forms of representing past experience ( e . g . , the r e p o r t ) the conversational n a r r a t i v e i s a vivid replaying (Goffman, 1974) r a t h e r t h a n a matter-of-fact presentation of the episode. As a consequence of t h i s form of representation, the following l i n g u i s t i c means a r e typical of conversational n a r r a t i v e s :

-

Evaluative and expressive l i n g u i s t i c forms Direct speech, including imitation of the c h a r a c t e r s ' voices (accent, p i t c h , intonation + speech rhythm) - A high degree of d e t a i l in presenting t h e s t o r y , "atomization" of thecontinuum of actions and events ( a t l e a s t in some parts of t h e n a r r a t i v e ) - The use of h i s t o r i c a l present ( a t l e a s t in the atomized p a r t of t h e narrative). Please note t h a t t h e term "episode" - in c o n t r a s t t o t h e term "narrative" i s used t o r e f e r t o a non-linguistic, non-mental, n o n - f i c t i t i o u s , r e a l world e n t i t y ; whereas n a r r a t i v e s c o n s i s t of utterances, episodes a r e by def i n i t i o n made u p of s t a t e s , events, and a c t i o n s . (Following v . Wright (1963), we take an event t o be the t r a n s i t i o n from one s t a t e of a f f a i r s t o another and an action t o be the intentional bringing about o r preventing of an event.) 1 . 2 . Production schema

Since 1974, we nal n a r r a t i v e s such a s t h e s e , nal n a r r a t i v e s Figure 1 ) . Our

have been c o l l e c t i n g a large corpus o f (German) conversatioa s defined above. S e t t i n g out from purely observational data we t r i e d t o develop a d e s c r i p t i v e model of how conversatioa r e produced by a n a r r a t o r on a p a r t i c u l a r occasion ( s e e production schema r e s t s on t h e following assumptions:

a ) Discourse production i s a cognitive process t h a t c o n s i s t s i n the format i o n and r e a l i z a t i o n of cognitive plans. We use t h e concept of "plan" as proposed by Miller, Galanter & Pribram (1960), without presupposing any conscious i n t e n t i o n s .

18

TEXT STRUCTURE Fi Q U W 1 : PRODUffION SCHEMA FOR CONVERSATIONAL NARRATIVES episode

1

t h e period to

0

-

tire 0 period

j

L

ol in in 0, 0,

rn

in

c. c1.

inrt

ti rL in in

ts

2 2. n

rn

:: ,& CI

x

ZzlII

0

z

results i n

a

%

relational structure i s made co!c!etL

I

by

i n f o m t i o n a l structur I

selects

.

,

.

paning a r t one of textual 1) (proposition grammatical /phonJloLi c a l realization' I

p form a r t one of textual (utterance 7)

9

leads to

-

1

I

___---_ = v a r i a b l e processes = necessary processes -.-. -. -. - = processes n o t included i n n a r r a t i v e production

I

situation 2

I

I

10

I


19

b ) T h i s planning process can be described a s 3 s e r i e s of decisions on seve-

C)

r a l l e v e l s of information processing t h a t a r e h i e r a r c h i c a l l y ordered, such t h a t every s t e p in t h i s process i s b o t h controlled by the higherlevel s t e p s and e x e r t s control over the lower-level ones. Every subplan i s continuously monitored so a s t o conform t o t h e pragmat i c context within which the n a r r a t i v e i s being t o l d . This context includes both t h e social s i t u a t i o n (assumptions a b o u t l i s t e n e r ' s knowledge, s t a t u s , personality e t c . ) and the aims and i n t e n t i o n s of t h e speaker .

Figure 1 provides a crude v i s u a l i z a t i o n of the production of n a r r a t i v e s , s t e p s being denoted by rectangals and processes by arrows. The sequence of s t e p s and processes i s logical r a t h e r t h a n psychological o r temporal. The overall coherence of the production process i s provided by means of feedback loops (some of which have been omitted f o r the sake of s i m p l i c i t y ) . Some explanations may help in reading t h e diagram: The term " s i t u a t i o n " covers a l l t h e pragmatic aspects o f language use (soc i a l context, spatio-temporal surroundings, personal and social r e l a t i o n s between speaker and l i s t e n e r , t h e i r mutual knowledge, and the l i k e ) . You may read t h i s label a s a kind o f dummy symbol f o r any kind of information t h a t may be needed f o r t h e reconstruction or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r n a r r a t i v e a c t . (Some s i t u a t i o n a l aspects a r e specified a s names of t h e feedback loops connecting " s i t u a t i o n " with t h e other s t e p s of t h e production schema.) Each a n d every aspect of n a r r a t i v e production (or, f o r t h a t matter, of discourse production in general) depends o n , i s influenced by, and influences many pragmatic f a c t o r s . Since these e f f e c t s , unfortunately, a r e not e a s i l y controlled in experiments on t e x t processing, they a r e usually neglected. Secondly, by "cognitive s t o r y " we wish t.o r e f e r t o whatever mental representation of the real-world episode i s r e t r i e v e d (or reconstructed) from memory a t t h e time o f the n a r r a t i o n . This r e f l e c t s t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between what t h e n a r r a t o r r e c a l l s about what happened a n d what r e a l l y happened; i t a l s o r e f l e c t s the d i s t i n c t i o n between what the narrator r e c a l l s and what he/she a c t u a l l y t e l l s . As f a r as the d i s t i n c t i o n between communicative and i n t e r a c t i v e function/ goal i s concerned, we a r e well aware of t h e f a c t t h a t tllis terminology i s a b i t awkward; f o r lack of anything b e t t e r , we will use these terms in t h e following sense: Communicative functions r e l y on t h e c o n t e n t of a narrative, whereas i n t e r a c t i v e functions r e l y on i t s l i n g u i s t i c form, i . e . , the type 6: discourse u n i t i t s e l f ( f o r example, "report" vs. " n a r r a t i v e " ) . Obviously, some functions of conversational n a r r a t i v e s - 1 i ke argumentation self-aggrandizement - depend primarily on what i s told in t h e p a r t i c u l a r s t o r y . These a r e t h e functions t h a t a r e subsumed under the heading of "communicative functions". On t h e other hand, the very a c t of conversational narration (no matter what t h e subject i s ) may serve the function of creating an atmosphere of intimacy and t h u s help the narrator t o express and Promote h i s view of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n , namely "We're engaged in an lnformal context with a r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e personal r e l a t i o n s h i p " . Therefore,

Or

20

TEXT STRUCTURE

we c a l l t h i s l a t t e r function of a conversational n a r r a t i v e and the corresponding intention of t h e narrator " i n t e r a c t i v e " .

The intended f u n c t i o n ( s ) , the cognitive s t o r y , and t h e i r appropriateness must be constantly checked against one another and the s i t u a t i o n ; t h i s f i n a l l y r e s u l t s in a decision t o t e l l a p a r t i c u l a r s t o r y ( o r t o r e f r a i n from doing s o ) . Once t h i s decision has been achieved, every b i t of information a b o u t the episode t h a t i s a c c e s s i b l e in t h e memory s t o r e i s retrieved (and missing l i n k s a r e reconstructed). This r e c a l l i s guided by n a r r a t i v e schemata t h a t a r e probably c u l t u r e - s p e c i f i c . The process of r e c a l l i n g f i n a l l y r e s u l t s i n an informational s t r u c t u r e which i s embedded i n a r e l a t i o n a l net, the d e t a i l s of which cannot be given here. This complex semantic s t r u c t u r e then i s s e r i a l i z e d : i . e . , a t i n y fragment a t a time i s s e l e c t e d , verbalized, and f i n a l l y u t t e r e d . Of course, even the planning of the l i n g u i s t i c form of the u t t e r a n c e ( s ) i s dependent on a l l t h e preceding s t e p s in t h e production schema. With t h e r e a l i z a t i o n of the f i r s t utterance and l i s t e n e r r e a c t i o n s , a new s i t u a t i o n i s created so t h a t the planning cycle s t a r t s a17 over again.

I n our reconstruction of conversational n a r r a t i o n , we have emphasized t h e integration of b o t h s t r u c t u r a l and functional aspects of l i n g u i s t i c behavior. However, our production schema does not y e t include e x p l i c i t c r i t e r i a f o r evaluating n a r r a t i v e s . From our d e s c r i p t i v e modeling of the production process, we can derive such c r i t e r i a on a t h e o r e t i c a l basis and in a nonnormative way. Our basic hypothesis i s t h a t s t r u c t u r e s and functions have t o correspond, and be appropriate with regard t o the s i t u a t i o n . 2 . CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING CONVERSATIONAL NARRATIVES

2.1. Pragmatic c r i t e r i a The basic c r i t e r i a f o r "good" n a r r a t i v e s can be explained in terms of those s t e p s in our production schema t h a t precede the n a r r a t o r ' s decision t o t e l l a p a r t i c u l a r s t o r y . These c r i t e r i a specify what s t o r y ( i f any) i s going t o be t o l d , in c o n t r a s t t o i t ' s going t o be t o l d . E s s e n t i a l l y , t h e narrat o r ' s task in t h i s s t a g e of t h e production process i s t o coordinate t h e cognitive s t o r y he has in mind, the f u n c t i o n ( s ) he intends t o be f u l f i l l e d by the n a r r a t i v e , and t h e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e s i t u a t i o n held by himself and the l i s t e n e r ( s t e p s 1-4 of Figure 1 ) .

2.1 . l . Appropriateness of t h e conversational n a r r a t i v e t o t h e social situation Of course, one of the basic c r i t e r i a f o r good conversational n a r r a t i v e s has t o be s i t u a t i o n a l appropriateness: 1 . Production of conversational n a r r a t i v e s r e q u i r e s t h a t both speaker and l i s t e n e r be a t ease ( i n a l e i s u r e l y mood), must know something about each o t h e r , and a r e not busy otherwise.

WHAT HAKES A GOOD STORY?

21

Examples of v i o l a t i o n s : Trying t o t e l l a conversational n a r r a t i v e t o a stranger who i s chasing a bus v i o l a t e s a l l t h r e e aspects of c r i t e r i o n 1 ; or take a witness in court who t e l l s a long conversational n a r r a t i v e evaluating his observations a n d expressing h i s personal opinions instead of giving a genuine s h o r t r e p o r t . This l a s t v i o l a t i o n shows t h a t a relaxed mood i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important: I t i s t h i s c r i t e r i o n t h a t makes conversational n a r r a t i v e s inadequate in i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d contexts. There a r e a few exceptions t o t h i s r u l e , however. Conversational n a r r a t i v e s will be encouraged i f (and only i f ) a personal r e l a t i o n s h i p has been or i s being established between t h e representative of an i n s t i t u t i o n and a c l i e n t . This i s the case in therapeutic sessions. If the s i t u a t i o n does n o t f u l f i l l t h e above-mentioned requirements, i t does not favor the production of conversational n a r r a t i v e s . To a c e r t a i n degree, however, s t o r y t e l l i n g may be used as a device f o r redefining and changing the s i t u a t i o n ; we habe labeled t h i s as one of the i n t e r a c t i v e functions of conversational n a r r a t i v e s . 2 . 1 . 2 . S u i t a b i l i t y of the cognitive s t o r y f o r the intended f u n c t i o n ( s )

The cognitive s t o r y selected f o r narration must be compatible with t h e funct i o n ( s ) intended by t h e n a r r a t o r . Among t h e communicative functions, we d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the following kinds:

a ) functions t h a t a r e primarily speaker oriented (such a s psychological or communicative unburdening and self-aggrandizement) b ) functions t h a t a r e primarily hearer oriented (such as amusement/enter-

tainment and giving information) c ) functions t h a t a r e primarily context oriented (such as supporting an a r gument o r providing an explanation). Normally, these functions do not occur in i s o l a t i o n , b u t in combination (with one of them c l e a r l y dominating in most c a s e s ) . For most of t h e funct i o n s , t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e kind of episode t o be r e l a t e d (hence the cognitive s t o r y t h a t represents t h e episode) a r e abvious: 2 . a ) In the case of self-aggrandizement, the episode must contain elements

which would enhance the ( p o s i t i v e ) image of t h e narrator/agent. b ) In the case of entertainment, the episode must be a t l e a s t mildly

amusing with regard t o the expectations of t h e addressee; t h i s imp l i e s t h a t i t i s n o t t o o shocking, t r a g i c , e t c . c ) When t h e function of the n a r r a t i v e i s t o give information, i t must a t l e a s t add d e t a i l s t o t h e l i s t e n e r s ' previous knowledge. d ) When supporting an argument or providing a n explanation, t h e point of t h e episode must lend p l a u s i b i l i t y t o the claim being supported or explain the behavior a t s t a k e . Examples of violations a r e obvious, though r a r e .

As f a r as unburdening i s concerned, t h i s function i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t from t h e r e s t : I t s f u l f i l l m e n t i s guaranteed by the a c t of s t o r y - t e l l i n g I t s e l f , no matter what t h e l i s t e n e r ' s reactions may be. Since narratives with t h a t function a r e purely s u b j e c t i v e l y motivated, they allow f o r any

22

TEXT STRUCTURE

kind of episode that affected the emotional well-being of the narrator. Personal experiences that are accompanied by strong emotions always tend to result in conversational narratives with an unburdening function; if the corresponding emotions are very strong, they may even overcome social and contextual constraints and result in narratives that seem out of place, thus violating criterion 1 , situational appropriateness. 2.1.3. Reportability of the episode Apart from the communicative functions, any episode that is to be related must satisfy certain general conditions: 3. a) The episode must be reportable and interesting (i.e., something unexpected must have happened). Furthermore, it must not violate any cultural taboos. b) In addition, the cognitive story as a representation of the episode must be complete (i.e., it can be molded into a narrative structure to be discussed below). Example of a violation: A story that is trivial according to the expectations of the listener and/ or of which essential parts have been forgotten. Please note that a story is not interesting by itself, but becomes SO only with respect to a particular addressee in a particular context (see criterion 1). This context may serve as a recall cue for retrieving from longterm memory the episodes that are momentarily relevant. 2.1.4. Compatibility between functions and situations Certain communicative functions are restricted to certain kinds of conversa tional contexts:

4. a) Narratives with the context-oriented functions of explanation or gumentation are embedded in larger discourse segments (e.g., discussions); for that reason, any narrative designed to fulfill these functions must be thematically relevant to the topic that is being discussed. b) Amusement/entertainment is relatively independent of the surrounding discourse, but it does require a sociable situation. c) Psychological and communicative unburdening require special circumstances, namely a close personal relationship between narrator and listener, as has already been noted. d) Self-aggrandizement, by contrast, is not subject to any such restrictions; it is an aspect encountered in almost any conversational narrative where the narrator is a protagonist in the episode. Exampl es of viol a tions : A narrative about a holiday in Switzerland as part o f a discussion about the progress of linguistics in America; or telling funny stories at a burial.


23

I n t h e case of t h e context-oriented f u n ct i o n s , some of the c ha ra c te rs or a c t io v s contained i n t h e s t o r y must belong t o an already e sta blishe d "universe of d i sc o u r s e" ( i . e . , they must have already been mentioned). The speaker-oriented a n d t h e hearer-oriented f u n ct ions, however, allow f o r a s h i f t i n t o p i c much more than the context-oriented func tions d o . For a n a r r a t i v e t o be "good" o r "bad", i t i s a necessary ( b u t n o t s u f f i c i e n t ) condition t h a t i t must not v i o l a t e any of the se pragmatic re quire ments, otherwise i t i s l e s s l i k e l y t o f u l f i l l t h e intended f u n c t i o n ( s ) . So communicative e f f i c i en cy i s a valuable c r i t e r i o n f o r judging how "good" a n a r r a t i v e i s . The means, however, a r e a t l e a s t as important a s t h e ends; so now we s h a l l turn t o t h e d e t a i l s of t h e v er ba liz a tion process in which th e p a r t i c u l a r content of t h e s t o r y has t o be communicated, i t s s t r u c t u r e marked a n d i t s function indicated i n a way t h a t i s comprehensible t o the addressee. 2 . 2 . I n t e r a c t i o n between pragmatic and s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s

This s e c t i o n d e a l s with t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t e p s 1 t o 4 of the production schema - subsumed under t h e heading of "pragmatic f a c t o r s " a n d s t e p s 6 t o 9 , cal l ed " s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s " . Please note t h a t our concept o f s t r u c t u r e i s a dynamic one, which includes t h e semantic s t r u c t u r e of t h e n a r r a t i v e a s well a s t h e l i n g u i s t i c s u r f ace. Agreement between the pragmatic f a c t o r s and the d i f f e r e n t s t r u c t u r a l as p ect s i s considered a c r i t e r i o n f o r a good conversational n a r r a t i v e . 2 . 2 . 1 . Correspondence between pragmatic f a c t o r s and r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e The r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , i . e . , t h e r e l a t i o n a l l y ordered n a r r a t i v e schema, c l a s s i f i e s n a r r a t i v e s i n t o t h r e e semantic types, distinguishe d according t o t h r e e types of unusualness ( c f . Quasthoff 1980) and t h e d e f i n i t i o n of conversational n a r r a t i v e given above:

a ) agent r e a c t s t o unexpected act i o n s / ev en t s ; b ) observer witnesses unusual act i o n s / ev en t s ; C ) agent performs act i o n s unusual according t o general norms. The r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e includes semantically a n d pragmatically oriented r e l a t i o n s ; t h e r e a l i z a t i o n of t h e pragmatic r e l a t i o n s i s optional and depends, f o r i n st a n c e, on the s p e a k e r ' s assumptions about the l i s t e n e r ' s knowledge, e x p e c t a t i o n s , e t c . - i n short, on t he n a r r a t x ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of p a r t of t h e s i t u a t i o n . So we can d es cr i b e the f i r s t pragmatic-structural correspondence as follows: 5. The r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e includes l i s t e n e r o r i e n t i n g p a r t s , i f a n d oniy i f 1 i s t e n e r lacks necessary information about s e t t i n g a n d background of t h e episode. Examples of v i o l a t i o n s : liarrator f a i l s t o give information about time, pla c e , c h a r a c t e r s , a n d "background" of the episode, a1 t h o u g h 1 i s t e n e r ' s episodic memory or i n f e r e n t i a l c a p a c i t y do n o t a c t i v a t e t h i s information.

24

TEXT STRUCTURE

The opposite c a se , i n which the given information i s already a v a i l a b l e t o the l i s t e n e r , i s a l s o a v i o l a t i o n . Accordingly, c o r r e l a t i o n s can be assumed between the othe r pragmatic s t e p s of t h e production schema and t h e r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . This s t r u c t u r e cont a i n s a c e n t r a l element - the r e l a t i o n PLAN DISRUPTION. This r e l a t i o n r e f e r s t o a c t i o n s a n d / o r events which a r e unexpected with regard t o t h e "plan" of t h e narrator/observer/"generalized o t h e r " , (depending on t h e semantic type of t h e n a r r a t i v e ) . T h u s , t h e co gnitive s t o r y corresponds t o the r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e in two ways:

6 . The c o g n i t i v e s t o r y must involve a PLAN DISRUPTION. Example of a v i o l a t i o n : The d e s c r i p t i o n of a chain of act i o n s which follows t h e "normal course of events" would be a v i o l a t i o n of t h i s correspondence r u l e ("Yesterday I g o t u p , brushed my t e e t h , had b r eak f as t , l e f t f o r work . . . " i s n o t a good s t o r y ) . 7 . The n a r r a t o r must be involved i n t h e co g n i t ive s t o r y in one of t h e t h r e e ways which d i s t i n g u i s h semantic n a r r a t i v e types, a n d which a r e r e f l e c t e d in t h e r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . Example of a v i o l a t i o n : The t e l l i n g of a movie would n o t be a conversational n a r r a t i v e in the defined sense. The correspondence between the communicative goal and the r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e connects t h e s p e c i f i c communicative function of a n a r r a t i v e with the semantic type of t h e n a r r a t i v e and t h e pragmatically orie nte d p a r t s of th e r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e : 8. The semantic type of the n a r r a t i v e and i t s communicative function must be compatible.

Example of a v i o l a t i o n :

The communicative function of self-aggrandizement normally cannot be performed in a n a r r a t i v e of the observer type i n which the n a r r a t o r ' s r o l e i s r e s t r i c t e d t o mere observation. 9 . Orienting and e v al u at i v e parts of t h e r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e have t o sel e c t or q u a l i f i y the given information according t o the communicative function.

Example of a v i o l a t i o n : A n a r r a t i v e which i s intended t o serve a s evidence f o r a c e r t a i n f a c t should not give information t h a t could be judged a s counterevidence f o r t h i s part i c u l a r f a c t . I f such information i s given, i t has t o be q u a l i f i e d in a way t h a t prevents such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( e . g . , a s an e xc e ption).

The i n t e r a c t i v e goal governs the s p e c i f i c d i s course pa tte rn in which a p a r t i c u l a r fragment of r e a l i t y i s verbalized. Since n a r r a t i v e s and re ports


25

have different relational structures, it is the combination o f situation and interactive goal that triggers the narrative-specific relational structure as a whole: 10. If the definition of the situation does not favor or even excludes the verbal activity of telling a narrative, the relational structure of a narrative can still be evoked if the speaker intends (and is able) to change the definition of the situation.

Example of a violation: In a bureaucratic encounter, someone engages in telling conversational narratives instead of giving a report, with no intention of changing the formal relationship with his interlocutor to a more personal one. For lack of space, we will not present examples from our corpus. 2.2.2. Correspondence between pragmatic factors and informational structure The informational structure of a narrative is the set of propositions which the text (explicitly) contains or (implicitly) entails. This set of propositions is ordered by the relational structure. The informational structure differs from the cognitive story in two important respects: a) The cognitive story is restricted by mode and capacity of cognitive information processing. The informational structure, on the other hand, is dependent on the narrator's assumptions about the situation and the (communicative and interactive) functions of the narrative. So the information in the cognitive story will normally be selected (or even a l tered) to form the informational structure. b) The order in which information is stored and activated is primarily a psychological one for the cognitive story, about which we know relatively little. The order of components of the informational structure is primarily a linguistic one, and can be specified in terms of the discourse-specific relational structure. Please note that both sets of information are not conceived of as being in a linear order. The informational structure i s ordered relationally without the implication of a fixed sequence. Consequently, the etements of the informational structure have to be serialized for verbalization in later phases of the planning process. The hierarchical order of the informational structure can be conceptualized in terms of different layers of information which represent different degrees of detail. The underlying chain of actions and/or events can be chopped up in large or small units ("John sold his car" vs. "John put an ad in the paper, talked to several potential buyers on the phone, made arrangements for meeting with Mr. X, Y and Z..."). An inappropriate degree of detail in a narrative results either in incomprehensibility or in an absolutely boring narrative. A more important violation is presented by those narratives which do not vary the degree o f detail in accordance with the relational structure. So we can formulate the following pragrnaticstructural correspondence as a maxim for a good narrative:

26

TEXT STRUCTURE

1 1 . D o n ' t be more or l e s s d e t a i l e d t h a n i s required by l i s t e n e r ' s knowledge a n d i n f e r e n t i a l c a p a c i t y , your communicative and i n t e r a c t i v e goals and the r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of t h e n a r r a t i v e .

Examples o f v i o l a t i o n s : Narratives which a r e too d e t a i l e d will usually not be finished because of interventions of the l i s t e n e r . Narratives in which the s e t t i n g contains d e t a i l s t h a t a r e not relevent t o t h e main parts of the s t o r y a r e bad n a r r a t i v e s . They a r e even worse when t h e narrator proceeds t o give very l i t t l e information in t h e complication s e c t ion. 2 . 2 . 3 . Correspondence between cognitive planning a n d verbalization

I t i s only in t h i s " l a s t " p a r t of the production schema ( s t e p s 8 and 9) t h a t t h e actual wording a n d the sequential order of t h e n a r r a t i v e i s established. As s t a t e d above, our s t r u c t u r a l description of discourse, which i s semantically based, has t o include s e r i a l i z a t i o n r u l e s ( c f . Bartsch & Vennemann 1972). Since application of these r u l e s i s highly dependent on the conversational c o n t e x t , they have t o be conceptualized a s v a r i a b l e r u l e s (Labov 1969; Cedergren & Sankoff 1974). One o f the p r i n c i p l e s underlying t h i s s e r i a l i z a t i o n process, f o r example, i s t h e p r i n c i p l e "sequence of utterances maps sequence of events", which was so important t o Labov & Waletzky (1967). In olur version, t h i s categorical principle becomes a variable rule: "Sequence of utterance should map sequence of events, unless embedding in the conversational context, l i s t e ner i n t e r v e n t i o n s , building u p t h e point of the s t o r y e t c . advise otherwise." This transformation from categorical p r i n c i p l e s i n t o variable r u l e s i s considered t o be a transformation from normative t o d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s of narratives. I n order t o generate a n a r r a t i v e t e x t from the r e l a t i o n a l and informational s t r u c t u r e , t h e n a r r a t o r not only has t o s e r i a l i z e information. He a l s o has t o s t r u c t u r e t h e l i n g u i s t i c surface of h i s n a r r a t i v e ( a n d mark t h i s s t r u c t u r e a s w e l l ) . For t h e speaker himself, the s e r i a l i z e d order of the u t t e rances i s derived from t h e underlying semantic s t r u c t u r e s and t h u s well ordered. B u t the l i s t e n e r has t o reconstruct these underlying semantic s t r u c t u r e s on t h e b a s i s of the surface of the incoming t e x t , so t h i s surface has to give i n d i c a t i o n s a s t o t h e underlying semantic s t r u c t u r e s . These indications a r e normally given in the form of discourse markers (Wald 1978) o r contextualization cues (Gumperz 1978).

T h u s a c r i t e r i o n f o r a good n a r r a t i v e i s not only: 1 2 . S e r i a l i z e your utterance according t o t h e v a r i a b l e s e r i a l i z i n g r u l e s ; but also:


27

13. Be s u r e t o mark your n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e with relevant discourse markers and contextualization cues. Examples of v i o l a t i o n s : Relating several episodes within a s i n g l e n a r r a t i v e without c l e a r l y delimiting them; or r e l a t i n g out-of-the-ordinary events a s i f they were ordinary ones, without commenting on t h e i r unusualness. 3. PRINCIPLES FOR EVALUATING NARRATIVES We have shown how a d e t a i l e d , non-normative description of the production of n a r r a t i v e discourse can be transformed i n t o the formulation of c r i t e r i a f o r good n a r r a t i v e s . For t h e practical evaluation of everyday conversational n a r r a t i v e s , however, we s t i l l need t o r a n k these c r i t e r i a along t h e dimension "more important - l e s s important". The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the c r i t e r i a r e l a t e s t o our production schema in a very simple way: The lower the v i o l a t i o n in the production schema, the l e s s severe i t i s (and the e a s i e r t o r e p a i r i n conversation). To make t h i s ranking p l a u s i b l e , here a r e j u s t a few examples: The wrong sequence of two utterances, with respect t o the s e r i a l i z a t i o n r u l e s , does n o t turn an otherwise good n a r r a t i v e i n t o a bad one. This minor e r r o r i s e a s i l y repaired l o c a l l y . B u t i f t h e knowledge of the l i s t e n e r i s underestimated by the n a r r a t o r , the whole narration can f a i l . Possible repair i s a t l e a s t very complicated.

Two sources of n a r r a t i v e evaluation provided the empirical basis f o r t h e ranking of our c r i t e r i a :

a ) Ratings of 10 conversational n a r r a t i v e s by independent naive r a t e r s . Agreement among r a t e r s was high ( c o e f f i c i e n t of consistency r t t = .94), t h u s confirming our own i n t u i t i v e j u d g m e n t . b ) Conversational a n a l y s i s of 1 i s t e n e r s ' a c t i v i t i e s during and a f t e r conversational n a r r a t i o n . These l i s t e n e r a c t i v i t i e s ( l i k e laughing, i n t e r ruptions, questions, evaluations, e t c . , c f . Quasthoff 1981) always exp l i c i t l y o r i m p l i c i t l y judge the n a r r a t i v e . What remains t o be done i s t o provide manageable o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s for the c r i t e r i a proposed above. This work i s s t i l l i n progress, and would require an additional paper.

TEXT STRUCTURE

28

REFERENCES : B a r t s c h , R . & Vennemann, T. Semantic s t r u c t u r e s . A s t u d y i n the r e l a t i o n between s e m a n t i c s and s y n t a x . F r a n k f u r t a.M.: Athenaum, 1972. Cedergren, H . & S a n k o f f , 0 . V a r i a b l e r u l e s . Performance a s a s t a t i s t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n o f competence. Language, 1974, 50, 333-355. Goffman, E. Frame a n a l y s i s . An e s s a y on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n of e x p e r i e n c e . New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Gumperz, J . S p r a c h e , s o z i a l e s Wissen und i n t e r p e r s o n a l e Beziehungen. I n : U . Q u a s t h o f f ( E d . ) , S p r a c h s t r u k t u r - S o z i a l s t r u k t u r . Kronberg/Ts.: S c r i p t o r , 1978. Labov, W . C o n t r a c t i o n , d e l e t i o n and i n h e r e n t v a r i a b i l i t y o f t h e E n g l i s h 4 5 , 715-762. c o p u l a . Language, 1969, Labov, W . The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of e x p e r i e n c e i n n a r r a t i v e s y n t a x . I n : W . Labov, Language i n the i n n e r c i t y . S t u d i e s i n the Black E n g l i s h Verna_ c u l_ a r . P h i l a d e l p h i a : Univ. o f Pennsylvania Press, 1972. Labov, W . & Waletzky, J . N a r r a t i v e a n a l y s i s : Oral v e r s i o n s of p e r s o n a l exp e r i e n c e . 1n:H. Helm ( E d . ) , Essays on the v e r b a l and v i s u a l a r t s . S e a t t l e / L o n d o n , 1967. L i e n e r t , G. Testaufbau und T e s t a n a l y s e . Weinheim: B e l t z V e r l a g , 1961. M i l l e r , G . , G a l a n t e r , E . & Pribram, K . P l a n s and the s t r u c t u r e o f b e h a v i o r . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston, 1960. Q u a s t h o f f , U. Erzahlen in Gesprachen. L i n g u i s i t s c h e Untersuchungen z u S t r u k t u r e n und Funktionen am B e i s p i e l e i n e r Kommunikationsform d e s A l l t a g s . Tubingen: Gunter Narr V e r l a g , 1980. Q u a s t h o f f , U . Z u h o r e r a k t i v i t a t e n beim k o n v e r s a t i o n e l l e n E r z a h l e n . I n : Jahrbuch 1980 d e s I n s t i t u t s f u r d e u t s c h e S p r a c h e . D u s s e l d o r f : Schwann, 1981. Wald, B. Zur E i n h e i t l i c h k e i t und E i n l e i t u n g von D i s k u r s e i n h e i t e n . I n : U. Q u a s t h o f f ( E d . ) , S p r a c h s t r u k t u r - S o z i a l s t r u k t u r . Kronberg/Ts.: S c r i p t o r , 1978. V.

Wright, G . H . Norm and a c t i 0 n . A l o g i c a l e n q u i r y . London: Routledge & Kegan P a u l , 1963.

DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982

TEXT DIVISIONS AND STORY GRAMMARS

Hans C h r i s t o p h

Micko

I n s t i t u t e o f Psychology U n i v e r s i t y o f Technology B r a u n s c h w e i g , F.R. Germany T e x t d i v i s i o n s a r e i n v e s t i g a t e d as t e s t s f o r t h e p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e o f s t o r y gramnars.

PROSPECTS AND PROBLEMS OF THE TEXT DIVISION PARADIGM. When s u b j e c t s d i v i d e a t e x t i n t o c h a p t e r s , s e c t i o n s , s u b s e c t i o n s , sub-subsect i o n s e t c . , t h e y impose a h i e r a r c h i c a l t r e e s t r u c t u r e on t h e t e x t o r r a t h e r d e r i v e i t from t h e t e x t . D i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s may p r o d u c e d i f f e r e n t t r e e s b u t some u n i f o r m i t y can b e e x p e c t e d due t o t h e i n h e r e n t s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e x t . Whether u n i f o r m o r d i f f e r e n t , t e x t d i v i s i o n s a r e a most d i r e c t s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t how s u b j e c t s o r g a n i z e a t e x t . M o r e o v e r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s d e t a i l e d and o b t a i n a b l e a t l o w c o s t . A p p a r e n t l y s u b j e c t s c o n s i d e r t e x t d i v i s i o n t o b e an i n t e r e s t i n g and e a s y t a s k a l t h o u g h sometimes i t may t u r n o u t t o be q u i t e d i f f i c u l t . Two t e x t d i v i s i o n p a r a d i g m s can b e e n v i s a g e d : (1) S u b j e c t s may b e asked t o make a d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e t e x t f r o m memory i n t h e f o r m o f a t a b l e o f cont e n t s . That procedure i s s i m i l a r t o t h e summarizing paradigm, p u t t i n g weight, however, more on memory o f s t r u c t u r e t h a n o f c o n t e n t . ( 2 ) S u b j e c t s may b e asked t o p a r t i t i o n a t e x t w h i l e i t i s p r e s e n t e d , e i t h e r w i t h o r w i t h o u t t i m e p r e s s u r e and p o s s i b l y f o l l o w e d b y t h e r e q u e s t t o f i n d t i t l e s f o r t h e s e c t i o n s and s u b s e c t i o n s . The f o r m u l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n - h e a d i n g s i s a means o f m a k i n g s u b j e c t s aware o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i r t e x t d i v i s i o n i s n o n - o p t i m a l and should be corrected . T e x t d i v i s i , o n may be of i n t e r e s t i n i t s e l f . M o s t of i t s a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , however, d e r i v e s f r o m t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f u s i n g t h a t p a r a d i g m as a means o f s t u d y i n g t e x t memory s t r u c t u r e . I t i s n o t more t h a n an a s s u m p t i o n , of c o u r s e , t h a t t e x t d i v i s i o n s a r e a b l e t o r e p r e s e n t t e x t memory s t r u c t u r e s . I t i s a t e m p t i n g a s s u m p t i o n , however, s i n c e t e x t memory s t r u c t u r e s a r e f r e q u e n t l y c o n c e i v e d as h i e r a r c h i c a l t r e e s t r u c t u r e s , such as t e x t d i v i s i o n s a r e by n a t u r e . We may combine t h a t a s s u m p t i o n w i t h a n o t h e r f a m i l i a r a s s u m p t i o n , knownas t h e l e v e l o f h i e r a r c h y r u l e o f r e c a l l ( K i n t s c h , 1974; van D i j k , 1975; Thorndyke, 1 9 7 7 ) . T h a t w o u l d make i t p o s s i b l e t o t e s t t h e l e v e l o f h i e r a r c h y r u l e i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e c h o i c e o f some g e n e r a l s t o r y grammar f r o m w h i c h t o d e t e r m i n e t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l o f p r o p o s i t i o n s . R e f o r m u l a t e d i n terms of t e x t divisions, the r u l e predicts t h a t propositions from less frequently subdivided sections are b e t t e r r e c a l l e d than propositions from sections w h i c h a r e more o f t e n p a r t i t i o n e d and r e p a r t i t i o n e d . Thus t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l of a p r o p o s i t i o n i s d e t e r m i n e d f r o m t h e t e x t d i v i s i o n d a t a o f i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s , n o t f r o m one o r a n o t h e r g e n e r a l , and f a l l i b l e , s t o r y grammar. 29

30

TEXT STRUCTURE

I t may turn o u t , of course, t h a t t e x t division t r e e s d i f f e r fundamentally from s t o r y grammar t r e e s . Even in t h a t case an inspection of the difference may help t o shed l i g h t on the way memory works. I n t h i s paper, instead of predicting memory s t r u c t u r e s d i r e c t l y from t e x t division t r e e s , we compare the l a t t e r with t r e e s t r u c t u r e s derived from s t o r y grammars. Presumably i t was never claimed t h a t s t o r y grammars predict t e x t divisions. However, since b o t h are supposed t o predict s t o r y memory s t r u c t u r e s , (Black, 1978) they should c o r r e l a t e as well; and obviously a s t o r y grammar t h a t i s able to predict t e x t division data would be preferred t o a grammar t h a t does not - i f not from a l i n g u i s t ' s point of view then a t l e a s t from t h a t of a psychologist. When predicting t e x t division trees from s t o r y grammar t r e e s we assume the following f o r any hierarchy level of the t e x t division t r e e : Two successive propositions a r e the more l i k e l y t o f a l l i n t o d i f f e r e n t ( i d e n t i c a l ) sections the higher u p ( f u r t h e r down) in the s t o r y grammar t r e e the l i n e s from the respective terminal nodes merse. I n other words, we assume t h a t subjects mark a boundary between superordinate sections of a s t o r y in the space between successive propositions whose l i n e s from the terminal nodes merge high u p in the s t o r y grammar t r e e . An i n t e r s e c t i o n between subordinate sections i s placed between propositions the lines of which merge somewhat f u r t h e r down in the grammar t r e e , and no i n t e r s e c t i o n i s placed between propositions which a r e already merged on the lowermost l e v e l . Three s p e c i f i c a t i o n s or supplements t o the above general assumption a r e required in order t o p r e d i c t t e x t division t r e e s from s t o r y grammar t r e e s precisely: ( 1 ) We cannot expect t e x t division t r e e s t o match s t o r y grammar t r e e s perf e c t l y . Many or most terminal nodes of s t o r y grammar t r e e s represent propositions which a r e n o t e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d in the s t o r y because they a r e of minor importance or because they can be i n f e r r e d . Moreover, some or many hierarchy levels may be redundant in the sense t h a t they represent rewrite rules which do n o t impose a f i n e r p a r t i t i o n on the s e t of e x p l i c i t propositions by themselves. Such rewrite rules only serve as a l i n k f o r f u r t h e r rewrite r u l e s . Each successive i n f e r i o r level of a s t o r y division t r e e , on the other h a n d , represents a f i n e r p a r t i t i o n of the s e t of e x p l i c i t propositions. Therefore, we prefer t o compare reduced s t o r y grammar trees with s t o r y division t r e e s . I n a reduced s t o r y Frammar t r e e a l l terminal nodes a r e omitted which do not represent e x p l i c i t propositions of the s t o r y . S i m i l a r l y , a l l nonterminal nodes are omitted which do n o t r e s u l t i n a f i n e r p a r t i t i o n of the e x p l i c i t s t o r y on the immediately subordinate l e v e l . F i y r e 1 gives an example. ( 2 ) Story grammars s u f f e r from a c e r t a i n ambiguity since they define only a p a r t i a l ordering of the nodes within a t r e e . We cannot compare the hierarchy l e v e l s of propositions or subordinate t e x t u n i t s across superordinate u n i t s , i.e.,we do not know whether subordinate u n i t s within one p a r t of the s t o r y merge i n t o superordinate units higher u p or f u r t h e r down in the hierarchy t h a n units in another p a r t of the s t o r y . (Compare,e.g.,the s e t of propositions ( 1 , Z ) with the s e t ( 3 , 4 , 5 ) in Figure l a . The reduced t r e e s of Figures I b , 2a a n d 2 b a r e equivalent representations of van D i j k ' s s t o r y grammar.)

31

TEXT DIVISIONS AND STORY GRAMMARS hierarchy 1 eve1

a)

A 1 -

23 -

4 5 -

6 7 -

t 8 -low

0-

I

i gh

1 2 3 -

45 -

ow

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Figure 1 Complete ( a ) and reduced ( b ) s t o r y grammar t r e e representing the analysis o f the dog-story according t o van D i j k ' s s t o r y grammar. (Hyphens denote imp1 i ci t and numbers e x p l i c i t propositions of the s t o r y . Lines without terminal nodes represent optional s t o r y elements, missing in the dog-story.) If the number of hierarchy levels in d i f f e r e n t branches of a story grammar

t r e e i s the same, we expect only minor misrepresentations of the grammar when simply defining nodes of equal rank within t h e i r branches t o be o f equal rank in the t r e e ( s e e e . g . , t h e nodes which represent the roots Of subtrees ( ( - , 6 ) , ( - , 7 ) ) a n d ((8), ( 9 , l O ) ) in Figure l a ) . Usually, however, story grammars produce t r e e s with more hierarchy l e v e l s f o r some p a r t s Of the s t o r y than f o r others. I n Figure l a e.g.,more levels are required f o r the representation o f an episode than f o r t h a t of a s e t t i n g (episode: ( 3 , 4 , 5 ) , ( ( ( - ,6), ( - ,7)),( (8),( 9 , l O ) ) ) ,If) vs. s e t t i n g ( 1 , 2 ) ) . In t h a t case !he ambiguity cannot be overcome by a simple d e f i n i t i o n .

TEXT STRUCTURE

32 hierarchy level

a)

0 -high 1 2 -

3 -

4 5

0

- low

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

- hicjh

1 -

2 3 -

4 5

-low Figure 2 Reduced t r e e s e q u i v a l e n t t o t h a t o f F i g u r e l b as determined by t h e ( a ) extreme and ( b ) compromise r u l e f o r p r e d i c t i n g t e x t d i v i s i o n s .

For p r e d i c t i n g r e c a l l p r o b a b i l i t i e s the representation o f Figure l a i s a p p r o p r i a t e because, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e l e v e l o f h i e r a r c h y r u l e , t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l o f a p r o p o s i t i o n i s d e f i n e d as t h e number o f r e w r i t e r u l e s necessary t o i d e n t i f y t h e f u n c t i o n o f a p r o p o s i t i o n i n t h e s t o r y . T h a t number i s equal t o t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e t e r m i n a l node. The rank o r d e r o f these h i e r a r c h y l e v e l s , a f t e r o m i t t i n g redundant nodes, i s p r e s e r v e d i n t h e reduced t r e e o f F i g u r e l b . F o r t h e p r e d i c t i o n of t e x t d i v i s i o n d a t a , t h e e q u i v a l e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f F i g u r e 2a i s l i k e l y t o g i v e a b e t t e r f i t t h a n t h a t o f F i g u r e l b . T h a t i s t r u e a t l e a s t i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h o u r e x p e r i m e n t a l procedure o f a s k i n g subj e c t s t o s e p a r a t e s u b o r d i n a t e s e c t i o n s of a t e x t b y a v e r t i c a l l i n e and s u p e r o r d i n a t e s e c t i o n s by two o r more l i n e s . F i g u r e 2a d i f f e r s from t h a t o f F i g u r e l b i n t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l on which l i n e s merge. T h i s l e v e l i s chosen as n e a r t o t h e t e r m i n a l nodes as p o s s i b l e i n F i g u r e 2a and as n e a r p o s s i b l e t o t h e r o o t of t h e t r e e i n F i g u r e l b . The f o r m e r c h o i c e i m p l i e s t h e p r e d i c t i o n t h a t s u b j e c t s mark i n t e r s e c t i o n s by as few l i n e s as p o s s i b l e , t h e l a t t e r c h o i c e p r e d i c t s i n t e r s e c t i o n s t o be marked by as many l i n e s as p o s s i b l e . I n t h e absence o f counterevidence i t appears more r e a l i s t i c t o assume t h a t


33

s u b j e c t s p u t two s u c c e s s i v e p r o p o s i t i o n s i n t o one s u b o r d i n a t e o r a t l e a s t s u p e r o r d i n a t e s e c t i o n r a t h e r than i n t o d i f f e r e n t ones. I n l a r g e s t o r y grammar t r e e s , t h e number o f h i e r a r c h y l e v e l s may v a r y cons i d e r a b l y f r o m onebranch t o a n o t h e r . I n t h a t case we may w i s h t o have a r u l e t h a t compromises between t h e extreme r u l e s o f l e t t i n g l i n e s merge as n e a r t o t h e t r e e r o o t and as n e a r t o t h e t e r m i n a l nodes as p o s s i b l e . T h a t r u l e can be s t a t e d as f o l l o w s : L e t 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . ,i,. . . ,n denote t h e r a n k o r d e r , f r o m t o p t o bottom, o f t h e nodes l i n k i n g t h e roo! o f a reduced t r e e w i t h i t s k - t h t e r m i n a l node. Cons i d e r t h e s u b t r e e s e t t i n g o u t f r o m somenode I o f rank i and l e t 0,1,2, ..., nl denote t h e rank o r d e r of t h e nodes l i n k i n g node I w i t h t h e 1 - t h t e r m i n a l node w i t h i n t h e s u b t r e e considered. O b v i o u s l y n O f o r any t e r m i n a l t h e new rank i ' , which i s node w i t h i n t h e s u b t r e e . We now a s s i q n t o node t h e n e a r e s t i n t e g e r t o t h e t e r m (max(n,).i)/max(n,)+i). T h i s procedure spaces t h e nodes l i n k i n g I an I - t h t e r m i n a l node i n r o u g h l y equal i n t e r v a l s o v e r t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l s between ranks i and max(nk). F i g u r e 2b r e s u l t s i f t h e compromise r u l e i s a p p l i e d t o t h e reduced t r e e o f F i y r e l b : F o r a l l t e r m i n a l nodes we o b t a i n i n = ( 5 . n k ) / ( o + n k ) = 5 , f o r node (9,lO) we o b t a i n ' ' ( 9 10 = ( 5 . 4 ) / ( 1 + 4 ) =4, and s o f b r t h , 1 ' ( 6 , 7 J = ( 5 . 3 ) / ( 1 + 3 ) + 0 , 2 5 = 4 , i ' ( 1 2 =(5.1),(1+1)+0,5=3, 4 5 ) 7 ( 5 . 2 / ( 1 + 2 ) - 0 . 3 13, i ' 8 9 , 1 0 ) = ( 5 . 3 ) / ( 2 + 3 j = i , i ' 6 7,*.,10)=(5-2)/ i ' ( 3!3!=2, 1 ' ( 3,4, . . ,I 1) = ( 5 . 1 ) / (&+I 1, i ' ( 1,2, . . ,I1) = ( 5 - 0 1/ i5+0)=O .

1

I=

The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e r u l e s f r o m which t h e t r e e s o f F i g u r e l b , 2a and 2b have been determined can be r e c o g n i z e d most e a s i l y by comparing t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l s of t h e r e s p e c t i v e nodes (1,Z). Perhaps more a p p r o p r i a t e methods f o r a b o l i s h i n g t h e a m b i g u i t y o f s t o r y grammars can be found if t h e c o n t e n t o f r e w r i t e r u l e s i s taken i n t o account as w e l l . I n t h a t case, however, d i f f e r e n t r u l e s have t o be d e f i n e d f o r d i f f e r e n t s t o r y grammars. Here, we p r e f e r t h e s i m p l i c i t y o f general r u l e s t o t h e c o m p l i c a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h procedures t h a t may n o t y i e l d more real i s t i c predictions. ( 3 ) S t o r y grammar t r e e s d i f f e r f r o m t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e s f u n d a m e n t a l l y by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e l a t t e r n e c e s s a r i l y p r e s e r v e t h e sequence o f p r o p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n a t e x t , w h i l e t h e former do n o t . Some s t o r y g r a m a r s c o n s i d e r semantic r e l a t i o n s between c o n s t i t u e n t s o f a r e w r i t e r u l e , e.g. ,event A enables e v e n t B, o r a c t i o n C r e s u l t s i n e v e n t D. They cannot p r e d i c t , however, t h e sequence i n which these events and a c t i o n s a r e r e p o r t e d i n a s t o r y , because a l m o s t any c o n t e n t can be p r e s e n t e d i n v a r i o u s a1 t e r n a t i v e sequences o f p r o p o s i t i o n s , more t h a n one o f which may b e o p t i m a l o r n e a r l y o p t i m a l f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g . As a consequence we may encounter s t o r y grammar t r e e s , t h e t e r m i n a l nodes o f which a r e a r r a n g e d i n an o r d e r d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e p r o P o s i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e s t o r y . T h e r e f o r e an a d d i t i o n a l r u l e f o r p r e d i c t i n g s t o r y d i v i s i o n t r e e s f r o m s t o r y grammar t r e e s i s r e q u i r e d , a r u l e t h a t handles i n v e r t e d p r o p o s i t i o n sequences.

Apparent d i s c r e p a n c i e s between t h e p r o p o s i t i o n sequences i n t h e s t o r y and s t o r y grammar t r e e need n o t b e r e a l s i n c e s t o r y g r a m a r t r e e s a r e i n v a r i a n t under changes o f t h e sequence of l i n e s which s e t o u t f r o m one node. Theref o r e an a d m i s s i b l e rearrangement o f t h o s e l i n e s may a l r e a d y r e s u l t i n a t r e e which r e p r e s e n t s t h e s t o r y grammar and preserves t h e p r o p o s i t i o n sequence of t h e s t o r y as w e l l . Consider, e.g.,the s t o r y grammar t r e e ( a ) i n F i g u r e 3. I t s t e r m i n a l nodes r e p r e s e n t e i t h e r p r o p o s i t i o n s o r l a r g e r u n i t s . I n t h e

34

TEXT STRUCTURE

l a t t e r case t h e terminal nodes represent the roots of subtrees which a r e n o t depicted. Let the sequence of l e t t e r s A , B , C , D denote the temporal sequence of the four propositions or units of the s t o r y . The s t o r y grammar t r e e ( a ) predicts the same t e x t division whether i t s terminal nodes a r e labelled A,B,C,D or A,B,D,C, since the l i n e s ending a t C and D can be exchanged without a l t e r i n g the grammar t r e e . Moreover, the trees ( b ) , ( c ) and ( d ) of Figure 3 a r e equivalent t o ( a ) s i n c e they a l s o d i f f e r from ( a ) only in the sequential arrangement of l i n e s s e t t i n g o u t from one node. Any s t o r y grammar t h a t predicts one of these t r e e s predicts the others as we1 1 , each in combination w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r sequence of the s t o r y units: The equivalent t r e e ( b ) preserves the order A,B,C,D, i f the terminal nodes of ( a ) a r e labelled A,D,B,C o r A , D , C , B in succession. Similarly t r e e ( c ) i s order preserving i f t r e e ( a ) i s labelled D,A,B,C or D , A , C , B and ( d ) i f ( a ) i s labelled D,C,A,B o r D , C , B , A .

No order preserving equivalent t r e e can be found by admissible rearrangements i f a s t o r y grammar assigns t o some superordinate u n i t two subunits, which a r e separated in the s t o r y by dnother subunit which i s assigned t o a d i f f e r e n t superordinate u n i t . Consider e . g . , t h e s t o r y grammar t r e e ( a ) of Figure 3 with terminal nodes labelled B , C , A , D from l e f t to r i g h t . From t h a t t r e e the units A and D would be predicted t o f a l l i n t o a common section of a t e x t d i v i s i o n , a t l e a s t more l i k e l y so than any o t h e r p a i r of u n i t s . In the narration sequence, however, units A and D a r e separated by the units B and C which the grammar predicts t o f a l l r a t h e r i n t o d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n s . The simplest and most natural r u l e f o r predicting t e x t divisions from such grammar t r e e s s t a t e s t h a t subjects do not mark any i n t e r s e c t i o n between s t o r y units the order of which i s inverted in the grammar t r e e . In other words, i f two units belong together according t o the s t o r y grammar, they are assumed t o be placed i n t o the same s e c t i o n , together with everything t h a t may be narrated in between. Of course, each of the units may be subdivided i f appropriate. An a l t e r n a t i v e , l e s s radical r u l e demands some s o p h i s t i c a t i o n in i t s a p p l i cation since minor t r i a l and e r r o r manipulations of the s t o r y grammar t r e e have t o be performed. The r u l e requires one o r another node, superordinate t o the disarrayed s e r i e s of subunits, t o be ignored or t o be merged with the immediately subordinate dependent nodes ,respectively. In t h i s way one obtains a l a r g e r s e t of l i n e s s e t t i n g o u t from the combined node. These l i n e s may then be rearranged and possibly y i e l d the c o r r e c t sequence. I f the procedure i s s u c c e s s f u l , some i n t e r s e c t i o n s of lower order w i l l be predicted from the manipulated grammar t r e e while the former r u l e lumps a l l propositions together i n t o one s e c t i o n . The r e s u l t i s a compromise between the s t r u c t u r e represented by the s t o r y grammar t r e e and the undifferentiated s t r u c t u r e r e s u l t i n g from the more radical r u l e .

Consider again the s t o r y gramnar t r e e ( a ) in Figure 3 with terminal nodes labelled B , A , C , D o r B,A,D,C. The c o r r e c t sequence A,B,C,D cannot be obtained with any of the equivalent t r e e s . A merger of the r o o t and the intermediate nonterminal node o f t r e e ( a ) r e s u l t s i n t r e e ( e ) . That t r e e i s somewhat b u t not very d i f f e r e n t from t r e e ( a ) and i t permits the desired rearrangement. The predicted s t o r y division i s f a i r l y s i m i l a r t o t h a t predicted from t r e e ( a ) , only the section common t o the units A , C , D i s l o s t . This cannot be avoided since in the s t o r y sequence u n i t B i s located between units A and C , D . I f the nodes o f t r e e ( a ) a r e labelled C , D , A , B or C , D , B , A , an analogous manipulation of the equivalent t r e e ( d ) r e s u l t s in t r e e ( f ) , which again

TEXT D I V I S I O N S AND

A

A

B

D

C

A

D

B

C

A

B

A

A

D

C

35

STORY GRAMMARS

B

C

D

C

B

D

C

D

B

(i1 D

A

B

C

D

B

A

C

D

A

C

B

D

B

C

A

(j) 0

C

A

B

D

C

B

A

remain i g permutations A

B

A

C

D

B

A

D

C

C

D

A

B

C

D

e

A

1

A

A

B

C

D

B

C

B

C

D

D

Figure 3 Modifications of story grammar tree ( a ) which permit the rearrangement o f inverted sequences of story subunits. Equivalent trees ( b , c , d ) and trees obtained by the node-merging rule ( e , f ) , lump-together rule ( 9 ) and b o t h rules ( h , i , j ) . Permits a rearrangement of the units t o yield the correct sequence A,B,C,D. According t o the radical lumping rule tree ( 9 ) would be the predicted text division tree in a l l four cases. I t obviously differs more from the original 9~aImnartrees ( a ) and ( d ) t h a n the compromise trees ( e ) and ( f ) respectively.

36

TEXT STRUCTURE

o r A,C,D,B, a merger I f t h e t e r m i n a l nodes o f t r e e ( a ) a r e l a b e l l e d A,C,B,D o f t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e and lowermost n o n t e r m i n a l nodes o f t r e e ( a ) y i e l d s t r e e ( h ) which p e r m i t s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e rearrangement. The same r e s u l t i s obtained, however, by t h e r a d i c a l r u l e as w e l l , s i n c e i n v e r s i o n s o c c u r o n l y i n t h e t r i a d B,C,D which i s lumped t o g e t h e r by b o t h r u l e s . I n t h e case o f t h e t e r m i n a l nodes o f t r e e ( a ) b e i n g l a b e l l e d D,B,A,C o r D,B,C,A an analogous m a n i p u l a t i o n t r a n s f o r m s t r e e ( c ) o r ( d ) i n t o t r e e ( i ) which a l l o w s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e rearrangement o f l i n e s . The r e m a i n i n g e i g h t p e r m u t a t i o n s o f t h e sequence A,B,C,D which may be assoc i a t e d w i t h t r e e ( a ) r e q u i r e a l l f o u r u n i t s t o b e lumped t o g e t h e r as i n t r e e ( j ) i n o r d e r t o e n a b l e a s u c c e s s f u l rearrangement. I n a l l cases t h e u n i t r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e l e f t t e r m i n a l node o f t r e e ( a ) i s l o c a t e d i n t h e s t o r y between t h e two u n i t s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e two t e r m i n a l nodes t o t h e r i g h t . T h e r e f o r e no p a r t i t i o n e x c e p t t h a t p r e d i c t e d f r o m t r e e ( j ) makes sense. Tree ( j ) i s o b t a i n e d w i t h b o t h r u l e s , t h e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d lump t o g e t h e r - r u l e as w e l l as t h e compromise r u l e which has t o be a p p l i e d t w i c e can t e o b t a i n e d . b e f o r e t h e o r d e r A,B,C,D THE COMPARISON OF STORY GRAMMAR TREES WITH TEXT D I V I S I O N TREES. We r e s t r i c t o u r p r e s e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t o s t o r y grammars which a r e d e f i n e d b y r e w r i t e r u l e s . They impose on s u i t a b l e s t o r i e s a h i e r a r c h i c a l t r e e s t r u c t u r e t h e t e r m i n a l nodes o f which r e p r e s e n t t h e s t a t e d o r i n f e r r e d p r o p o s i t i o n s o f t h e s t o r y . Grammars o f t h i s k i n d have been proposed by Rumelhart (1975, 1977), van D i j k (1975), Thorndyke (1977), Mandler and Johnson (1977), and S t e i n and Glenn ( 1 9 7 7 ) . F o r t h e t i m e b e i n g , we w i l l i g n o r e s t o r y qrammars of K i n t s c h ( 1 9 7 4 ) , Schank (1975), B l a c k (1978), and G l o w a l l a (1981) -because t h e y r e q u i r e t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t o r a d d i t i o n a l , more c o m p l i c a t e d r u l e s f o r t h e p r e d i c t i o n o f t e x t d i v i s i o n d a t a . The grammars i n v e s t i g a t e d were a p p l i e d t o t h r e e s t o r i e s taken from B l a c k ( 1 9 7 8 ) : "The Dog and h i s Shadow" (11 p r o p o s i t i o n s ) , "The L i t t l e Boy" (19 p r o p o s i t i o n s ) , and "The O l d Farmer and h i s Donkey" ( 3 2 p r o p o s i t i o n s ) . Reduced s t o r y grammar t r e e s were d e r i v e d f o r t h e f i r s t two s t o r i e s , from t h e complete t r e e s o f B l a c k ( 1 9 7 8 ) . F o r t h e f a r m e r s t o r y t h e y were c o n s t r u c t e d b y t h e a u t h o r . I n v e r t e d p r o p o s i t i o n sequences o c c u r r e d i n t h e grammar t r e e s o f t h e f a r m e r s t o r y o n l y . They were remedied by t h e choice of an e q u i v a l e n t t r e e i n case o f t h e Mandler and Johnson grammar and by a p p l y i n g t h e l e s s r a d i c a l r u l e d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n i n a l l o t h e r cases. Two t r e e s were c o n s i d e r e d f o r each grammar, one i n which l i n e s merged as c l o s e l y t o t h e r o o t , and one i n which t h e y merged as c l o s e l y t o t h e t e r m i n a l nodes as p o s s i b l e . I n t h e m a j o r i t y o f cases t h e t r e e s o b t a i n e d w i t h t h e l a t t e r r u l e y i e l d e d a b e t t e r f i t and were chosen, t h e r e f o r e , t o r e p r e s e n t t h e grammar. T h i s c h o i c e does n o t a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t s . The compromise formula was n o t a p p l i e d s i n c e t h e t r e e s c o n s t r u c t e d by t h e extreme r u l e s d i f f e r e d o n l y moderately. The s t o r i e s and s t o r y grammar t r e e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Micko (1982). METHOD S u b j e c t s . 40 s t u d e n t s of t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Technology, Brunswick, were a s s i g n e d a t random t o an "experienced" o r "unexperienced" group.

37

TEXT D I V I S I O N S AND STORY GRAMMARS

M a t e r i a l s . The r e s u l t s of a, p i l o t e x p e r i m e n t gave r i s e t o t h e s u s p i c i o n t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e l i k e l y t o be assigned t o t h e same s e c t i o n i f t h e y a r e f o r m u l a t e d as super- and s u b o r d i n a t e clauses i n one sentence. Such an assignment i s l e s s l i k e l y i f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e s t a t e d i n s e p a r a t e main clauses. T h e r e f o r e t h e s t o r i e s employed i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y were r e f o r m u l a t e d s o t h a t a l l p r o p o s i t i o n s were r e p r e s e n t e d by a main clause. The r e v i s e d v e r s i o n s o f t h e s t o r i e s were p r i n t e d on a s e p a r a t e s h e e t o f paper each. Three spacings i n s t e a d o f one were l e f t between s u c c e s s i v e clauses f o r s u b j e c t s t o mark i n t e r s e c t i o n s . S u f f i c i e n t space was p r o v i d e d f o r t h e formul a t i o n o f headings. Two copies were made of e v e r y sheet, one f o r making and one f o r c o r r e c t i n g t h e d i v i s i o n i f necessary. A l l i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n i n w r i t i n g , e i t h e r on t o p o f t h e w o r k i n g sheets o r on s e p a r a t e sheets p l a c e d i n f r o n t o f t h e w o r k i n g sheets. A t t h e b o t t o m o f most pages, space was r e s e r v e d f o r n o t i n g t h e t i m e o f t h e page b e i n g t u r n e d o v e r i n o r d e r t o begin w i t h t h e subsequent t a s k . The sheets were made up i n t o a b o o k l e t t o g e t h e r w i t h a d d i t i o n a l sheets f o r w r i t i n g and p a r t i t i o n i n g r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s . The b o o k l e t s f o r t h e e x p e r i e n c e d a.nd unexperienced group d i f f e r e d t o t h e e x t e n t necessary t o account f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t temporal arrangements o f t a s k s . ___-. Procedure. Students s i t t i n g i n t h e r e a d i n g room o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r y were exposed t o a w r i t t e n r e q u e s t f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e experiment. V o l u n t e e r s were assigned a t random t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s and given t h e r e s p e c t i v e b o o k l e t . S u b j e c t s o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e d group were asked i n t h e w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n t o memorize t h e f i r s t s t o r y , t h e n t o memorize t h e second and t h e n t h e t h i r d . A f t e r t h a t , t h e s t o r i e s had t o be r e c a l l e d and recounted i n t h e same sequence. I n a t h i r d s t e p s u b j e c t s g a i n e d e x p e r i e n c e i n t e x t d i v i s i o n by p a r t i t i o n i n g t h e i r r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s one a f t e r a n o t h e r . They were a l s o i n s t r u c t e d t o f i n d a h e a d i n g f o r e v e r y super- and s u b o r d i n a t e s e c t i o n o f t h e i r r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s . F i n a l l y , s u b j e c t s were asked t o f i n d t h e most a p p r o p r i d i v i s i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l s t o r i e s . These c o u l d b e d i v i d e d e i t h e r i n t o equival e n t s e c t i o n s o r i n t o s e c t i o n s , s u b s e c t i o n s , sub-subsections, e t c . I n t e r s e c t i o n s were t o be marked by one o r more v e r t i c a l l i n e s , t h e number o f l i n e s depending on whether more o r l e s s s u p e r o r d i n a t e s e c t i o n s were t o be separated. I n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t h e f o l l o w i n g examples were given, each pa r o f p o i n t s representing a proposition:

111 . Again s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d t o f o r m u l a t e headings f o r each super- o r subo r d i n a t e s e c t i o n , and t h e y were a l l o w e d t o c o r r e c t t e x t d i v i s i o n s which they considered n o n o p t i m a l . Subjects o f t h e unexperienced group were g i v e n t h e t a s k o f d i v i d i n g t h e o r i g i n a l s t o r i e s f i r s t . Only a f t e r w a r d s were t h e y unexpectedly r e q u i r e d t o r e c a l l t h e s t o r i e s and t o p a r t i t i o n t h e r e c o u n t i n g s . I n s t r u c t i o n s were t h e same as those f o r t h e e x p e r i e n c e d group, s u b j e c t t o a p p r o p r i a t e v a r i a t i o n s t o account f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t temporal sequence of t a s k s .

A l l s u b j e c t s were f r e e t o use as much t i m e as t h e y p l e a s e d f o r t h e completion of each t a s k . U s u a l l y 60 - 90 minutes were r e q u i r e d a l t o g e t h e r . S u b j e c t s were p a i d 10.DM. An a d d i t i o n a l bonus o f 20.DM was promised t o those s i x

TEXT STRUCTURE

38

s u b j e c t s who produced t h e b e s t performance a c c o r d i n g t o some u n s p e c i f i e d comoosi t e c r i t e r i o n . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The predominant i m p r e s s i o n conveyed by t h e raw d a t a o f t h e experiment i s t h e l a r g e v a r i a b i l i t y o f t h e p a r t i t i o n s produced. W i t h i n t h e unexperienced group, one d i v i s i o n o c c u r r e d f o u r times and t h r e e d i v i s i o n s t w i c e . W i t h i n t h e e x p e r i e n c e d group, o n l y one p a r t i t i o n o c c u r r e d t w i c e . The r e m a i n i n g 170 d i v i s i o n s were a l l d i f f e r e n t f r o m each o t h e r w i t h i n groups. A comparison across groups would h a r d l y have changed t h a t p i c t u r e . O f course, many p a r t i t i o n s were s i m i l a r , b u t o t h e r s were q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m each o t h e r . Any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g assumption accounts f o r t h e d i v e r s i t y o f p a r t i t i o n s : ( 1 ) There e x i s t s a p a r t i c u l a r , s u b j e c t i v e l y most s a t i s f a c t o r y , p a r t i t i o n f o r each s t o r y . The i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b i l i t y i s due t o random d e v i a t i o n s f r o m t h a t p a r t i t i o n . ( 2 ) T h e r e e x i s t s a l i m i t e d number o f t y p i c a l p a r t i t i o n s , r e p r e s e n t i n g d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s o f d i v i d i n g a t e x t . The i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a h i l it y p a r t l y r e p r e s e n t s d i f f e r e n c e s between s t y l e s and p a r t l y random d e v i a t i o n s f r o m t y p i c a l p a r t i t i o n s . ( 3 ) There e x i s t s a m u l t i t u d e o f subjectively satisfactory partitions o f the stories. Interindividual variabil i t y j u s t reflects that fact. With t h e second assumption i n mind a n o n h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s was performed i n o r d e r t o i d e n t i f y t h e p a r t i t i o n s o f s t o r i e s which a r e character i s t i c o f p a r t i c u l a r t e x t d i v i s i o n s t y l e s . The ( d i s ) s i m i l a r i t y o f p a r t i t i o n s was assessed by computing d i s t a n c e s between t h e r e s p e c t i v e t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e unweighted r D - m e t r i c on ranked t r e e s proposed by Boorman and O l i v i e r ( 1 9 7 3 ) . The i n d e x D i n r D r e p r e s e n t s t h e PAIRBONDSm e t r i c on p a r t i t i o n s d i s c u s s e d i n A r a b i e and Boorman (1973). The c h o i c e o f r D minimizes t h e u n a v o i d a b l e a r b i t r a r i n e s s o f any choice o f a t r e e m e t r i c , because ( 1 ) t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e s a r e ranked t r e e s and r i s t h e o n l y t r e e m e t r i c a v a i l a b l e f o r ranked t r e e s , ( 2 ) equal w e i g h t i n g o f a l l h i e r a r c h y l e v e l s i s t h e l e a s t a r b i t r a r y w e i g h t i n g and ( 3 ) PAIRBONDS i s t h e p a r t i t i o n m e t r i c f o r w h i c h more f a v o u r a b l e p r o p e r t i e s have been e s t a b l i s h e d than f o r any o t h e r p a r t i t i o n m e t r i c , f r o m a t h e o r e t i c a l as w e l l as f r o m an e m p i r i c a l p o i n t o f view. Standard n o n h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r i n g methods r e p r e s e n t c l u s t e r s as c e n t r e s o f g r a v i t y o f t h e elements w i t h i n a c l u s t e r . The c e n t r e of g r a v i t y , however, i s a meaningless concept i n t h e case o f d i s c r e t e spaces such as t h a t o f ranked t r e e s . We t h e r e f o r e r e p r e s e n t a c l u s t e r by i t s most c e n t r a l element, i . e . , by t h e t r e e o f s m a l l e s t average d i s t a n c e t o a l l o t h e r t r e e s o f t h e c l u s t e r . That procedure has t h e a d d i t i o n a l advantage t h a t s u r p r i s i n g l y o f t e n c e n t r a l elements o f c l u s t e r s remain i n v a r i a n t o v e r a l a r g e range o f number o f c l u s t e r s considered. Two c l u s t e r analyses were computed f o r each s t o r y , one f o r t h e 20 t r e e s produced by t h e e x p e r i e n c e d group and one f o r t h e 20 t r e e s o f t h e unexperienced group. The s m a l l number of t r e e s t o be c l u s t e r e d p e r m i t t e d a s y s t e m a t i c search f o r t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t r e e s o f a one-, two-, and s o f o r t h up t o a s e v e n - c l u s t e r s o l u t i o n . The s o l u t i o n was d e f i n e d as t h a t t r e e , p a i r , triple, s e v e n - t u p l e o f t r e e s t h a t m i n i m i z e d t h e sum o f d i s t a n c e s w i t h i n c l u s t e r s , a f t e r t h e r e m a i n i n g t r e e s were assigned t o t h e c l u s t e r r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e n e a r e s t member o f t h e n - t u p l e . D e t a i l s of t h e a n a l y s i s a r e presented i n Micko (1982).

...,

39


Table 1 s t o r y

~ r a m m a r s l

R 75

vD

Th

M&J

S&G

R 77

-

2

4

6

14

14

10.6

8.0

9.7

8.2

Dog-s t o r y Number o f fits

best

Di s t r i b u t i onL ’’ o f distances

‘2 5 ‘50 c75 3 Distance t o compos. t r e e

7.3

6.7

11.6

8.8

11.2

9.6

8.3

8.9

13.4

9.8

12.7

10.8

10.0

10.3

13.7

7.8

14.6

9.9

9.2

7.2

-

4

4

15

2

15

37.7

21.0

31.4

20.5

20.5

17.0

Boy-s t o r y Number of b e s t fits D i s t r ibutionZy3 o f distances

‘25

‘

50

c75

41.7

33.5

35.3

27.0

28.7

29.0

43.2

39.0

38.5

33.0

36.6

37.2

33.6

17.4

33.1

15.5

17.3

13.4

5

25

-

2

8

-

14.5

11.4

18.0

16.0

14.4

17.0

16.4

14.0

20.3

18.3

15.8

19.0

18.7

16.3

23.7

21.7

18.0

21.3

12.8

10.5

16.7

16.8

13.7

15.2

3

Distance t o compos. t r e e Farmer- s t o r y

Number o f b e s t fits D i s t r ibutionZy3 o f distances

L25 r

L50 ‘75 Distance t o3 compos. t r e e

1 ) R 75, R 77 = Rumelhart (1975, 1977) 2) vD = van D i j k (1975) Th = Thorndyke (1977) M& J = Mandler and Johnson (1977) S&G = S t e i n and Glenn (1977)

Median and Q u a r t i l e s o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f distances between i n d i v i d u a l s t o r y d i v i s i o n t r e e s and t h e respect i v e s t o r y grammar t r e e .

3 ) U n i t s o f measurement d i f f e r across s t o r i e s .

40

TEXT STRUCTURE

Two t o f o u r c l u s t e r s were o b t a i n e d f o r each s e t o f d a t a on t h e b a s i s of s t a n d a r d b r e a k - o f f c r i t e r i a . The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e c l u s t e r s and t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t r e e s , however, i s i n doubt because o n l y once was a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t r e e found i n t h e e x p e r i e n c e d as w e l l as i n t h e unexperienced group. The r e m a i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t r e e s were found i n one o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l groups b u t n o t r e p l i c a t e d i n t h e o t h e r . Moreover, t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n o f c o n s i s t e n t p e r s o n a l s t o r y d i v i s i o n s t y l e s d i s c r i m i n a t i n g d i f f e r e n t types o f s u b j e c t s , because t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f c l u s t e r s changed c o m p l e t e l y across s t o r i e s . From t h i s l a c k o f s t a b i l i t y i n t h e r e s u l t s avross t e x t s and minor changes of e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s we conclude (1) t h a t t h e c l u s t e r s r e p r e s e n t more o r l e s s random s i m i l a r i t i e s o f s t o r y d i v i s i o n s , ( 2 ) t h a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t r e e s a r e a r t e f a c t s , and ( 3 ) as a consequence, t h a t t h e a t t e m p t t o i d e n t i f y a few predominant s t y l e s o f p a r t i t i o n i n g a s t o r y has f a i l e d . I n s p i t e o f t h e d i v e r s i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l s t o r y d i v i s i o n s , some l o c a t i o n s i n t h e t e x t were chosen by m n y o r most s u b j e c t s f o r m a r k i n g an i n t e r s e c t i o n and o t h e r s by few o r v e r y few. T h i s i n d i c a t e s a c e r t a i n degree o f commonality. I t was d e c i d e d t h e r e f o r e t o c o n s t r u c t a composite t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e by a d d i n g up t h e markings ( 1 , 2 , .... v e r t i c a l l i n e s ) o f a l l 40 s u b j e c t s i n each o f t h e i n t e r v a l s between two s u c c e s s i v e p r o p o s i t i o n s . T h i s procedure does n o t d i f f e r i n p r i n c i p l e f r o m t h e method o f c o n s t r u c t i n g a t r e e f r o m s o r t i n g data. The o b t a i n e d t r e e was reduced t o a ranked t r e e by c o n s i d e r i n g d i f f e r e n t frequencies o f marking i n t e r s e c t i o n s t o be equal i f they d i d n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y a t t h e .05 l e v e l on t h e s i g n t e s t . T h a t procedure may l e a d t o i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s , b u t i n o u r case o n l y one m i n o r a m b i g u i t y had t o b e r e s o l v e d . Reduced s t o r y grammar t r e e s were t e s t e d a g a i n s t t h e reduced composi t e t r e e as w e l l as a g a i n s t a l l i n d i v i d u a l t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e s . Distances computed a c c o r d i n g t o t h e r D - m e t r i c s e r v e d as t h e measure o f ( d i s ) s i m i l a r i t y . Three r e l a t e d c r i t e r i a f o r t h e goodness o f f i t were considered: (1) The number o f t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e s t o which a s t o r y grammar t r e e i s most s i m i l a r (number of b e s t f i t s ) . ( 2 ) The median d i s t a n c e of a s t o r y grammar t r e e f r o m t h e 40 i n d i v i d u a l t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e s , supplemented by t h e 1 s t and 3 r d q u a r t i l e as i n d i c a t o r s of t h e spread o f t h e d i s t a n c e d i s t r i b u t i o n . ( 3 ) The d i s t a n c e o f a s t o r y grammar t r e e f r o m t h e composite s t o r y d i v i s i o n t r e e . The r e s u l t s a r e shown i n Table 1. The p r e d i c t i v e values o f t h e s t o r y cjran~marsi n v e s t i g a t e d d i f f e r n e i t h e r markedly n o r c o n s i s t e n t l y . I n most cases t h e p r e d i c t i o n s o f t h e Rumelhart (1975)- and t h e Thorndyke-grammar a r e somewhat i n f e r i o r t o those o f t h e o t h e r f o u r grammars considered. The p a r t i t i o n s o f t h e dog s t o r y a r e p r e d i c t e d a b o u t e q u a l l y w e l l by t h e grammars o f van D i j k , S t e i n and Glenn, and Rumelh a r t (1977), those o f t h e boy s t o r y b y t h e grammars o f Mandler and Johnson, and Rumelhart (1977). Van D i j k ' s grammar i s t h e b e s t p r e d i c t o r o f t h e farmers t o r y t r e e s . On t h a t s t o r y t h e Rumelhart (1977)-grammar does worse t h a n t h e o t h e r grammars e x e p t Thorndyke's and thus does l i v e up t o i t s p r o m i s i n g performance on t h e dog and boy s t o r y . The S t e i n and Glenn-grammar i s t h e most r e l i a b l e one, i t s p r e d i c t i o n s u s u a l l y come o u t second b e s t . I t cannot b e t h e u l t i m a t e o b j e c t i v e o f t h e t e x t d i v i s i o n paradigm t o enable e v a l u a t i o n s of e x i s t i n g s t o r y grammars, p a r t i c u l a r y s i n c e a l l o f them must b e r e g a r d e d as p r o p o s a l s t o be r e v i s e d on t h e b a s i s o f e x p e r i m e n t a l evidence. S i n c e t e x t d i v i s i o n d a t a a r e easy t o o b t a i n , s t o r y grammars may be improved most e c o n o m i c a l l y by f i r s t r e v i s i n g r e w r i t e r u l e s t h a t b r i n g a b o u t f a l s e p r e d i c t i o n s o f s t o r y p a r t i t i o n s . The p r e d i c t i o n s o f expensive memory d a t a may b e p u t t o t e s t somewhat l a t e r . 'These t a s k s , however, a r e beyond t h e scope o f t h e present i n v e s t i g a t i o n .


41

REFERENCES Arabie, P . , and Boorman, S . Multidimensional s c a l i n g of measures of distance Journal ___ of Mathematical Psychology, 1973, 10, 148-203. between p a r t i t i o n s . _ Black, J . Theories o f s t o r y memory s t r u c t u r e . Preliminary d r a f t o f a manuscript. Psychology Department, Stanford University. Boorman, S . , and O l i v i e r , D . C . Metrics on spaces of f i n i t e t r e e s . Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1973, 10, 26-59. Van Dijk, T.A. Recalling and summarizing complex discourse. Unpublished manuscript. University o f Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1975. Glowalla, U. Der r o t e Faden, e i n handlungstheoretisches Model 1 z u r Textverarbeitung. Ph.D. t h e s i s , University o f Technology, Braunschweig, 1981. Kintsch, W . T h e representation cf meaning in memory. H.illsdale, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974. Mandler, J.M., and Johnson, N.S. Remembrance o f things parsed: Story s t r u c t u r e and r e c a l l . Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9, 111-151. Text d i v i s i o n s , s t o r y grammars and s t o r y r e c a l l : Materials and Micko, H.C. data. Braunschweiger Berichte - Reports from the I n s t i t u t e of Psychology, University of Technology, Braunschweig, 1982/1. Rumelhart, D. E. Notes on a schema f o r s t o r i e s . In: D.G. Bobrow and A. Collins ( E d s . ) Representation a d understanding: Studies iL cognitive science. New York, Akademic Press, 1975. Rumelhart, D . E . Understanding and summarizing b r i e f s t o r i e s : In: D. LaBerge and J . Samuels ( E d s . ) Basic processes in reading and comprehension. Hi 1 l s d a l e , N. J . Lawrence Erl baum Associates, 1977. Schank, R . C . The s t r u c t u r e of episodes i n memory. I n : D.G. Bobrow and A . Collins (Eds.) Representation and understanding: Studies !i cognitive science. New York, Academic Press, 1975a. Schank, R . C .

Conceptual information processing. New York, North-Holland,

1975b.

S t e i n , N . L . , and Glenn, C . G . An analysis of s t o r y comprehension i n element a r y school children. I n : R. Freedle ( E d . ) Multidiscriplinary perspectives i n discourse comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1911.

Thorndyke, P.W. Cognitive s t r u c t u r e s i n comprehension and memory o f n a r r a t i v e discourse. Cognitive P s y c h o l o a , 1977, 2, 77-110.

DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) @ North-Holhnd Publishing Company, 1982

CHILDREN'S KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIAL ACTION: EFFECTS ON COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF SIMPLE STORIES* Hans S t r o h n e r , G e r t R i c k h e i t , and R u d i g e r Weingarten F a k u l t a t f u r L i n g u i s t i k und L i t e r a t u r w i s s e n s c h a f t Uni vers it a t B i e l e f e l d D-4800 B i e l e f e l d West Germany Nursery school c h i l d r e n and Grade 5 school c h i l d r e n l i s t e n e d t o one o f f o u r v e r s i o n s o f f o u r episodes. The episodes were e i t h e r complete o r one o f t h r e e combinations o f two p a r t s o f t h e episodes. Young n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n w i t h h i g h r e p r o d u c t i o n scores showed a tendency t o complete t h e i n c o m p l e t e v e r s i o n s o f t h e t e x t s . I n t h e Grade 5 c h i l d r e n t h e r e was a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e p r o d u c t i o n and c o m p l e t i o n performance. The r e s u l t s a r e d i s c u s s e d w i t h i n t h e framework o f t h e p r o b l e m - s o l v i r i g t h e o r y o f t e x t p r o cess in g

.

S t o r y comprehension may be t h o u g h t o f as a t w o - f o l d p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g process f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g reasons: ( 1 ) The l i s t e n e r s o r readers g e n e r a l l y have t o cope w i t h t h e problem o f making sense o u t o f t e x t s which a r e t o some degree i n c o h e r e n t and e l l i p t i c a l ( C l a r k , 1978; de Beaugrande, 1980; Voss, Vesonder, & S p i l i c h , 1980). ( 2 ) I n s t o r i e s t h e y have t o t r a c e t h e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a c t i o n s o f t h e char a c t e r s i n o r d e r t o p u t these a c t i o n s t o g e t h e r t o f o r m a causal c h a i n o r c r i t i c a l p a t h ( B l a c k & Bower, 1980; Schank, 1975). I n many s t o r y comprehension s i t u a t i o n s a s t r o n g i n t e r a c t i o n between these two l e v e l s o f problem s o l v i n g i s observed (e.g. Anderson, 1978; Bower, 1978; Bruce, 1980). B l a c k (1978) has proposed a s t o r y memory t h e o r y , t h e H i e r a r c h i c a l S t a t e T r a n s i t i o n (HST) t h e o r y , w h i c h comprises o f two d i f f e r e n t procedures f o r s o l v i n g problems. One o f these procedures i s c a l l e d t h e "problem r e d u c t i o n method". T h i s method r e p r e s e n t s t h e problem-sol v i n g process as a h i e r a r c h y o f r e l a t e d a c t i o n s . The a c t i o n s l o w e r i n t h e h i e r a r c h y a r e more d e t a i l e d and s p e c i f i c t h a n those h i g h e r up i n t h e h i e r a r c h y . The o t h e r problem-solv i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s c a l l e d " s t a t e - t r a n s i t i o n network" und r e p r e s e n t s t h e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g process as a s e r i e s o f s t a t e s and a c t i o n s . These act i o n s change one s t a t e i n t o a n o t h e r .

*The s t u d y was s u p p o r t e d by g r a n t No. 2365 f r o m t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B i e l e f e l d . We a r e g r a t e f u l t o t h e c h i l d r e n , p a r e n t s , and teachers o f t h e K i n d e r g a r t e n D o r f e n and t h e Laborschule B i e l e f e l d f o r t h e i r k i n d c o - o p e r a t i o n . We a r e i n d e b t e d t o Helga Buurrnan, Reinhard F i e h l e r , B r i g i t t e Gremse, W a l t h e r K i n d t , G i s e l a K l a n n - D e l i u s , H o r s t Kock, G e o f f r e y Macpherson, D i e t r i c h Meutsch, Marcus S t e i n , and Roswitha S t r o h n e r f o r p r a c t i c a l s u p p o r t and v a l u a b l e comments on e a r l i e r v e r s i o n s o f t h e paper. 42

CHILDREN'S KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIAL ACTION

43

Several s t u d i e s have focussed on t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e f i r s t p a r t o f t h e HST t h e o r y on t h e comprehension and r e c a l l o f t e x t s about a c t i o n sequences ( e . g. B l a c k & Bower, 1979; Graesser, 1978; Graesser, Robertson, Lovelace, & Swinehart, 1980; L i c h t e n s t e i n & Brewer, 1980). E s s e n t i a l l y these s t u d i e s have demonstrated b e t t e r r e c a l l achievement f o r more s u p e r o r d i n a t e s t a t e ments i n t h e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g h i e r a r c h y t h a n f o r more s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n . I n t h e comprehension process s u b j e c t s seem t o i n f e r r e l e v a n c e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e v a r i o u s a c t i o n s . I t seems t o be these r e l a t i o n s h i p s which a l s o guide t h e r e t r i e v a l o f t h e a c t i o n s . The second p a r t o f t h e HST t h e o r y i s a l s o w e l l i n v e s t i g a t e d (e.g. B l a c k & Bern, 1981; Bower, B l a c k , & Turner, 1979; K i n t s c h , Mandel, & Kozminsky, 1977; L i c h t e n s t e i n & Brewer, 1980). I t can be concluded f r o m these s t u d i e s , t h a t s u b j e c t s r e l y on t h e i r knowledge o f t h e s t r u c t u r e o f n a t u r a l l y occurr i n g sequences o f b e h a v i o u r a l e v e n t s i n o r d e r t o r e c o n s t r u c t them i n a r e c a l l task. Another main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a s t o r y , i f seen under t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f problem s o l v i n g , i s t h e degree o f completeness o r e x p l i c i t n e s s of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s r e l e v a n t f o r t h e c u r r e n t p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g processes ( B l a c k & Bower, 1980). I f , f o r example, t h e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g process i s d i v i d e d i n t o t h e t h r e e stages namely, problem d e s c r i p t i o n , p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a t t e m p t , and s o l v i n g t h e problem, s t o r i e s may d i f f e r more o r l e s s depending on how c o m p l e t e l y these p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g stages have been d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p l o t o f t h e s t o r y . I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e two v a r i a b l e s d i s c u s s e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e HST t h e o r y , t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e t y p e o f s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned problems o l v i n g stages on t e x t comprehension and r e p r o d u c t i o n a r e l e s s w e l l known. The p r e s e n t s t u d y i s an e f f o r t t o l e a r n more a b o u t t h e i m p a c t o f c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge a b o u t t h e q u a l i t a t i v e s t r u c t u r e o f s o c i a l a c t i o n on t h e process i n g o f complete and i n c o m p l e t e s t o r i e s . I n a s t u d y o f t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f s c r i p t s i n young c h i l d r e n Wimmer (1979) gave 4- and 6 - y e a r - o l d c h i l d r e n an i n c o m p l e t e shopping s t o r y which ended b e f o r e t h e p a y i n g scene a t t h e c a s h i e r , However, t h e g i r l who wanted t o pay had l o s t h e r w a l l e t w i t h t h e money.0ne t a s k o f Wimmer's s u b j e c t s was t o comp l e t e t h e s t o r y fragment. Wimmer found t h a t more t h a n 60% of t h e 4-year-olds and a l l o f t h e 6 - y e a r - o l d s completed t h e s t o r y by i n d i c a t i n g t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e p a y i n g a c t i o n which n o r m a l l y f o l l o w s . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge o f r e l e v a n t s o c i a l a c t i o n s i n p r o c e s s i n g t h e fragment o f t h e s t o r y which t h e y h e a r d was a p p l i e d t o a medium o r h i g h degree. I n c o m p l e t i n g fragments of a s t o r y t h e c h i l d r e n have t o draw c e r t a i n i n f e r ences. H i l d y a r d (1979) i n v e s t i g a t e d c h i l d r e n ' s prompted p r o d u c t i o n o f act i o n - b a s e d i n f e r e n c e s as f o r example t h e s t a t e m e n t "The dog runs through t h e t r e e s " which can be i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e sentences "The dog chases t h e c a t . The c a t r u n s t h r o u g h t h e t r e e s " o r t h e i n f e r e n c e "Jose was i n j u r e d and h i s a m was broken", f o l l o w i n g f r o m t h e sentences "Jose r a n i n t o t h e r o a d w i t h o u t l o o k i n g . H i s arm was i n a p l a s t e r c a s t f o r s e v e r a l weeks". When c o n t r o l l e d f o r memory d i f f e r e n c e s t h e i n f e r e n c e achievement d i d n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y between Grade 1, Grade 3, and Grade 5 c h i l d r e n . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s s t u d y Grade 1 c h i l d r e n were a b l e t o draw as many a c t i o n - b a s e d i n f e r e n c e s as t h e o l d e r c h i l d r e n . I n a d d i t i o n , and h i g h l y r e l e v a n t f o r t h e p r e s e n t study, H i 1d y a r d c l a s s i f i e d t h e i n f e r e n c e s i n t o severa I types, t h r e e o f whi ch r e f e r r e d t o t h e presupposi t i o n s , t h e e n a b l i n g events, and t h e consequences of t h e d e s c r i b e d a c t i o n s . She d i d n o t analyse these d i f f e r e n t types o f i n f e r e n c e s

44

TEXT STRUCTURE

s t a t i s t i c a l l y because o f t h e s m a l l and unequal numbers o f i n f e r e n c e s i n v o l ved. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e mean p e r c e n t scores i n d i c a t e s o n l y minimal d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e t h r e e age groups i n t h e i r h a n d l i n g o f these i n f e r e n c e types. I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y t h e s t o r i e s were composed o f t h r e e p a r t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s . The i n c o m p l e t e v e r s i o n s o f t h e episodes c o n s i s t e d o f two o f these t h r e e p a r t s , t h u s r e s u l t i n g , f o r each v e r s i o n , i n q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e u n d e r l y i n g s o c i a l a c t i o n system. METHOD Subjects The 48 German speaking c h i l d r e n belonged t o t h r e e d i f f e r e n t age groups each o f 16 c h i l d r e n : a group o f younger n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n (mean 4; 11, range 4;2 - 5 ; 7 ) , a group o f o l d e r n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n (mean 6;6, range 6;2 - 6;10), and a group o f Grade 5 s c h o o l c h i l d r e n (mean 11;4, range 10;6 - 12;4). There were e i g h t boys and e i g h t g i r l s i n b o t h o f t h e n u r s e r y school groups and t e n g i r l s and s i x boys i n t h e Grade 5 group. Texts __ Each c h i l d was g i v e n f o u r t e x t s . The t e x t s d e s c r i b e d fragments o f episodes a b o u t w e l ? known e v e n t s i n a c h i l d ' s l i f e : a b i r t h d a y p a r t y , v i s i t i n g a c i r c u s , shopping, and r i d i n g a b i c y c l e . Each t e x t c o n s i s t e d o f s i x s h o r t sentences. The sentences were matched w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e sentence c o n t e n t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o - o p e r a t i v e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g framework o f t h e p l o t o f t h e s t o r y . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e f i r s t p a r t o f each episode, which c o n s i s t e d o f t h r e e sentences, r e f e r r e d t o t h e s e t t i n g , t h e problemc a u s i n g a c t i o n o f person A, and the problem d e s c r i p t i o n . I n t h e second p a r t , which c o n s i s t e d of one sentence o n l y , a p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a t t e m p t o f person A was d e s c r i b e d . The l a s t p a r t , w h i c h was two sentences i n l e n g t h , t o l d a b o u t t h e s u c c e s s f u l p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a c t i v i t y o f person B and t h e consequences o f t h e c o - o p e r a t i o n between person A und person B. The f u n c t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e f o u r episodes i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h example sentences from t h e " B i r t h d a y P a r t y " s t o r y i s g i v e n i n Table 1. Table 1: The c o - o p e r a t i v e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s t r u c t u r e o f t h e f o u r episodes w i t h t r a n s l a t e d example sentences from t h e " B i r t h d a y P a r t y " s t o r y . Part

A: Problem d e s c r i p t i o n

Sentence 1: S e t t i n g " P e t r a has i n v i t e d Mark t o h e r b i r t h d a y p a r t y . " Sentence 2: Problem-causing a c t i o n o f person A "Mark wants t o g i v e P e t r a a p r e s e n t . " Sentence 3: Problem "But he d o e s n ' t know what t o g i v e . " P a r t B: P r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a t t e m p t Sentence 4: P r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a t t e m p t o f person A "Mark asks t h e s i s t e r o f P e t r a what P e t r a would l i k e t o get f o r a b i r t h d a y present."

CHILDREN'S KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIAL ACTION

45

P a r t C: S o l v i n g t h e problem Sentence 5: Problem s o l v i n g by person B i n c o - o p e r a t i o n w i t h person A "The s i s t e r o f P e t r a says t h a t P e t r a would l i k e t o have a k i t e . " Sentence 6 : Consequence "Mark g i v e s P e t r a a k i t e . " Each c h i l d was g i v e n one complete s t o r y ( t e x t v e r s i o n ABC), another s t o r y where p a r t C was m i s s i n g ( t e x t v e r s i o n AB), one s t o r y where p a r t B was missi n g ( t e x t v e r s i o n AC), and one s t o r y where p a r t A was m i s s i n g ( t e x t v e r s i o n BC). The i n c o m p l e t e v e r s i o n s were c u t o u t f r o m t h e complete v e r s i o n tape i n o r d e r t o have p r o s o d i c a l l y i d e n t i c a l p a r t s i n a l l t e x t v e r s i o n s . A f t e r g i v i n g each o f t h e f o u r t e x t s t o t h e c h i l d r e n music was p l a y e d f o r an i n t e r v a l o f 20 sec, Procedure Each c h i l d was t e s t e d s e p a r a t e l y . The c h i l d r e n were i n s t r u c t e d t o l i s t e n t o some s t o r i e s r e c o r d e d on t a p e and a f t e r h e a r i n g each s t o r y t o r e t e l l t h e same. No i n d i c a t i o n was g i v e n t h a t some o f t h e p r e s e n t e d s t o r i e s were i n complete. The c h i l d r e n l i s t e n e d t o t h e episodes i n one o f f o u r v e r s i o n s . These were e i t h e r complete o r one o f t h e t h r e e combinations o f two p a r t s o f t h e s t o r y . Four c h i l d r e n o f each age group were p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e complete v e r s i o n o f one s t o r y , f o u r c h i l d r e n w i t h v e r s i o n AB o f t h e same s t o r y , f o u r c h i l d r e n w i t h v e r s i o n AC, and f o u r c h i l d r e n w i t h v e r s i o n BC. W i t h i n these subgroups o f f o u r c h i l d r e n t h e v e r s i o n t y p e s o f t h e o t h e r s t o r i e s and t h e presentat i o n o r d e r were s y s t e m a t i c a l l y v a r i e d . With b o t h t h e complete and i n c o m p l e t e t e x t v e r s i o n s t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r prompte d t h e r e c a l l by a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s i f a t e x t sentence was n o t r e c a l l e d spont a n e o u s l y by t h e c h i l d . I n a d d i t i o n , w i t h t h e i n c o m p l e t e t e x t v e r s i o n s t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r asked q u e s t i o n s w h i c h aimed a t t h e m i s s i n g p a r t o f t h e e p i sode. For example, i n t h e case o f t h e " B i r t h d a y p a r t y " s t o r y t h e q u e s t i o n s f o r t h e t h r e e m i s s i n g p a r t s A, B, and C were: P a r t A: What do you P a r t B: What do you P e t r a would P a r t C: What do y o u

t h i n k happened t h i n k happened l i k e t o have a t h i n k happened

b e f o r e Mark asked t h e s i s t e r o f Petra? before the s i s t e r o f Petra s a i d t h a t kite? a f t e r Mark asked t h e s i s t e r o f P e t r a ?

The e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n f o r one c h i l d took about 10 t o 15 m i n u t e s . Data A n a l y s i s The r e c o r d e d r e c a l l and i n f e r e n c e responses o f t h e c h i l d r e n were grouped i n t o t h e f o l l o w i n g categories: Reproductions: A sentence was s c o r e d as a r e p r o d u c t i o n i f i t i n c l u d e d t h e e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e g i v e n sentence. T h i s c a t e g o r y was f u r t h e r d i v i d e d i n t o spontaneous reproduct i o n s and prompted r e p r o d u c t i o n s . Completions:

A sentence was s c o r e d as a c o m p l e t i o n i f i t i n c l u d e d some e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e p a r t o f t h e s t o r y which had n o t been g i v e n o r o t h e r p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e s drawn from

TEXT STRUCTURE

46

t h e s t o r y . T h i s c a t e g o r y was a l s o f u r t h e r d i v i d e d i n t o spontaneous c o m p l e t i o n s and prompted c o m p l e t i o n s . E l a b o r a t i o n s : A sentence was s c o r e d as an e l a b o r a t i o n i f i t c o u l d n o t p l a u s i b l y be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e p l o t o f t h e s t o r y . The few cases i n which s c o r i n g problems occured were r e s o l v e d a f t e r d i s c u s s i on between t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r s .

RESULTS Comparability o f the f o u r s t o r i e s The most c r i t i c a l and s e n s i b l e t e s t f o r t h e c o m p a r a b i l i t y o f t h e f o u r s t o r i e s seems t o be t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f spontaneous r e p r o d u c t i o n s across t h e sentences o f t h e s t o r i e s . A c h i - s q u a r e t e s t showed t h a t a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n t h e s t o r i e s d i d n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y (chi2=5.57; df=15; n . s . ) . I t can be concluded from t h i s r e s u l t t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s responded i n a s i m i l a r way t o a l l f o u r s t o r i e s . Consequently, i n t h e f o l l o w i n g t h e f o u r episodes a r e n o t t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y b u t a r e r e f e r r e d t o as a common a b s t r a c t t e x t base which i s s t r u c t u r e d a c c o r d i n g t o a c o - o p e r a t i v e problem s o l v i n g sequence. Spontaneous r e p r o d u c t i o n F o r each s u b j e c t t h e percentage o f spontaneous r e p r o d u c t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e maximal r e p r o d u c t i o n s c o r e i n each t e x t v e r s i o n was computed. These maximal r e p r o d u c t i o n scores were 6 i n t h e complete t e x t v e r s i o n , 4 i n t h e AB v e r s i o n , 5 i n t h e AC v e r s i o n , and 3 i n t h e BC v e r s i o n . These percentage scores were s u b j e c t e d t o an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e w i t h s u b j e c t groups as a between f a c t o r and t h e f o u r t e x t v e r s i o n s as a w i t h i n f a c t o r . T h i s a n a l y s i s showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t groups (F=28.66; df=2, 45;p c.O01),but no e f f e c t s f o r t h e t e x t v e r s i o n s ( F i l ) o r f o r t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between s u b j e c t s and t e x t v e r s i o n s ( F < l ) . A c c o r d i n g t o Newman-Keuls t e s t s (p h i k i n g v e r s i o n . However, f o r t h e N+l concept a c t i v a t i o n we o b t a i n e d : f i s h i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme ( B ) > f i s h i n g v e r s i o n ( A ) > h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme (D) > h i k i n g version (C).

LEVELS OF FUNCTIONING I N SEMANTIC MEMORY

F i g u r e 3a Mean degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+1 concepts

59

Figure 3 b Mean degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+X c o n c e p t

An a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e c o n f i r m s t h a t b o t h e f f e c t o f t e x t v e r s i o n and number o f t r i a l s on t h e N+l concept a c t i v a t i o n a r e s i g n i f i c a n t ( p < .001). There was no v e r s i o n x t r i a l s i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . The N+l concept a c t i v a t i o n i s a l s o b e t t e r f o r t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme ( B ) t h a n f o r t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n (A) ( p < .001), and f o r t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme ( D ) t h a n f o r t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n (C) ( p < -001). As f a r as t h e p r e v i o u s comparisons a r e concerned, t h e v e r s i o n s d i f f e r o n l y on one p d i n t : whether o r n o t t h e t e x t c o n t a i n s i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i n s u r e s N+X concept a c t i v a t i o n . Moreover, we can see t h a t t h e m a t i c a c t i v a t i o n i s e f f e c t i v e l y r e a l i z e d i f we examine t h e mean r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n F i g u r e 3b. The i n c r e a s e i n t h e N+l c o n c e p t a c t i v a t i o n f r o m t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n t o t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme, on t h e one hand, and f r o m t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n t o t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme, on t h e o t h e r , thus can o n l y be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e i n c r e a s e i n t h e N+X concept a c t i v a t i o n . T h i s i s what we wanted t o demonstrate, namely, t h a t t h e N+1 concept a c t i vation, together w i t h determining t h e i n f o r m a t i v e content,both r e s u l t from t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e base concepts (N) and o f t h e t h e m a t i c concept (N+X)

.

VERTICAL COORDINATION AT THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THE CONCEPTUAL HIERARCHY. EFFICIENCY OF N+l RETRIEVAL CUES We can now a t t e m p t t o answer t h e t h i r d q u e s t i o n : I s t h e r e any r e l a t i o n between t h e degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+l concepts and t h e i r e f f i c i e n c y as r e t r i e v a l cues f o r t h e t e x t ? A f t e r r e a d i n g t h e t e x t and answering t h e s i x q u e s t i o n s c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e s i x paragraphs, each s u b j e c t i n each o f t h e s i x e x p e r i m e n t a l groups was asked t o r e c a l l t h e t e x t . The s i x N+1-level concepts c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e f i s h i n q v e r s i o n were used as r e t r i e v a l cues. Here, we s h a l l o n l y

TEXT STRUCTURE

60

c o n s i d e r t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e f o u r groups o f s u b j e c t s who encoded t h e N+l cues, i.e., s u b j e c t s who had t o make a d e c i s i o n about t h e N+l concepts c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o each paragraph. For each s u b j e c t and f o r each o f t h e t h r e e t r i a l s , we n o t e d t h e items o f t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n (base c o n c e p t s ) r e t r i e v e d . We c o n s i d e r e d o n l y t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n common t o t h e f o u r v e r s i o n s A, B, C, and 0 o f t h e t e x t (12 i n f o r m a t i o n i t e m s ) . Two k i n d s o f a n a l y s i s were performed: f i r s t on t h e cued r e c a l l o f t h e f i r s t t r i a l a l o n e , t h e n on a l l t h r e e t r i a l s t o g e t h e r ; secondly, on t h e r e l a t i o n s between t h e cued r e c a l l and t h e degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+l concepts e s t i m a t e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s experiment.

~1

VERSION

VERSION Fishing Hiking

Without Fishing Theme With Fishing Th eme

Without Fishing Theme With Fishing Theme

1,25

For a l l t h r e e t r i a l s (Max. = 36)

For t h e f i r s t t r i a l (Max. = 12) Table 1

Mean number o f base concepts r e c a l l e d p e r s u b j e c t F o r he f i r s t t r i a l , t h e o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t ( p < .001) i s he i n .era c t i o n between t h e two f a c t o r s : i n t h e case o f t h e f i s h i n a v e r s on. t le t e x t w i t h o u t t h e f i s h i n g theme p r o v i d e s t h e b e s t r e s u 1 t s ; " i n t h e case o f t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n , on t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e t e x t w i t h t h e theme c o n d i t i o n i s b e t t e r retrieved. The same i n t e r a c t i o n may be seen ( p < .05) when we t o t a l t h e performance on a l l t h r e e t r i a l s . Number o f t r i a l s i s a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t . We can see h e r e t h a t t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e N+l concept as r e t r i e v a l cues a p p r e c i a b l y d i f f e r s f r o m one t e x t c o n d i t i o n t o another. For a b e t t e r view o f t h e s e v a r i a t i o n s we have shown i n F i g u r e 4, t h e mean v a l u e s o f t h e cued r e c a l l on t h e f i r s t t r i a l ( Y a x i s ) i n terms o f mean values o f t h e degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+l concepts (X a x i s ) . We f i n d t h a t t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e N+l concepts as cues i s h i g h e s t f o r an average degree o f a c t i v a t i o n ( a b o u t .50). T h i s i s t r u e f o r b o t h conditions, t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n w i t h o u t f i s h i n g theme ( A ) and t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme (0).

LEVELS OF FUNCTIONING I N SEMANTIC MEMORY

61

' A

Cued i Recall

20

.10

-

A

C

. 2'5

I

.50

.75

*

Activation

Figure 4 F i r s t t r i a l : Mean p r o p o r t i o n o f base concepts r e c a l l e d i n terms o f degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+l concepts.

On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e N+l concepts as cues i s l o w when t h e i r degree o f a c t i v a t i o n i s a l s o l o w -- t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h o u t f i s h i n g theme ( C ) -- o r when t h e i r degree o f a c t i v a t i o n i s h i g h -- t h e f i s h i n g version w i t h f i s h i n g theme (B). The reason f o r t h i s i s t h a t i n t h e case o f t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h o u t f i s h i n g theme (C) t h e t e x t i s b a r e l y understood, and t h e base concepts ( N ) a r e d i f f i c u l t t o reduce i n t o N+1 concepts corresponding t o t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n . As a r e s u l t , t h e degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+l concepts i s l o w as w e l l as t h e i r e f f i c i e n c y as cues. In the case o f t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme (B), t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f the N+1 concepts i s n o t p r o b l e m a t i c ( h i g h degree o f a c t i v a t i o n ) . B u t t h i s a c t i v a t i o n i s produced more by t h e N+X t h e m a t i c concept t h a n by t h e base concepts (N) o f t h e t e x t . I n o t h e r words, t h e s u b j e c t b u i l d s a t e x t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a t a h i g h h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l by c o o r d i n a t i n g t h e N+l and N+X concepts, which i s c e r t a i n l y a good s t r a t e g y f o r comprehension o f t h e t e x t . Yet a t t h e same time, he does n o t t a k e i n t o account t h e base concepts. Hence, such a s t r a t e g y prevents him f r o m r e c o v e r i n g them a f t e r w a r d s and t h e r e f o r e i s bad f o r memorizing t h e t e x t . The e f f i c i e n c y , as r e t r i e v a l cues, o f t h e N+l concepts i s g r e a t e s t when a c t i v a t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n o f t h e concepts occurs a t t h e t h r e e h i e r a r c h i cal l e v e l s N, N+1, and N+2. The c o n d i t i o n s which seem t o be o p t i m a l a r e those o f medium d i f f i c u l t y : t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n w i t h o u t f i s h i n g theme (A) and t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme (D). These a r e c o n d i t i o n s i n which t h e N+l concepts cannot be a c t i v a t e d w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g s i m u l t a n e ously t h e N and N+X concepts.

62

TEXT STRUCTURE

CONCLUSION B r i e f l y , as f a r as t h e t e x t s i n t h i s s t u d y a r e concerned (whose semantic c o n t e n t c o n s i s t s o f a group o f h i e r a r c h i c a l c o n c e p t s ) , t h e b u i l d i n g o f a t e x t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n shows t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : 1. While r e a d i n g o r l i s t e n i n g , t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n a c t i v a t e s b o t h t h e base concepts (N) and t h e s u p e r o r d i n a t e concepts (N+l, N+P, N+X) as well. I n t h e b e s t case t h e s u b j e c t s a r e a b l e t o g r a s p t h e h i g h e s t thematic concept (N+X) as soon as t h e y r e a d t h e f i r s t paragraph. However, they a r e n o t a b l e t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e N+l and N+2 concepts which r e f e r t o l a t e r paragraphs (Experiment I ) . 2. There a r e complex i n t e r a c t i o n s between t h e concepts a c t i v a t e d a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f t h e conceptual h i e r a r c h y . We have shown t h a t t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f a N+1 concept was h i g h l y dependent on t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N base concepts o f a paragraph as w e l l as on t h e a c t i v a t i o n of t h e N+X t h e m a t i c concept (Experiment 11). 3. G e n e r a l l y speaking, t e x t comprehension and r e c a l l r e q u i r e a v e r t i c a l c o o r d i n a t i o n of t h e N, N+1, and N+X concepts which a r e a c t i v a t e d a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f t h e h i e r a r c h y o f concepts. T h i s c o o r d i n a t i o n may be complete ( c o m p r i s i n g a l l t h r e e l e v e l s o f t h e h i e r a r c h y ) o r p a r t i a l . An N+l concept i s an e f f i c i e n t r e t r i e v a l cue f o r a paragraph o n l y i f complete c o o r d i n a t i o n can be achieved, e s p e c i a l l y , a c o o r d i n a t i o n o f t h e base concepts N and of t h e N+l concept c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o each paragraph. T h i s v e r t i c a l c o o r d i n a t i o n of t h e concepts causes d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h t e x t s which a r e e i t h e r t o o d i f f i c u l t o r t o o easy t o understand (Experiment 1 1 ) .

...

REFERENCES E h r l i c h , S. Semantic memory: a f r e e - e l e m e n t s system. I n C.R. P u f f (Ed.), Memory, o r g a n i z a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e . New York: Academic Press, 1979. E h r l i c h , S. Un a s p e c t du fonctionnement de l a memoire semantique: l a c o n s t r u c t i o n d ' u n e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n de t e x t e p a r niveaux h i e r a r c h i s e s . B u l l e t i n de Psychologie, Numero s p e c i a l ( i n p r e s s ) . K i n t s c h , W.¶' & van D i j k , T.A. Toward a model of t e x t comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1978, 85, 363-394.

A code i n t h e node: t h e use o f a s t o r y schemata i n Mandler, J.M. r e t r i e v a l . D i s c o u r s e Processes, 1978, 14-35.

1,

Schank, R. & Abelson, R. S c r i p t s , plans, g o a l s and u n d e r s t a n d i n g : An i n q u i r y i n human knowledge and s t r u c t u r e s . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , 1977.

DISCOURSEPROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) @ North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982

THAT'S IMPORTANT BUT I S IT INTERESTING? TWO FACTORS IN TEXT PROCESSING Suzanne H i d i , William B a i r d and Angela Hildyard O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s i n Education T o r o n t o , Canada

1

This paper examines t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f d i f f e r e n t t e x t t y p e s used i n n a t u r a l school s e t t i n g s and r e l a t e s some o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y t o r e c a l l the t e x t s . Our f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t t h a t w h i l e i n t e r e s t i n g i n f o r mation i n n a r r a t i v e s a l s o t e n d s t o be i m p o r t a n t , t h e same i s n o t t r u e f o r e x p o s i t i o n s . For one t y p e of e x p o s i t i o n (mixed t e x t s ) where n a r r a t i v e elements were i n c l u d e d i n t h e e x p o s i t i o n s , i n t e r e s t i n g and i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n was found t o be u n r e l a t e d ; i n t h e o t h e r t y p e o f e x p o s i t i o n , where no i n t r u s i o n s o c c u r r e d , the m a t e r i a l was g e n e r a l l y n o t cons i d e r e d v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g . These d i f f e r e n c e s i n t e x t t y p e s were found t o be r e l a t e d t o d i f f e r e n t i a l r e c a l l by c h i l d r e n . INTRODUCTION Recent r e s e a r c h on how meaningful prose m a t e r i a l s a r e remembered has focused on n a r r a t i v e t e x t s . Some o f t h e n a r r a t i v e s i n v e s t i g a t e d have been s t o r i e s passed from one g e n e r a t i o n t o t h e o t h e r i n t h e o r a l t r a d i t i o n l i k e Indian folk s t o r i e s o r f a i r y - t a l e s ( B a r t l e t t , 1932; Bower, 1976; Brown & Smiley, 12::; K i n t s c h , 1977; Mandler, S c r i b n e r , Cole & D e f o r e s t , 1980; Rumelhart, 1 9 7 5 ) . Others have been t a k e n from well known l i t e r a r y s o u r c e s l i k e Boccaccio's Decameron ( K i n t s c h , 1977) o r 0 ' F l a h e r t y ' s The S n i p e r ( J o h n s o n , t h i s volume). In a d d i t i o n , a g r e a t deal o f r e s e a r c h has been based on n a r r a t i v e s which were c o n s t r u c t e d by r e s e a r c h e r s f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l purposes (Bower, t h i s volume; Bower & B l a c k , 1977; S t e i n & Glenn, 1979; S t e i n Nezworski, 1 9 7 8 ) .

I t i s e a s y t o e x p l a i n t h e o v e r - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f n a r r a t i v e s a s t e x t materi a l s i n memory r e s e a r c h . In c o n t r a s t t o o t h e r l i t e r a r y forms such a s e x p o s i t i o n s , o p i n i o n e s s a y s , d e s c r i p t i o n s , e t c . , n a r r a t i v e s deal p r i m a r i l y with l i v i n g b e i n g s (humans o r a n i m a l s ) and we seem t o have s p e c i a l s e t s o f s t r a t e g i e s t o remember t h e t e m p o r a l l y s e q u e n t i a l g o a l - d i r e c t e d a c t i o n s and causal e v e n t s t h a t a r e normally a s s o c i a t e d with t h e l i v e s o f e x p e r i e n c i n g and p u r p o s i v e s u b j e c t s ( K i n t s c h , 1980; L i c h t e n s t e i n & Brewer, 1 9 8 0 ) . I t has a l s o been amply demonstrated t h a t good s t o r i e s have well d e f i n e d s t r u c t u r e s ( e p i s o d e s o r p l o t u n i t s which can be f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e d i n t o s t r u c t u r a l c a t e g o r i e s ) and t h a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f such s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s guide t h e encoding and s u b s e q u e n t r e c a l l o f t h e t e x t s (Bower, 1976; Haberlandt, Berian & Sandson, 1980; K i n t s c h , Mandel & Kozminisky, 1977; Mandler & Johnson, 1977; S t e i n & Nezworski, 1 9 7 8 ) .

63

64

TEXT STRUCTURE

I t i s p a r a d o x i c a l t h a t w h i l e memory r e s e a r c h on meaningful m d t e r i a l s has focused on n a r r a t i v e s , from an e d u c a t i o n a l p o i n t o f view memory f o r genres o t h e r than s t o r i e s i s most c r u c i a l . Although c h i l d r e n d e a l with n a r r a t i v e s i n s c h o o l - - u s u a l l y i n t h e language a r t s programs--the g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h e y a r e e x p e c t e d t o a c q u i r e through t h e i r r e a d i n g s i s pres e n t e d t o them i n some form o f e x p o s i t o r y p r o s e . In o u r s t u d y , we e x p l i c i t l y wanted t o look a t t h e t y p e s o f t e x t s t h a t e l e m e n t a r y school c h i l d r e n n a t u r a l l y e n c o u n t e r in t h e i r classrooms and l i b r a r i e s , We had t o f i n d m a t e r i a l s t h a t were o f comparable complexity b e c a u s e , i n a d d i t i o n t o examining some o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e t e x t s , we wanted t o s e e how c h i l d r e n r e c a l l t h e s e d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of t e x t s . A f t e r a somewhat e x t e n s i v e b u t f r u i t l e s s s e a r c h we came a c r o s s a r e c e n t s t u d y by Kirkwood and Wolfe (1980) who a s s e s s e d through t h e Cloze procedure (Bormuth, 1967, 1968) t h e r e a d a b i l i t y o f t e x t m a t e r i a l s c u r r e n t l y i n use i n t h e O n t a r i o school s y s t e m . This l a r g e - s c a l e i n v e s t i g a t i o n ( o v e r 7,000 s t u d e n t s were i n v o l v e d ) e v a l u a t e d grade 4 , 7 , and 10 m a t e r i a l s found i n language a r t s and s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . We were f o r t u n a t e enough t o gain a c c e s s t o t h e e v a l u a t e d t e x t m a t e r i a l s and s e l e c t e d 2 s i x passages from t h e grade 4 materi a l s , each a b o u t 230 words i n l e n g t h . Aside from comparable s c o r e s on t h e r e a d a b i l i t y measures o u r s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i o n was somewhat i n t u i t i v e . Reading through t h e m a t e r i a l s we n o t i c e d t h a t t h e r e were some s t o r y - t y p e n a r r a t i v e s ( u s u a l l y i n t h e language a r t s m a t e r i a l s ) , some e x p o s i t i o n s t h a t d e a f t p r i m a r i l y w i t h f a c t s , e x p l a n a t i o n a n d / o r i n s t r u c t i o n s and a t h i r d , "mixed" c a t e g o r y which we perceived a s e x p o s i t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g some n a r r a t i v e e p i s o d e s o r e l e m e n t s . These n a r r a t i v e elements f r e q u e n t l y seemed i n t e n d e d by t h e c u r r i c u l u m w r i t e r s n o t so much t o convey e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m i t i o n a s t o m a i n t a i n c h i l d r e n ' s a t t e n t i o n and i n t e r e s t . For example, i n one t e x t t h a t d e a l t w i t h d i v i n g and the l i m i t a t i o n s o f a n c i e n t and e a r l i e r d i v e r s who had t o r e l y on t h e i r own lung powers, t h e f o l l o w i n g e p i s o d e was i n c l u d e d : There i s a legend t h a t , twenty-two c e n t u r i e s a g o , Alexander t h e Great descended i n t o the s e a i n an a i r t i g h t box t o o b s e r v e t h e c r e a t u r e s t h e r e . This s t o r y may well be t r u e , even i f we doubt t h e r e s t o f the t a l e - - t h a t he saw a f i s h so huge t h a t i t took t h r e e days t o swim p a s t a l t h o u g h i t was moving a s s w i f t l y a s a f l a s h o f l i g h t n i n g . T h i s s e a mons t e r must have been a b i l l i o n and a h a l f m i l e s l o n g . Some f i s h ! C l e a r l y , t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s e p i s o d e i s t o e n t e r t a i n more than t o convey e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t d i v i n g which i s t o be remembered. The import a n t q u e s t i o n a b o u t t h e s e t y p e s o f t e x t s i s n o t so much whether c h i l d r e n r e c a l l t h e i n t e r e s t i n g e p i s o d e s , b u t how t h e s e n o n - e s s e n t i a l e p i s o d e s influence the retention of the other, essential information.

The s i x s e l e c t e d t e x t s (two from each c a t e g o r y ) a r e l i s t e d in Table 1 t o g e t h e r w i t h a s h o r t summary d e s c r i p t i o n o f e a c h . To examine t h e v a l i d i t y o f o u r t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s we asked f i v e g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s t o rank t h e s i x t e x t s from t h e most s t o r y - l i k e t o t h e l e a s t s t o r y - l i k e . These r a n k i n g s a r e a l s o i n c l u d e d i n Table 1. No s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i s needed t o conclude t h a t o u r c a t e g o r i e s a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e r a n k i n g s . The n a r r a t i v e s were

65

THAT'S IMPORTANT BUT IS IT INTERESTING? Table 1 Description of the Selected S i x Texts Narratives Toad

Introduces Hector the dog a n d old Toad and n a r r a t e s a f i g h t between them and i t s aftermath.

Hobo

Introduces a hobo l i v i n g i n Paris and describes how one day he finds t h r e e l i t t l e children hiding in his " h i dey- hol e" .

Mixed Texts Divers

Discusses d i v i n g a n d explains the ancient divers who had t o r e l y on power r a t h e r t h a n using some form gear. Includes an anecdote about G r e a t ' s adventures in the s e a .

l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e i r own lung of breathingAlexander the

Easter Island

Describes geographical a n d archaeological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a n island i n the P a c i f i c . Includes some s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s of what the i s l a n d ' s ancestors d i d , e . g . dragged some huge s t a t u e s 13 kilometres and fought a war between slender a n d s t o u t people.

Expositions Orienting the Map

Explains and i n s t r u c t s the usage of maps.

Electricity

Explains the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of good and b a d conductors, the dangers o f e l e c t r i c i t y and how t o avoid being shocked o r e l e c t r o c u t e d .

Ranking of the Texts from Most S t o r y - l i k e t o Least Story-like

~

Rates

A -

B -

-

C

-

D

E -

Old Toad The Hobo

2 1

2 1

1 2

2 1

1 2

Divers Easter Island

3 4

3 4

3 4

3 4

4 3

Orienting Map Electrici t y

5 6

5 6

5 6

5 6

5

A 1

-

E a r e rankings of f i v e graduate s t u d e n t s . 6 goes from most s t o r y - l i k e t o l e a s t s t o r y - l i k e .

6

66

TEXT STRUCTURE

considered most s t o r y - l i k e and the expositions l e a s t s t o r y - l i k e . Our cont e n t i o n t h a t the mixed t e x t s h a d some n a r r a t i v e components was f u r t h e r supported by several r a t e r s who commented t h a t the3two mixed t e x t s were somehow between t h e s t o r i e s a n d the "non-stori es" . Before we proceed t o describe our study, we would l i k e t o discuss one more point pertaining t o the s e l e c t e d m a t e r i a l s . The t e x t s t h a t we have been working with, while e c o l o g i c a l l y v a l i d , a r e not p a r t i c u l a r l y well organized or well formed, nor do they have d i s t i n g u i s h i n g r h e t o r i c a l s t y l e s . However, i t may be t h a t t h e encoding and r e t r i e v a l of these t e x t types d i f f e r from both q u a l i t a t i v e l y b e t t e r l i t e r a r y t e x t s or t e x t s t h a t are constructed by researchers f o r laboratory i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Specifying the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these t e x t types a n d t h e i r e f f e c t on s u b j e c t s ' r e c a l l i s e s s e n t i a l i f we want t o understand how children process school m a t e r i a l s and t o be able t o advise educators on how t o w r i t e b e t t e r curriculum materials ( s e e a l s o Pearson, 1981 ) . The procedure were r a t e d by t o r e c a l l the We will f i r s t r e p o r t on the

of t h e study involves two d i s t i n c t p a r t s . F i r s t , t h e t e x t s a d u l t s a n d secondly, grade 5 and grade 7 children were asked passages and t h e r e s u l t s were r e l a t e d t o the a d u l t r a t i n g s . discuss the t e x t analyses r e s u l t i n g from t h e r a t i n g s and then memory experiment.

TEXT ANALYSES We were primarily concerned w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n between important and i n t e r e s t i n g information i n the three t e x t types. F i r s t , groups of f i v e a d u l t s (graduate s t u d e n t s ) f o r each t e x t were asked t o evaluate how e s s e n t i a l information was. They were given t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t s and asked t o underline the information they found " e s s e n t i a l " , t h a t i s , information t h a t was most important t o understanding t h e t e x t . They were a l s o asked t o cross o u t " i n e s s e n t i a l " , t h a t i s , unimportant information. Secondly, the same r a t e r s were asked t o r a t e t h e t e x t s f o r s a l i e n c y , i n the same manner. Each r a t e r received a d i f f e r e n t t e x t f o r each of two r a t i n g s . They were asked t o underline t h e most i n t e r e s t i n g segments of t h e t e x t a n d t o cross out the most boring, l e a s t i n t e r e s t i n g segments. Thus, f o r both s e t s of r a t i n g s , we had t h r e e types of evaluative segments: underlined, unmarked an,d crossed o u t . For each r a t i n g the r a t e r s were encouraged t o f i r s t preread the t e x t s . To compare and r e l a t e the two s e t s o f r a t i n g s we had t o assign the evaluat i o n s t o a common t e x t u a l segmentation. Consequently, each t e x t was parsed i n t o idea units following procedures used by Johnson, 1970; Brown & Smiley, 1977; Brown & Day, 1981. Operationally, an idea u n i t was defined as a main clause plus any r e l a t e d subordinate clauses o r phrases which expressed s e l f contained i d e a s . A few adjustments were made t o t h e i n i t i a l idea u n i t parsing t o accommodate c l e a r boundaries generated by the evaluation of e s s e n t i a l and s a l i e n t information which had been missed. Most of these adjustments required the breaking u p of no more than two u n i t s in any t e x t i n t o two more elementary u n i t s .

THAT'S IMPORTANT BUT IS I T INTERESTING?

67

To derive t h e " e s s e n t i a l i t y " s c o r e s , each idea u n i t was given scores of 1, 2 , 3 f o r underlined, unmarked and crossed out importance ra tings respect i v e l y f o r each r a t e r a n d then averaged over the f i v e r a t e r s . ( e . g . i f a l l five r a t e r s underlined an idea u n i t i t received a score of 1 . ) I n the great majority o f cases the ev al u at i v e rating-segments matched idea u n i t boundaries, b u t in those cases where complex sentences received two d i f f e r e n t r a t i n g s - - t h e b e t t e r e s s e n t i a l i t y r a t i n g ( i . e . , "lowest" score 1-3) was t h e one used t o r ep r es en t t h e e n t i r e idea u n i t ,

To derive t h e "s a l ien cy " scores t h e same procedure was repeated a s on the e s s e n t i a l i t y r a t i n g s . Our r a t i n g procedures a r e somewhat s i m i l a r to those reported by Brown & Smiley, 1977, 1978; a n d Brown & Day, 1981. These researchers parsed t h e t e x t s so t h a t each l i n e included a s i n g l e idea u n i t . Raters repeatedly eliminated one q u ar t er of the l e a s t important idea units until the f i n a l remaining q u a r t i l e , which was considered t o be the most important. O u r method d i f f e r e d from Brown e t a l . in t h a t we did not parse the t e x t s in advance a n d r a t e r s scored t h e t e x t s on a s i n g l e reading foll owing a preview.

Now, turning t o our r e s u l t s , the c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e e s s e n t i a l i t y a n d saliency scores of each idea u n i t a r e shown i n Table 2 together with the percentage of idea u n i t s considered r e a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g and important (idea u n i t s having average of 1-1.4 s c o r e s ) . Table 2 Correlations o f E s s e n t i a l i t y a n d Salience Ratings of D iffe re nt Text Types a n d Percentage of Idea Units Rated Esse ntia l a n d S a l i e n t Percentage of Idea Units Judged* ~~

Narratives A B

Toad Hobo

Correlation Be tween Essen t i a 1i t y and Salience Ratings

Essential/ I mpo r t a n t

Salient/ Interesting

.638 .778

39% 43%

30% 43%

.153 .005

50%

31 % 30%

-643 .517

33% 42%

Mixed Texts C 0

Divers Easter Island

25%

Expositions

E

Orienting t h e Map

F Electricity

0x

5%

* Idea u n i t s which had an average score of 1-1.4 on the e s s e n t i a l i t y and the s a l i e n c y r a t i n g s were included.

68

TEXT STRUCTURE

The h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s ( r = .64, . 7 8 ) show t h a t i n t h e n a r r a t i v e s t h e most i n t e r e s t i n g i d e a u n i t s t e n d t o be a l s o i m p o r t a n t . I n t h e mixed t e x t s , however, no r e l a t i o n seems t o e x i s t between s a l i e n c y a n d e s s e n t i a l i t y (r = .15, . 0 2 ) . F i n a l l y , l o o k i n g a t t h e f a c t u a l e x p o s i t i o n s , t h e r e a s o n a b l y h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s ( r = .64, . 5 2 ) a r e m i s l e a d i n g , s i n c e p r a c t i c a l l y no i d e a s were f o u n d t o be v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g i n t h i s c a t e g o r y b y o u r r a t e r s ( 0 and 5 % ) . Thus, t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s o n l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m o d e r a t e l y i n t e r e s t i n g i d e a s t e n d t o b e more i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e l e a s t i n t e r e s t i n g o n e s . These d a t a c l e a r l y show t h a t t h e r e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of i m p o r t a n c e a n d i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s i n t h e t h r e e t e x t t y p e s . Two h y p o t h e s e s , b o t h w a r r a n t i n g f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , may be p u t f o r t h on t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e r e s u l t s . F i r s t , i t may be an i n h e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f good s t o r i e s t h a t t h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a l s o t e n d s t o be i m p o r t a n t . T h i s r e l a t i o n between e s s e n t i a l i t y and s a l i e n c y may c o n t r i b u t e , as do t h e s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s a n d t e m p o r a l frames o f s t o r i e s , t o o u r a b i l i t y t o r e c a l l n a r r a t i v e s b e t t e r t h a n many o t h e r t y p e s o f t e x t s . Bower ( t h i s v o l u m e ) , r e p o r t s t h a t t h e more u n u s u a l o r n o v e l a p a r t i c u l a r t e x t segment, t h e more l i k e l y p e o p l e c o n s i d e r i t i m p o r t a n t . He was r e p o r t i n g on n a r r a t i v e t e x t s . These r e s u l t s seem t o c o r r o b o r a t e o u r f i n d i n g s t h a t i m p o r t a n c e a n d s a l i e n c y c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y i n n a r r a t i v e s . The same does n o t seem t o be t r u e f o r o u r o t h e r two t e x t t y p e s . Second, p e r h a p s one m a j o r p r o b l e m w i t h e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s i s t h a t i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o p r o d u c e e x p o s i t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e i m p o r t a n t / e s s e n t i a l and i n t e r e s t i n g / s a l i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n converge. RECALL Twenty-seven g r a d e 5 and t w e n t y - e i g h t g r a d e 7 c h i l d r e n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s p a r t o f t h e s t u d y . Each s u b j e c t r e c e i v e d o n l y one o f t h e s i x t e x t s ; t h e t e x t s were d i s t r i b u t e d r a n d o m l y . The c h i l d r e n w e r e a s k e d t o r e a d t h e passages u n t i l t h e y w o u l d be a b l e t o r e c a l l them; t h e t i m e s p e n t r e a d i n g t h e t e x t s was s e l f - c o n t r o l l e d . As a c h i l d s i g n a l l e d t h a t h e was f i n i s h e d , t h e t e x t was c o l l e c t e d , t h e t i m e was marked and t h e c h i l d was a s k e d t o r e c a l l t h e passage as c l o s e t o i t s o r i g i n a l f o r m as p o s s i b l e i n a w r i t t e n form (Immediate r e c a l l ) . Four days l a t e r we r e t u r n e d t o t h e s c h o o l and t e s t e d t h e c h i l d r e n a g a i n . We r e m i n d e d them o f o u r p r e v i o u s e n c o u n t e r and a s k e d them t o w r i t e down e v e r y t h i n g t h a t t h e y r e c a l l e d f r o m t h e passage ( D e l a y e d r e c a l l ) . Each c h i l d was g i v e n a b l a n k s h e e t t o w r i t e on, w h i c h had t h e o r i g i n a l t i t l e o f t h e i r passage as a cue ( e . g . , D i v e r s ) . The d a t a , i n summary, i n c l u d e s i m m e d i a t e a n d d e l a y e d r e c a l l f o r two grades, 5 and 7, f o r s i x d i f f e r e n t t e x t s i n t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s . The r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s were compared w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t s . Two r a t e r s independently assessed whether o r n o t an i d e a u n i t from t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t was p r e s e n t i n t h e r e c a l l , e i t h e r i n a v e r b a t i m o r p a r a p h r a s e f o r m ( i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was 9 2 % ) . A n a l y s e s were t h e n c o n d u c t e d on p r o p o r t i o n a l r e c a l l s c o r e s (number o f i d e a u n i t s r e c a l l e d d i v i d e d by number o f i d e a u n i t s i n t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t ) f o r b o t h t h e D e l a y e d and I m m e d i a t e r e c a l l cond itions.

THAT'S IMPORTANT BUT I S I T INTERESTING?

69

The Immediate r e c a l l s c o r e s d o n ' t show a n y s i g n i f i c a n t g r a d e o r t e x t d i f f e r ences a l t h o u g h , n o t s u r p r i s i n g l y , n a r r a t i v e s t e n d t o be r e c a l l e d b e s t . The Delayed r e c a l l s c o r e s show an i n t e r a c t i o n between age and t e x t t y p e s . I n grade 5 d i f f e r e n c e s a r e s m a l l between t e x t t y p e s - - n a r r a t i v e s t e n d t o be r e c a l l e d b e s t - - i n Grade 7, however, d i f f e r e n c e s a r e much l a r g e r , more t h a n double e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s b e i n g r e c a l l e d i n n a r r a t i v e s t h a n i n t h e m i x e d t e x t s . E x p o s i t i o n s p l a c e a p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f way between t h e o t h e r two c a t e g o r i e s . The s l o p e s o f l i n e s i n F i g u r e 1 a l s o i l l u s t r a t e t h a t w h i l e t h e decay ( d i f f e r e n c e s between I m m e d i a t e and D e l a y e d r e c a l l ) r a n g e s between 40%-50% i n r a d e 5 f o r a l l t e x t t y p e s , i n g r a d e 7 t h e r e i s n o decay f o r n a r r a t i v e s f a c t u a l l y r e c a l l s l i g h t l y i n c r e a s e s o v e r t i m e ) , 20% f o r e x p o s i t i o n s a n d o v e r 50% f o r t h e m i x e d t e x t s . These r e s u l t s s u g g e s t t h a t g r a d e 7 c h i l d r e n c o n c e n t r a t e on s a l i e n t i d e a s i n t h e m i x e d t e x t s and t h e y e i t h e r d o n ' t s t o r e o r c a n n o t r e t r i e v e o v e r d e l a y t h e e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s t h e same way as when i n t e r e s t i n g i d e a s c o r r e l a t e w i t h e s s e n t i a l i t y .

To f u r t h e r d e m o n s t r a t e t h e above p o i n t , F i g u r e 2 compares t h e d e l a y e d r e c a l l o f e s s e n t i a l and n o n - e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s . T h i s f i g u r e c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s we f o u n d between t e x t t y p e s . I n t h e case o f n a r r a t i v e s and e x p o s i t i o n s , a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s were r e c a l l e d t h a n n o n - e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s . I n t h e case o f t h e m i x e d t e x t s t h e r e was n o d i f f e r e n c e between t h e t w o c a t e g o r i e s i n g r a d e 5 and a r e v e r s e t r e n d was f o u n d a t w a d e 7, 50% more n o n - e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s b e i n g r e c a l l e d t h a n e s s e n t i a l one;. 60

a-

t

I-I

50

U

u

-

Essential Idea Units Non-essential Idea Units

w a

6

40

+

.C

L

0

30

L

a

5

20

z 10

Grades

5

7 Narratives

5

7 Mixed Texts

5

7 Expositions

Figure 2 Comparison o f E s s e n t i a l and N o n - E s s e n t i a l I d e a U n i t s - - D e l a y e d R e c a l l P a r a d o x i c a l l y , t h e s e f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t i f e s s e n t i a l i d e a s a r e t o be r e t a i n e d o v e r a p e r i o d o f t i m e i t may b e b e t t e r t o g i v e c h i l d r e n somewhat b o r i n g e x p o s i t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n t e x t s t h a t m i x i n t e r e s t i n g and i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n i n an u n r e l a t e d manner.

TEXT STRUCTURE

70

I n t r u s i o n s comprised l e s s than 10% o f t o t a l r e c a l l , and were e q u a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d o v e r d i f f e r e n t t e x t s and g r o u p s , t h e r e f o r e n o t encouraging f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s . A l s o , r e a d i n g time d i d n o t show g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s a s a c o v a r i a t e . In a d d i t i o n , we computed the number o f words r e c a l l e d o v e r t h e number o f words i n t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t s . The c o r r e l a t i o n between t h i s p r o p o r t i o n and t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f i d e a u n i t s r e c a l l e d was .93 f o r immediate and .94 f o r d e l a y e d r e c a l l . This f i n d i n g c o r r o b o r a t e s some o f o u r p r e v i o u s r e s u l t s (Hidi & H i l d y a r d , 1980) showing e x t r e m e l y h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s between word c o u n t s and p r o p o s i t i o n a l c o u n t s i n n a t u r a l t e x t s .

As o u r main i n t e r e s t focused on how well t h e most e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n of t h e d i f f e r e n t t e x t t y p e s was r e t a i n e d , we s e p a r a t e d t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l r e c a l l s c o r e o f each s u b j e c t f o r t h e e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s ( i d e a u n i t s which had an a v e r a g e s c o r e o f 1-1.4 on t h e e s s e n t i a l i t y r a t i n g s ) and t h e n o n - e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s ( i d e a u n i t s which had an a v e r a g e s c o r e o f 1.5-3 on t h e e s s e n t i a l i t y r a t i n g s ) . Figure 1 shows t h e mean p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e e s s e n t i a l idea u n i t s r e c a l l e d o f t h e t h r e e t e x t t y p e s f o r t h e Immediate and Delayed r e c a l l conditions. 100

0 A

Narrative

- Mixed

70:

-

Exposition

60 7

7

m

2

rx

50

c

.-+J0 L

40

0

Q

0

a L s a

30

a,

x

20

10

1

1

Immediate Delay Grade 5

Immediate Delay Grade 7

Figure 1 Mean P r o p o r t i o n Recall o f E s s e n t i a l Idea U n i t s

THAT'S IMPORTANT BUT I S I T INTERESTING?

71

GENERAL D I S C U S S I O N The d i f f e r e n t i a l r e c a l l o f t h e t h r e e t e x t t y p e s b y g r a d e 5 and 7 s t u d e n t s o v e r a f o u r d a y d e l a y s u g g e s t s d i f f e r e n t i a l p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e t e x t s . The important finding i s t h a t our subjects recalled essential information better than n o n - e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n o n l y i n n a r r a t i v e s and e x p o s i t i o n s . W i t h m i x e d t e x t s t h e r e was n o t r e n d t o r e c a l l t h e c r u c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n d i f f e r e n t i a l l y from t h e r e s t o f t h e t e x t , suggesting t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n d i d tlot f o c u s on t h e e s s e n t i a l / i m p o r t a n t segments o f t h e m a t e r i a l s . Why d i d o u r s u b j e c t s do so p o o r l y w i t h t h e m i x e d t e x t s ? How d i d t h e n a r r a t i v e e l e m e n t s i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e comprehension a n d / o r r e c a l l o f t h e essent i a l / i m p o r t a n t t e x t segments? I f a series o f propositions occur i n a t e x t t h a t i s n o t c l e a r l y r e l a t e d t o p r e v i o u s and s u b s e q u e n t i n f o r m a t i o n , a d i s t a n c e i s c r e a t e d between t h e two b o r d e r i n g e s s e n t i a l o r o o o s i t i o n s . T h i s d i s t a n c e can o n l y be b r i d g e d i n memory s t o r a q e b y e l i m i n a t i n g t h e t r i v i a l u n r e l a t e d p r o p o s i t i o n . Brown, Campione & Day (1981 ) , a n d Brown & Day ( 1 9 8 1 ) . c l a i m even young c h i l d r e n can d e l e t e t r i v i a l i n f o r m a t i o n . However, t h e s e r e s e a r c h e r s used e x p o s i t i o n s e s p e c i a l l y w r i t t e n b y them f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l p u r p o s e s and t h u s i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e t r i v i a l segments t h a t had t o be e l i m i n a t e d were h i g h l y salient. I n o u r m i x e d t e x t s , t r i v i a l i n f o r m a t i o n was sometimes v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g a n d c h i l d r e n h a d p r o b l e m s d e l e t i n g t h e s e segments. Thus, i t seems t h a t i t i s n o t enough t o have c o n t e n t knowledge t o e n a b l e one t o r e c o g n i z e and e l i m i n a t e t r i v i a . I f t h e t r i v i a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s h i g h l y s a l i e n t i t may i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e normal s e l e c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s o f t e x t processing. P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h h a s shown t h a t i f s t o r i e s v i o l a t e some o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e g e n r e , t h e n t h e t e x t s a r e h a r d e r t o comprehend and a r e more r e a d i l y f o r g o t t e n (Bower, 1976; T h o r n d y k e , 1 9 7 7 ) . A n a l o g o u s l y , i t seems t h a t i f we v i o l a t e some o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l e x p e c t a t i o n s o f e x p o s i t i o n s - a t l e a s t a t t h e ages when c h i l d r e n a r e j u s t g e t t i n g a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e e x p o s i t o r y g e n r e s , t h e same p a t t e r n s o f d e c r e a s e d comprehension and r e c a l l may emerge. Given t h a t t h e s a l i e n t / i n t e r e s t i n g segments w h i c h v i o l a t e t h e s t r u c t u r e o f an e x p o s i t i o n a r e o f a n o t h e r g e n r e t y p e t h a n t h e r e s t o f t h e t e x t ( e . g . n a r r a t i v e e l e m e n t s i n an e x p o s i t i o n ) , a d d i t i o n a l p r o b l e m s may a r i s e . K i n t s c h ( 1 9 8 0 ) a r g u e d t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n q t e x t i s an a c t o f p r o b l e m s o l v i n g , ( c f . Schank & A b e l s o n , 1977 and B l a c k & Bower, 1 9 8 0 ) a n d t h a t i n t h i s p r o b lem s o l v i n g a p p r o a c h t e x t - t y p e s p e c i f i c s t r u c t u r e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p l a y a c r u c i a l r o l e . T h e r e f o r e , a i d i n g o u r comprehension o f s t o r i e s , e x p o s i t i o n s , o p i n i o n essays, e t c . i s a s e t o f g e n r e - s p e c i f i c problem s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s w h i c h i d e n t i f y , l o c a t e and o r g a n i z e t h e i n c o m i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h o u r g e n e r a l knowledge a b o u t t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r g e n r e . For example, when s o m e t h i n g u n e x p e c t e d happens i n a s t o r y , o u r s t o r y - s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s h e l p u s i d e n t i f y t h e c u r i o u s e v e n t as t h e conf l i c t o r c o m p l i c a t i o n . Now, i m a q i n e t h a t y o u a r e r e a d i n g a n e x p o s i t i o n about s c i e n t i f i c m a t t e r , l i k e t h e b r e a t h i n g problems o f a n c i e n t d i v e r s , and s u d d e n l y an u n e x p e c t e d , i n t e r e s t i n q a n e c d o t e a b o u t A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t appears i n t h e t e x t . The q e n r e - s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s w h i c h have been s e t i n g e a r t o d e a l w i t h e x p o s i t i o n s a r e l o o k i n g f o r t h e t r a d i t i o n a l e l e m e n t s o f s c i e n t i f i c e x p o s i t i o n s such as c a u s a l and f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s e s , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and d e f i n i t i o n s , e t c . ( K i n t s c h , 1980) and may have t o s t r u g q l e t o h e l p comprehend such a n u n e x p e c t e d a n d i n c o n g r u o u s

72

TEXT STRUCTURE

input a s a n a r r a t i v e anecdote. What may be required t o guide a n d control comprehension a t t h i s point a r e s p e c i f i c n a r r a t i v e problem solving s t r a t e g i e s . Obviously, problems may be created e i t h e r b y having o u r young readers switch back and f o r t h between g en r e- s p eci f i c s t r a t e g i e s or by requiring them t o deal with unexpected information with ina ppropria te s t r a t e g i e s . According t o the Kintsch and Van Dijk (1978) model, t e x t comprehension i s a n automatic c y c l i cal process which has normally low resource requirements. I n each cycle c e r t a i n propositions a r e r et ai n ed in the short-term buffer t o be connected with t h e input of t h e next cy c le . I f sequential proposit i o n s a r e u n r e l a t ed , no connections can be made and resource consuming search o r inference o p er at i o n s a r e required which r e s u l t in noticeable d e t e r i o r a t i o n of performance. In our mixed t e x t s , where t r i v i a l information i s n o t r e a d i l y disc a rda ble , s e r i o u s i n t e r r u p t i o n s may occur in t h e automatic process. The macroo p e r a t o r s t h a t transform t h e t e x t base i i t o a s e t of macropropositions representinq the g f s t o f t h e t e x t a r e s e r i o u s l y i n t e r f e r e d with by the highly s a l i e n t , t r i v i a l i n f o r m t i o n . The r e s u l t of such inte rfe re nc e seems t o be a s h i f t between t h e macrostructure intended by t h e curriculum w r i t e r ( c o n t a i n i n g a l l of the important t e x t segments) a n d those a bstra c te d by th e readers ( c o n t a i n i n g few of t h e important t e x t segments). The conclusion t h a t macrostructures ar e e f f e c t e d by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mixed t e x t i s a l s o supported by t h e f a c t t h a t while l i t t l e e f f e c t of mixed t e x t i s apparent on immediate r e c a l l , l ar g e d i f f er enc e s appear a f t e r delay. Macrostructures a r e presumed t o be t h e s t r u c t u r e s re sponsible f o r long-term memory while m i c r o s t r u ct u r es a r e presumed t o have a c e ntra l role in shortterm memory s t o r a g e .

I n t h e above d i sc u s s i o n , we implied t h a t t h e more s a l i e n t the s t r u c t u r a l l y i n t e r f e r i n g information i s , t h e more l i k e l y i t i s t o d i s r u p t normal process i n g . We seem t o be d eal i n g with a n a f f e c t i v e component of t e x t s which can be d e a l t with independently o f s t r u c t u r a l co n side ra tions. This highly neglected aspect of t e x t processing i s only now s t a r t i n g t o emerge in the memory research of meaningful prose. Bower ( t h i s volume), f o r example, r e p o r t s on t h e r o l e of novel, i n t e r e s t i n g information in n a r r a t i v e t e x t s . Anderson ( t h i s volume) a l s o looks a t the e f f e c t of s a l i e n c y in sentence processing.

I n a r e c e n t paper, Brewer (1981) presented a s t r u c t u r a l - a f f e c t theory which r e l a t e s c e r t a i n discourse s t r u c t u r e s t o p a r t i c u l a r a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s a n d then r e l a t e d these two f a c t o r s t o s t o r y enjoyment. The a f f e c t i v e component i s presumed t o c a p t u r e t h e f a c t t h a t s t o r i e s e n t e r t a i n through evoking a f f e c t s such a s suspense, s u r p r i s e and c u r i o s i t y . While these categories can be e a s i l y t i e d t o s t r u c t u r a l p r o p er t i es of s t o r i e s , r e l a t i n g a f f e c t i v e components t o discourse s t r u c t u r e s in o t h er genres i s much more t e n t a t i v e . For example, mixed t e x t s of t h e kind we looked a t have no c l e a r c ut s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s t h a t could be r e a d i l y r e l a t e d t o a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s and i n t e r e s t i n g information seems t o compete with important information t h a t i s s t r u c t u r a l l y based.

Our r e s u l t s suggest t h a t in ad d i t i o n t o specifying the s t r u c t u r e of t e x t (Meyer, 1981), we must a l s o consider s al i en cy r e l a t i o n s , i . e . how saliency i n t e r a c t s with s t r u c t u r a l co n s i d er at i o n s . These pa tte rns may be c ruc ia l t o comprehension a n d subsequent r e c a l l of t e x t .

73

THAT'S IMPORTANT BUT IS I T INTERESTING?

Footnotes ' P a r t i a l s u p p o r t f o r t h i s p a p e r was p r o v i d e d b y t h e O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education. 'Kirkwood and W o l f e ( 1 9 8 0 ) r e p o r t e d t h a t i n g e n e r a l t h e t e x t s were t o o d i f f i c u l t a t t h e g r a d e l e v e l s t h e y were u s e d a t . S i n c e we wanted t o t e s t g r a d e 5 a n d g r a d e 7 c h i l d r e n we f e l t c o m f o r t a b l e u s i n g g r a d e 4 m a t e r i a l s . 3 0 u r n a r r a t i v e and e x p o s i t i o n c a t e g o r i e s b e a r a r e s e m b l a n c e t o Nancy M a r s h a l l ' s ( t h i s volume) d i s t i n c t i o n o f t e m p o r a l and t o p i c a l c a t e g o r i e s and B r e w e r ' s ( 1 9 8 1 ) d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e t i m e s e r i e s t h r u s t o f n a r r a t i o n and t h e l o g i c a l t h r u s t o f e x p o s i t i o n . References Allocation o f attention during reading.

Anderson, R.C.

T h i s volume.

B a r t l e t t , F.C. Remembering: A s t u d y i n e x p e r i m e n t a l and s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y . Cambridge, E n g l a n d : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 3 2 . B l a c k , J.B.

a n d Bower, G . H . S t o r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g as p r o b l e m s o l v i n g . P o e t i c s , 1980, 2, 223-250.

Bormuth, J.R. Comparable c l o s e and m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e comprehension t e s t scores. J o u r n a l o f Reading, 1067, 1(1, 291-299. Bormuth, J.R. Close t e s t r e a d a b i l i t y : C r i t e r i o n r e f e r e n c e score. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement, 1968, 5 ( 3 ) ,189-196. Bower, G . H . E x p e r i m e n t s on s t o r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g and r e c a l l . Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1976, 1_8, 511-534 Bower, G . H .

Plan-goal processes i n n a r r a t i v e understanding.

T h i s volume.

Bower, G.H. a n d B l a c k , J.B. A c t i o n schemata i n s t o r y comprehension and memory. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n a n n u a l m e e t i n g , San F r a n c i s c o , 1 9 7 7 . Brewer, W.F. The s t r u c t u r e o f s t o r i e s i n w e s t e r n c u l t u r e : Crossc u l t u r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e O I S E c o n f e r e n c e o n t h e n a t u r e and consequences o f l i t e r a c y , S t . Mary, Canada, October, 1981. L e a r n i n g t o l e a r n : On t r a i n i n g Brown, A . L . , Campione, J.C., a n d Day, J.D. s t u d e n t s t o l e a r n f r o m t e x t s . E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h e r , 1981,

lO(2).

I

Brown, A.L. a n d Day, J.D. S t r a t e g i e s a n d knowledge f o r s u m m a r i z i n g t e x t s : The d e v e l o p m e n t o f e x p e r t i s e . U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , 1981. Brown, A.L. a n d S m i l e y , S.S. The d e v e l o p m e n t o f s t r a t e g i e s f o r s t u d y i n g 1076-1088. t e x t s . C h i l d Development, 1978, 9,

'

74

TEXT STRUCTURE References (Cont ' d )

Brown, A . L . and Smiley, S . S . R a t i n g t h e importance o f s t r u c t u r a l units of prose p a s s a g e s : A problem o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e development, Child Development, 1977, 9, 1-8. H a b e r l a n d t , K . , B e r i a n , C . , and Sandson, F . The e p i s o d e schema i n s t o r e p r o c e s s i n g . - J o u r n a l o f Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19,635-650. H i d i , S . and H i l d y a r d , A. The comparison o f o r a l and w r i t t e n p r o d u c t i o n s o f two d i s c o u r s e t y p e s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e annual meeting o f t h e American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Boston, April 1980. Johnson, R . E . Prose l e a r n i n g s : v a u l t ? This volume.

How e s c a p e t h t h e e from t h e porous s t o r a g e

Recall of prose a s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l importance J o u r n a l o f Verbal Behavior, 1970, 2, 12-20.

Johnson, R . E .

o f the linguistic units.

K i n t s c h , W . On comprehending s t o r i e s . In P . C a r p e n t e r & M . Just ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s i n comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. K i n t s c h , W . Text r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e c o n f e r e n c e on r e a d i n g e x p o s i t o r y m a t e r i a l s , Madison, Wisconsin, November 1980. K i n t s c h , W . , Mandel, T.S., and Kosminsky, E . Summarizing scrambled s t o r i e s . Memory and C o g n i t i o n , 1977, 5 ( 5 ) , 547-552. K i n t s c h , W . and Van D i j k , T.A. Toward a model o f t e x t comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n . Psychological Review, S e p t . 1978, 8 5 ( 5 ) , 363-394. Kirkwood, K.J. and Wolfe, R.G. Matching s t u d e n t s and r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l s : A c l o z e - p r o c e d u r e method f o r a s s e s s i n g t h e r e a d i n g a b i l i t y o f s t u d e n t s and t h e r e a d a b i l i t y o f t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l s . Toronto: OlSE P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1980. Memory f o r g o a l - d i r e c t e d e v e n t s . L i c h t e n s t e i n , E . H . and Brewer, W.F. C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1980, 11, 412-445. Mandler, J.M. and Johnson, N.S. s t r u c t u r e and r e c a l l .

Remembrance o f t h i n g s p a r s e d : S t o r y C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1977, 2, 111-151.

Mandler, J.M., S c r i b n e r , S . , Cole, M . , and Oe F o r e s t , M . Crossc u l t u r a l i n v a r i a n c e i n s t o r y r e c a l l . Child Development, 1980, 51, 19-26. M a r s h a l l , N . The e f f e c t s o f t e m p o r a l i t y upon r e c a l l o f e x p o s i t o r y p r o s e . This volume.

THA

IS

IMPORTANT BUT

rs

IT INTERES ING?

75

References ( C o n t ' d ) P r o s e a n a l y s i s : P r o c e d u r e s , purposes jnd problems. Paper Meyer, B . J . F . p r e s e n t e d a t t h e American E d u c a t i o n a l Rese Pch A s s o c i a t i o n c o n v e n t i o n , Los Angeles, A p r i l 1981. Pearson, P.D. A n a l y s i s o f t e x t - f l o w s t r u c t u r e i n c h i l d r e n ' s c o n t e n t a r e a m a t e r i a l s . (Technical Report). University of I l l i n o i s , i n press. Rumelhart, D . E . Notes on a schema f o r s t o r i e s . In D. Bobrow and A . C o l l i n s (Eds . ) , S t u d i e s i n c o g n i t i v e s c i e n c e . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1975. Schank, R . C . and Abelson, R . S c r i p t s , p l a n s , g o a l s and u n d e r s t a n d i n g . H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Erlbaum, 1977. S t e i n , N . L . and Glenn, C . G . An a n a l y s i s o f s t o r y comprehension i n e l e m e n t a r y school c h i l d r e n . In R . D . F r e e d l e ( E d . ) , New d i r e c t i o n s i n d i s c o u r s e processitlg (Volume 2 ) . New J e r s e y : Ablex P u b l i s h i n g Corp., 1979. S t e i n , N . L . and Nezworski, T . The e f f e c t s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n a 7 s e t on s t o r y memory. Discourse P r o c e s s e s , 1978, 1. 177-193. C o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s i n comprehension and memory o f Thorndyke, P.W. n a r r a t i v e d i s c o u r s e . C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1977, 2, 77-1 10.

DISCOURSE PROCESSLVG A. FIammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) @ North-HolhndPublishing Company, 1982

EXPECTANCY STRUCTURES I N PROSE KEADING

M a r g r e t Rihs-Middel Department o f Psychology University o f Fribourg F r i bourg Switzerland A n a l y s i s o f r e a d i n g t i m e f o r sentences o f two subs e q u e n t l y p r e s e n t e d s t o r i e s l e d t o p r o p o s i n g two t y p e s o f expectancy s t r u c t u r e s a f f e c t i n g s t o r y p r o c e s s i n g ; an expectancy s t r u c t u r e assumed t o stem f r o m knowledge a c q u i r e d i n a l o n g - t e r m l e a r n i n g process and an expectancy s t r u c t u r e developed on t h e b a s i s o f an e x p e r i e n c e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g s t o r y r e a d i n g . Thorndyke's s t o r y grammar served as operational tool i n defining s t o r y structure. A c o n c e p t u a l framework i s p r e s e n t e d p r o p o s i n g t h e comparison o f p e r c e p t i v e and expectancy s t r u c t u r e s , t h e f u s i o n o f which y i e l d s a knowledge s t r u c t u r e s t o r e d i n memory. INTRODUCTION Recent advances i n p r o s e r e s e a r c h have underscored an i n c r e a s i n g concern w i t h t h e p r o c e s s i n g and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f c o h e r e n t p r o s e passages. The c e n t r a l t o p i c o f t h i s paper i s t h e q u e s t i o n what t y p e s o f a n t i c i p a t i o n p l a y a r o l e i n r e a d e r ' s p r o c e s s i n g . T e x t p r o c e s s i n g i s g e n e r a l l y viewed as t h e encoding o f a g i v e n t e x t i n t o a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g knowledge s t r u c t u r e s (Bock, 1978) a process Norman (1978) l a b e l l e d " a c r e t i o n " . The n o t i o n o f preprocessed knowledge s t r u c t u r e s has been an i m p o r t a n t i s s u e i n a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e (Minsky, 1975; Schank and Abelson, 1977). Whereas Bock tends towards t h e v i e w t h a t a g i v e n p r o s e passage i s r e o r g a n i z e d by t h e r e a d e r around an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l node and s u b s e q u e n t l y s t o r e d i n memory, t h e a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e p e o p l e seem t o assume t h a t each incoming b i t o f i n f o r m a t i o n i s d i r e c t l y i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a h e a v i l y preprocessed s t r u c t u r e such as a frame o r s c r i p t . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s p o i n t o f view a n t i c i p a t i o n does n o t Seem t o be an a c t i v e ongoing process b u t r a t h e r a w e l l - o r g a n i z e d d a t a base. Thorndyke (1975, 1977) seems t o s u b s c r i b e t o t h e a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e p o i n t o f v i e w by p o s t u l a t i n g a s t o r y grammar t h a t may as w e l l be w r i t t e n as a frame s t r u c t u r e ( 1 9 7 5 ) . The s t o r y grammar, i n h i s view, serves as an expectancy s t r u c t u r e t h a t equips t h e r e a d e r w i t h a h i e r a r c h i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n p e r m i t t i n g a more e f f i c i e n t s t o r a g e o f t h e w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l , Thorndyke was a b l e t o s u p p o r t t h e s e n o t i o n s u s i n g r e c a l l measures as t h e dependant v a r i a b l e.

76

EXPECTANCY STRUCTURES IN PROSE READING

S

I

E X T ERNAL -

S T I M U L-I

1

+

STIMULUS TRANSFORMATIOI

i PERCEPTIVE STRUCTURE

EXPECTANCY STRUCTURE

FEATURE COMPARISON

COMPARISON 3USTIFIES REACTION ?

1

*I

YES

REACTION SELECTION

1

1

REACTION PRODUCTION

1 R

F1 - Fn :

MEMORY

REACTION

FILES Figure 1

Process model f o r t h e simultaneous build-up of perceptive s t r u c t u r e s and expectancy s t r u c t u r e s .

77

TEXT STRUCTURE

78

Whether t h e focus of prose research should r a t h e r be on t e x t paraphrasing o r on pre-established knowledge s t r u c t u r e s seems t o deper:d on the type of prose s t u d i e d , on t h e previous knowledge o f the r e a d e r , on the nature of the reading assignment, and on t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s i n c l i n a t i o n towards l i n g u i s t i c s , memory research o r a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e . I t appears t o me, however, t h a t both aspects deserve f u r t h e r consideration. Giving each aspect i t s m e r i t , I would l i k e t o present some sugyestions a b o u t what i s going on during reading. I assume t h a t the reader c r e a t e s two types of s t r u c t u r e s during reading, c a l l e d perceptive s t r u c t u r e s and expectancy s t r u c t u r e s . The perceptive s t r u c t u r e i s assumed t o r e f l e c t t h e reading process a s i t proceeds from l e f t t o r i g h t a n d from one proposition t o t h e next. Complementary t o t h e perceptive s t r u c t u r e , an expectancy s t r u c t u r e i s b u i l t u p which r e f l e c t s which aspects of his p r i o r knowledge the reader brings i n t o play t o understand what he i s reading. Both s t r u c t u r e s a r e combined i n a comparison process which i s guided by the r e a d e r ' s preferences, p r i o r i t i e s , and mathemagenic options. T h e , r e s u l t of the comparison process i s stored i n memory and contains the perceived deviations of t h e perceptive s t r u c t u r e from t h e expectancy s t r u c t u r e . The present work focusses on t h e r o l e of expectancy s t r u c t u r e s in f a i r y t a l e s . I t i s assumed t h a t a f a i r y - t a l e - s p e c i f i c expectancy s t r u c t u r e i s created a s soon a s the reader perceives an opening l i n e l i k e "once upon a time.. This element of t h e perceptive s t r u c t u r e evokes well-ordered s e t s of elements in memory t h a t a r e combined according t o t h e requirements of the actual s i t u a t i o n t o form the expectancy s t r u c t u r e . R a t c l i f f (1978) has described a s i m i l a r process f o r t h e r e t r i e v a l of a probe item trom a memory s e t . Rihs (1982) has discussed t h i s process in more d e t a i l . Figure 1 i l l u s t r a t e s the simultaneous build-up of perceptive and expectancy structures. .'I.

I t becomes c l e a r from t h e flow-diagram t h a t deviations of t h e perceptive s t r u c t u r e from t h e expectancy s t r u c t u r e should lead t o a slow-down of reading, since a more exhaustive memory search i s needed in order t o produce a b e t t e r f i t t i n g expectancy s t r u c t u r e . I do assume, however, t h a t expectancy s t r u c t u r e s f o r very common types of t e x t , such a s f a i r l y t a l e s , a r e r a t h e r stereotyped and a r e commonly present a s t h e f i r s t l i n e of t e x t i s processed. The s t o r y t e l l e r in t h i s type of prose usually observes a s e t of r u l e s with respect t o t h e s e t t i n g , course of possible a c t i o n , general s t r u c t u r e , outcome, and s t y l e . These r u l e s a r e assumed t o correspond t o the expectancy s t r u c t u r e s of t h e reader. Since t h e r u l e s formulated by Thorndyke (1975, 1977) proved t o be e f f e c t i v e in predicting r e t e n t i o n , t h e present work focusses on t h e question whether these same r u l e s have predictive value when they a r e used t o represent the r e a d e r ' s expectancy structures. Another f a c e t of an individual expectancy s t r u c t u r e i s assumed t o stem from those experiences t h a t immediately precede the reading of a given t e x t . I f t h e preceding s i t u a t i o n has elements in common with t h e actual reading s i t u a t i o n t h e p r i o r experience might have the same properties as a n adapt a t i o n level and brings t h e reader i n t o a s t a t e of mind against which the new experience i s contrasted. An experiment was designed t o t e s t separately the influence of t h e s e two types of expectancy, namely:

EXPECTANCY STRUCTURES I N PROSE R E A D I N G

-

79

t h e i n f l u e n c e o f knowledge s t r u c t u r e s a c q u i r e d i n a l o n g - t e r m l e a r n process; and t h e i n f l u e n c e o f an e x p e r i e n c e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g t h e r e a d i n g o f given t e x t .

METHOD

60 s o c i a l s c i e n c e s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y on a v o l u n t a r y b a s i s . Materials two f a i r y t a l e s o f t h e G r i m m b r o t h e r s were m o d i f i e d u s i n g Thorndyke's s t o r y grammar i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e an i d e n t i c a l s t r u c t u r e f o r b o t h s t o r i e s . The f i r s t s t o r y was e i t h e r p r e s e n t e d a c c o r d i n g t o s t o r y grammar s t r u c t u r e o r i n a scrambled v e r s i o n w i t h t h e s t o r y sentences b e i n g randomly assigned t o p r e s e n t a t i o n p o s i t i o n . The second s t o r y was e i t h e r shown a c c o r d i n g t o s t o r y grammar s t r u c t u r e o r w i t h t h e c o n c l u d i n g sentence b e i n g presented i n s t e a d o f sentence N r . 18, l o w i n t h e h i e r a r c h y , o r i n s t e a d o f sentence N r . 22, h i g h i n t h e h i e r a r c h y (see F i g u r e 3 ) . A l l o f t h e presented sentences were made i d e n t i c a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o number o f words ( 8 ) and number o f s y l l a b l e s ( 1 2 ) . I n b o t h s t o r i e s , a l l v e r s i o n s c o n t a i n e d t h e same 25 sentences w i t h o n l y p r e s e n t a t i o n p o s i t i o n a l t e r e d . Apparatus A Kodak C a r r o u s e l S l i d e P r o j e c t o r served f o r s t i m u l u s p r e s e n t a t i o n on a c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o j e c t i o n screen. I n f r o n t o f t h e s u b j e c t s t h e r e was a board w i t h t h r e e response b u t t o n s . The p r e s s i n g o f any o f t h e s e b u t t o n s r e s u l t e d i n t h e p r o j e c t i o n o f t h e n e x t sentence. Responses were measured by an e l e c t o n i c s t o p watch, s c a l e 1/100 second. Procedure The s t u d e n t s s a t i n a b o o t h v i s u a l l y separated f r o m t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r . There was o n l y one r e a d e r a t a t i m e . The i n s t r u c t i o n s were r e a d a l o u d . The s t u d e n t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o press t h e green b u t t o n when t h e y f e l t t h a t t h e y understood t h e p r o j e c t e d sentence q u i t e we1 1, t o press t h e ye1 low b u t t o n when t h e y f e l t something was n o t c l e a r , and t o p r e s s t h e r e a d b u t t o n when they had a q u e s t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r o j e c t e d sentence. They were asked t o t r y aot t h e mechanism f i r s t and t o press any o f t h e b u t t o n s . Then, t h e 25 sentences o f t h e f i r s t s t o r y were p r e s e n t e d w i t h o u t i n t e r r u p t i o n . A f t e r w a r d s , t h o s e sentences t h a t had l e d t o ambiguous responses were presented a g a i n and t h e s t u d e n t s had t s e x p l a i n what bothered them. The procedure f o r t h e second s t o r y was t h e same. P r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e second s t o r y followed immediately a f t e r the questioning o f t h e students. The i n t e r v a l between t h e s l i d e change and s u b j e c t s ' b u t t o n p r e s s i n g was taken as t h e r e a c t i o n t i m e . The r e c i p r o c a l r e a c t i o n t i m e ( 1 / r e a c t i o n time i n seconds) was d e f i n e d as r e a c t i o n speed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The sentences o f t h e f i r s t s t o r y were t a k e n t o g e t h e r i n o r d e r t o f o r m groups o f f i v e sentences a c c o r d i n g t o p r e s e n t a t i o n p o s i t i o n . The means o f t h e r e c i p r o c a l r e a c t i o n t i m e s f o r t h e c o h e r e n t and t h e scrambled p r e s e n t a t i o n group a r e shown i n F i g u r e 2. A s p l i t - p l o t d e s i g n was used f o r

80

TEXT STRUCTURE

a n a l y s i s o f d a t a . Examination o f t h e s i m p l e main e f f e c t s proved t h e r e p e t i t i o n f a c t o r t o be s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h F= 3.75; P+=.Ol ( d f = 4) f o r the w e l l - o r d e r e d c o n d i t i o n and F= 12.28; P C . 0 1 ( d f = 4 ) f o r t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n . The between s u b j e c t s comparison o f t h e w e l l - o r d e r e d w i t h t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n y i e l d s an F= 4.33; P C . 0 5 f o r t h e s i n g l e comparison ( d f = 1). A c c o r d i n g t o t h e s e r e s u l t s t h e s t u d e n t s i n t h e w e l l - o r d e r e d c o n d i t i o n read t h e f i r s t f i v e sentences r a t h e r s l o w l y , then speeded up t h e i r r e a d i n g t i m e and r e a d t h e l a s t f i v e sentences s l o w l y a g a i n . The comparison o f t h e f i r s t f i v e and t h e l a s t f i v e sentences w i t h t h e sentences 6 t o 20 by t h e S c h e f f e t e s t i s s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h an F= 2 2 . 9 ; Fcritical= 17.37 ( f o r t h e .05 l e v e l ) . These r e a c t i o n speed r e s u l t s f i t q u i t e w e l l t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e s t o r y grammar u n d e r l y i n g t h e two s t o r i e s , s i n c e t h e f i r s t f i v e sentences and t h e l a s t f i v e sentences correspond t o l e v e l s 1 and 2 o f t h e s t o r y grammar h i e r a r c h y whereas t h e m i d d l e 15 sentences correspond t o t h e l e v e l s 3 and 4 of t h e s t o r y grammar (see F i g u r e 3 ) .

0.180

Reaction ----speed 0.170

0.160

0.150

/

/

/ "we 1 1- o r d e r e d

/W

0.140

/

/

/

X- -%

'I

"

s c r a rn b 1e d "

0.130 1

1 - 5

2

3

6 - 1 0 11 - 1 5 1 6

4

5 (Sentence

-

20 2 1 - 25 (Sentences

m-

Figure 2 Means of r e c i p r o c a l r e a c t i o n t i m e s o f f i r s t s t o r y as a f u n c t i o n o f p r e s e n t a t i o n o r d e r o f t h e sentences.

z 0

u

c V

d

c

>

I V ZCT

04 HE I-W

a~ 3 8

CT CTZ W H

c

ZI HU H

I

> I

zv

OCC

g; C C I

cc w z + H

0

Z H 3 _I

.. .. .. .. ..

w

EXPECTANCY STRUCTURES I N PROSE R E A D I N G

c

..

3 L

c, 0

L aJ

L aJ

rc v)

L

aJ

n .^

3 S v)

al .r

v)

L c, 0 c

aJ

!=

c, m

L aJ

.r

X

a W c,

L

n 0 Y-

O

h

73

h c L

Y a,

v 7

r aJ . m

m

m .r

LL

L 0

t-

m

+J 0 C

.r

0

n

V

m

aJ 3 V

L c, 3

L v)

c,

2 v)

c, 0

o m

Le

E

n

SaJ

.-o

c , 3

u a? Js v

SaJ

c, m s

aJaJ Lc,

a s La Llva )

81

82

TEXT STRUCTURE

I n t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n , however, r e a c t i o n speed i s s l o w e s t d u r i n g t h e f i r s t f i v e sentences, t h e n i n c r e a s e s s h a r p l y o v e r t h e sentences f i v e t o f i f t e e n , whereas t h e i n c r e m e n t i s l e s s f o r t h e l a s t t e n sentences. The comparison o f sentences 1 - 5 w i t h sentences 6 - 10, by t h e Tukey t e s t , y i e l d s a s i g n i f i c a n t q - v a l u e o f 4.4; q c r i t i c a l = 2.2 ( f o r t h e .05 l e v e l ) . T h i s i s t r u e a l s o f o r t h e comparison o f sentences 6 - 10 w i t h sentences 11 - 15, w i t h q = 4.3. These f i n d i n g s s u p p o r t t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s ' r e a d i n g o f t h e w e l l o r d e r e d f i r s t s t o r y i s g u i d e d by t h e expectancy s t r u c t u r e s c o n s t r u c t e d d u r i n g t h e f i r s t sentences o f t h e s t o r y which a r e combined d u r i n g t h e l a s t sentences t o f o r m t h e s u b s t r a t e o f what m i g h t be s t o r e d i n memory. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e d a t a f r o m t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n seems t o i m p l y t h e same process o f c o n s t r u c t i n g an expectancy s t r u c t u r e which, i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case, amounts t o making sense o u t o f unconnected sentences and then t r y i n g t o f i n i s h t h e t a s k as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e . I n a f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s , t h e d a t a of t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n were rearranged i n o r d e r t o p e r m i t a comparison of i d e n t i c a l sentences and 25 one-way a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e were c a r r i e d o u t . Four o f t h e s e comparisons proved t o be s i g n i f i c a n t . They a r e shown i n T a b l e 1. Table 1. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s f o r sentences o f t h e f i r s t s t o r y w i t h i d e n t i c a l c o n t e n t (wo = w e l l - o r d e r e d , s = scrambled) Sentence shown i n position: wo

S

8 14 16 20

5 22 3 2

Mean R e a c t i o n Speed (1/S) wo

0.179 0.183 0.184 0.176

F - value

Error Probability

S

0.128 0.146 0.143 0.134

15.5 5.1 8.7 9.7

0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01

The r a t h e r s t r i n k i n g g e n e r a l r e s u l t t h a t p r e s e n t a t i o n o r d e r seems t o a f f e c t t h e p r o c e s s i n g r a t e r a t h e r l i t t l e f o r sentences w i t h i d e n t i c a l number o f words and s y l l a b l e s , makes t h e few s i g n i f i c a n t comparisons even more s a l i e n t f o r t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , t h r e e o f t h e f o u r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s r e f e r t o t h e f i r s t f i v e sentences f o r t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n . T h i s f i n d i n g m i g h t be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h a t t h e f i r s t sentences o f a t e x t s e r v e t o s e t up an expectancy s t r u c t u r e r e g a r d l e s s o f wether t h e t e x t i s c o h e r e n t o r scrambled. I t c o u l d a l s o be suggested t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l c o u r s e o f t h e r e a c t i o n speed c u r v e f o r t h e scrambled and t h e w e l l - o r d e r e d c o n d i t i o n a r e j u s t a m a t t e r o f a r t e f a c t . However, a c l o s e a n a l y s i s o f t h e f i r s t 17 sentences o f t h e second s t o r y , where sentences and t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o r d e r were i d e n t i c a l , would n o t s u p p o r t t h i s argument, b u t r a t h e r p o i n t toward t h e h y p o t h e s i s o f

EXPECTANCY STRUCTURES IN PROSE R E A D I N G

83

a build-up of two d i f f e r e n t types of expectancy s t r u c t u r e s during the reading of the f i r s t s t o r y .

I t becomes apparent from Figure 4 t h a t subjects who f i r s t experienced a well-structured s t o r y , read t h e subsequent s t o r y more slowly than those subjects who f i r s t read a scrambled version of the same s t o r y . I t looks a s i f the f a s t e r processing of sentences, observed towards the end of the f i r s t story under scrambled condition, c a r r i e d over t o the processing of t h e second s t o r y . Students with a well-ordered f i r s t s t o r y , on the other hand, seem to have processed t h e second s t o r y a t just about t h e same pace a s the f i r s t story. Considering the course of t h e two reaction speed curves shown in Figure 4 , one may conclude furthermore t h a t t h e q u a l i t y of processing does not seem t o be affected by d i v e r s e p r i o r experience since u p s and downs move along similar l i n e s f o r b o t h conditions, with the basic d i f f e r e n c e in reaction speed remaining r a t h e r constant. As f o r t h e a n a l y s i s of var.iance, the f i r s t , f i f t h , nineth and f i f t e e n t h sentence comparison a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t , b u t point in t h e same d i r e c t i o n a s t h e other 1 3 sentences. I t might be argued t h a t the non-significant d i f f e r e n c e s a r e due t o a c e i l i n g e f f e c t , since reaction speeds of those four sentences a r e among the f a s t e r ones.

Reaction speed

-

(11s) 0.28

r

0.26

-

0.24

-

--.---.-Group

1

+--*-Group

2

*/ /sp--*--*

/

-

/*\ \*' -*, 0.20 - \*-/*-*--*. */ -

0.18 -?,

0.16

I1

/

/-. '

/ \

\

1

I

1

\\

*

// \\

-.- -@\.@ I I

\

/

/

I

I

I

4

1

I

L

"

' '

"

Figure 4 Means of the reaction speed measured during the presentation of the second sentences 1 - 17; t h e f i r s t s t o r y was e i t h e r shown "wellordered" (Group 1 ) or "scrambled" (Group 2 )

story f o r the

b

/

'kFA---.

\@,A .

\ ''

0 '

-.

\ \

/-./

/-.\,

\

k t

0.22,-

/

F. / \\

84

TEXT STRUCTURE

The i m p a c t on q u a l i t y o f p r o c e s s i n g by immediate and remote p r i o r experience was f u r t h e r s t u d i e d i n a two-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e d e s i g n . For t h i s purpose, t h e same c o n c l u d i n g sentence had been presented e i t h e r i n t e r m i n a l p o s i t i o n (TERMINAL), o r i n s t e a d o f a sentence low i n s t o r y grammar h i e r a r c h y (LOW) o r i n s t e a d o f a sentence h i g h i n s t o r y grammar h i e r a r c h y ( H I G H ) . This i n t e r r u p t i o n f a c t o r t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e f a c t o r (we1 1-ordered, wo, and scrambled, s c ) i s d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 5 w i t h t h e mean r e a c t i o n speeds o f t h e s i x groups as. dependent measures. F i g u r e 5 shows t h a t t h e group w i t h a w e l l - o r d e r e d s t o r y as p r i o r experience had - as a l r e a d y mentioned above - l o w e r r e a c t i o n speeds t h a n t h e group w i t h a scrambled v e r s i o n as f i r s t s t o r y . Here, too, t h i s t y p e o f e f f e c t seems t o be l i m i t e d t o t h e p r o c e s s i n g r a t e o n l y , w i t h o u t a f f e c t i n g q u a l i t y o f p r o c e s s i n g , s i n c e t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n c o n d i t i o n y i e l d s t h e same p i c t u r e f o r b o t h p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e c o n d i t i o n s , i . e . , r e a c t i o n speed i s h i g h e s t i n terminal p o s i t i o n , stays a t r a t h e r f a s t l e v e l s f o r t h e "high i n s t o r y grammar c o n d i t i o n " , whereas i t does decrease i n t h e " l o w i n s t o r y grammar" condition.

f , I 1 I l l

I l l

HIGH

LOW

TERMINAL

(Position o f c o n c l u d i n g s e n t e n c e i n s t o r y grammar h i e r a r c h y ) Figure 5 Mean r e a c t i o n speed measured f o r t e r m i n a l sentences p l a c e d a t d i f f e r e n t h i e r a r c h i c a l p o s i t i o n s i n t h e second s t o r y ; t h e f i r s t s t o r y was e i t h e r shown i n a w e l l - o r d e r e d (wo) o r scrambled ( s c ) v e r s i o n

EXPECTANCY STRUCTURES I N PROSE READING

a5

The p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e f a c t o r proves t o be s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h e two-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , w i t h F= 6.1, and an e r r o r p r o b a b i l t y p= 0.017. The i n t e r r u p t i o n f a c t o r i s s i g n i f i c a n t , t o o , w i t h F= 6.2 and p= 0.004. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e f o r t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e two f a c t o r s . Therefore, t h e comparison o f means was analyzed f o r t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n f a c t o r o n l y . The d i f f e r e n c e found between t e r m i n a l p o s i t i o n and i n t e r r u p t i o n low i n s t o r y grammar h i e r a r c h y i s s i g n i f i c a n t . The i n t e r r u p t i o n f a c t o r l o w versus h i g h i n s t o r y grainmar h i e r a r c h y i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , b u t p o i n t s t o a trend i n t h e opposite d i r e c t i o n . As i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 3, t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n by t h e t e r m i n a l sentence i n s t e a d o f a sentence h i g h i n s t o r y grammar h i e r a r c h y c o i n c i d e d w i t h t h e end o f t h e s t o r y . T h i s m i g h t be t h e reason why r e a c t i o n speed f o r t h e sentence i n t e r m i n a l p o s i t i o n and h i g h i n s t o r y grainmar h i e r a r c h y was rather similar. The f a c t , however, t h a t a t e r m i n a l sentence o f a r a t h e r u n s p e c i f i c n a t u r e "then f i n a l l y t h e happy l i f e began" seems t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h r e a d e r s ' expectancy f o r t h e n e x t sentence i n t h e m i d d l e p a r t o f t h e s t o r y , supports t h e n o t i o n o f expectancy - g u i d e d r e a d i n g i n t h e m i d d l e p a r t o f the s t o r y . T h i s t y p e o f expectancy i s assumed t o stem from knowledge s t r u c t u r e s a c q u i r e d i n a l o n g - t e r m l e a r n i n g process which, i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case, i s n o t a f f e c t e d by an e x p e r i e n c e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g t h e reading o f t h e s t o r y . Thus i t i s argued t h a t two independent types o f expectancy o p e r a t e d i n t h e p r e s e n t case, an expectancy a r i s i n g o u t o t w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d knowledge s t r u c t u r e s and an expectancy a r i s i n g f r o m an immediately p r e c e d i n g e x p e r i e n c e . CONCLUDING REMARKS A n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a l e n d t o s u p p o r t t h e f o l l o w i n g n o t i o n s as f a r as s t o r y processing i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case i s concerned.

1 . D u r i n g t h e f i r s t f i v e sentences r e a d e r s r e a d t h e f i r s t s t o r y r a t h e r s l o w l y , t h e n speeded up d u r i n g t h e m i d d l e s e c t i o n and r e a d t h e l a s t s e c t i o n more s l o w l y again. T h i s f i n d i n g corresponds e x a c t l y t o t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l o f t h e s t o r y grammar shown i n F i g u r e 3 and i s i n t e r p r e t e d t o i m p l y t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a s t o r y - s p e c i f i c expectancy s t r u c t u r e w h i c h subsequently i s compared w i t h t h e p a r t i c u l a r d a t a r e a d i n and f i n a l l y i n t e g r a t e d t o form a "ready-to-store'' version o f t h e story. 2. A scrambled v e r s i o n o f t h e same t e x t i s r e a d s l o w l y i n t h e b e g i n n i n g w i t h a gradual speed-up f o r t h e r e s t o f t h e s t o r y . T h i s m i g h t be viewed as an expectancy s t r u c t u r e b u i l d i n g up d u r i n g t h e f i r s t few sentences w i t h o u t a summing-up a t t h e end o f t h e s t o r y t h a t r e p r e s e n t s a c o m b i n a t i o n o f expected and r e a d m a t e r i a l .

3. The response speed shown i n t h e s c r a m b l e d v e r s i o n o f t h e f i r s t s t o r y seems t o c a r r y o v e r t o t h e second s t o r y , s i n c e t h e second s t o r y i s r e a d c o n s i s t e n t l y f a s t e r by t h e group t h a t had a scrambled f i r s t s t o r y as compared t o t h e group t h a t had a w e l l - o r d e r e d v e r s i o n o f t h e f i r s t s t o r y . This i l l u s t r a t e s one t y p e o f expectancy due t o an i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g experience. The f i r s t s t o r y i s assumed t o s e r v e as a p a c e - s e t t e r f o r t h e

86

TEXT STRUCTURE

subsequent s t o r y . 4. I n t e r r u p t i o n o f t h e c o u r s e of t h e s t o r y as d e f i n e d b y t h e s t o r y grammar l e d o t a s i g n i f i c a n t decrease i n r e a c t i o n speed when t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n occured i n a l o w h i e r a r c h i c a l p o s i t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s t o r y grammar. T h i s i s viewed as t h e i n f l u e n c e of expectancy s t r u c t u r e s stemming f r o m a s t e r e o t y p e d knowledge a b o u t t h e c o u r s e o f f a i r y t a l e s . 5. Taken t o g e t h e r , t h e p r e s e n t e d r e s u l t s seem t o argue f o r v i e w i n g s t o r y p r o c e s s i n g as a combined top-down and bottom-up process which i s m o d i f i e d by "mathemagenic" f a c t o r s such as t h e c a r r y - o v e r o f f a s t r e a c t i o n s f r o m t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n i n t h e f i r s t s t o r y t o t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e second story. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d h e r e was supported t h r o u g h a r e s e a r c h q r a n t t o P r o f . Dr. A . Flammer, g r a n t N r . 1.181-0.75 and Nr. 1.714-0.78 f r o m t h e Swiss N a t i o n a l Fund f o r S c i e n t i f i c Research. Ply p a r t i c u l a r thanks go t o Professor Flammer f o r h i s h e l p f u l encouragement and s u p p o r t o f t h i s work. REFERENCES Bock, M. Wort-, Satz-, T e x t v e r a r b e i t u n g . S t u t t g a r t : Kohlhamnier, 1978. Minsky, M. A framework f o r r e p r e s e n t i n g knowledge. I n P. Winston ( E d . ) , The psychology o f computer v i s i o n . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Norman, D.A. Notes towards a t h e o r y o f complex l e a r n i n g . I n A.M. Lesgold, J.W. P e l l e g r i n o , S.D. Fokkema, and R . G l a s e r (Eds.), C o g n i t i v e psychology and i n s t r u c t i o n . New York: Plenum Press, 1978. R a t c l i f f , R. A t h e o r y o f memory r e t r i e v a l . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1978, 59 - 107. K i hs-bliddel , M a r g r e t . Erwartung, Wahrnehmung und Fragen. D o c t o r a l t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of F r i b o u r g : Department o f Psychology, 1982. Schank, R.C. and Ahelson, R.P. S c r i p t s , p l a n s , g o a l s and understanding. New York: W i l e y , 1977. Thorndyke, P. C o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s i n comprehension and nieniory o f n a r r a t i v e d i s c o u r s e . C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1977, 2, 77 - 110. Thorndyke, P . C o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s i n human s t o r y comprehension and memory. D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , S t a n f o r d , Ca. 1975.

85,

DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammerand W, Kintseh (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, I982

HOW DO DIFFERENT READERS LEARN WITH DIFFERENT TEXT ORGANIZATIONS? Wol f g a n g S c h n o t z Deutsches I n s t i t u t f i r F e r n s t u d i e n an d e r I l n i v e r s i t a t T u b i n g e n Tubingen F e d e r a l R e p u b l i c o f Germany The i n t e r a c t i o n between d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n and d i f f e r e n t l e a r n e r s was i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r a more complex i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t . Two o b j e c t s were d e s c r i b e d a c c o r d i n g t o v a r i o u s a s p e c t s , whereby t h e c o n t e n t was o r g a n i z e d b y o b j e c t i n t h e one case, and b y a s p e c t i n t h e o t h e r c a s e . The t w o t y p e s o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n c o n f r o n t t h e l e a r n e r w i t h d i f f e r e n t p r o c e s s i n g demands, and i n t e r a c t d i f f e r e n t l y w i t h h i s / h e r i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n i n g character i s t i c s : They a c c e n t u a t e d i f f e r e n t s e m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e t e x t c o n t e n t , t h e scope t h e y p r o v i d e f o r i n d i v i d u a l p r o c e s s i n g i s d i f f e r e n t , and t h e y v a r y i n t h e deg r e e o f " s e n s i b i l i t y " t o w a r d s d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r i o r knowl e d g e . P r a c t i c a l c o n c l u s i o n s on how t o m a t c h l e a r n e r s and t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e p o i n t e d o u t . INTRODUCTION W i t h i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s t h e same c o n t e n t c a n o f t e n be p r e s e n t e d i n d i f f e r e n t ways. I n t h i s case t h e a u t h o r has t o ask h i m s e l f w h i c h t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n w o u l d be m o s t a d e q u a t e . F o r one t h i n g , a s p e c i f i c t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n s i g n a l s t o t h e r e a d e r what i s i m p o r t a n t and what i s l e s s i m p o r t a n t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e a u t h o r u s u a l l y t r i e s t o o r g a n i z e t h e t e x t i n such a way, t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , which i s most i m p o r t a n t a c c o r d i n g t o h i s e d u c a t i o n a l object i v e s , w i l l be a c c e n t u a t e d . On t h e o t h e r hand, a s p e c i f i c t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n has s p e c i f i c p r o c e s s i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . The d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e l e a r n e r w i l l be w i l l i n g and a b l e t o meet t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s depends on h i s / h e r i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . i.e., p r i o r knowledge, c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s . e x p e c t a t i o n s , g o a l s , i n t e r e s t s e t c . ( s e e McConkie, 1977; Anderson, 1 9 7 7 ) . An i n c r e a s i n g amount o f r e s e a r c h o n p r o s e l e a r n i n g i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p r o b l e m o f l e a r n e r - t e x t i n t e r a c t i o n (e.g., F r e d e r i k s e n , 1977; K i n t s c h and van D i j k , 1978; L e s g o l d and P e r f e t t i , 1978), b u t m o s t s t u d i e s c a r r i e d o u t so f a r were r e s t r i c t e d t o v e r y s h o r t s i m p l e n a r r a t i v e passages. Research o n t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e t y p e s o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n u s e d i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l and e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s i s j u s t b e g i n n i n g ( s e e Meyer, 1979, 1980; van D i j k , 1980). I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e r e a r e n e a r l y n o i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e s e t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Such an a n a l y s i s w o u l d be o f g r e a t p r a c t i c a l u s e i n h e l p i n g t o make b e t t e r founded d e c i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e m o s t a d e q u a t e t y p e o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r s p e c i f i c learners i n order t o reach s p e c i f i c educational objectives.

87

88

TEXT STRUCTURE

The f o l l o w i n g s t u d y aimed a t g e t t i n g more i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n . Two t y p e s o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t e n u s e d i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s were s e l e c t e d : The a u t h o r o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s i s o f t e n c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e problem o f h a v i n g t o present v a r i o u s o b j e c t s ( e v e n t s , f a c t s , v a r i o u s o p i n i o n s e t c . ) and t o compare them w i t h each o t h e r . Each o b j e c t w i l l u s u a l l y be p r e s e n t e d f r o m s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t v i e w p o i n t s . A s an example l e t us assume t h a t t h e o b j e c t s t o be p r e s e n t e d a r e : p s y c h o a n a l y s i s and b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . I n t h i s c a s e , one c o u l d d e s c r i b e each k i n d o f t h e r a p y a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f o l l o w i n g a s p e c t s : Some s t a t e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g i t s t h e o r e t i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s , i t s t h e r a p e u t i c p r i n c i p l e s , i t s a s s u m p t i o n s on t h e n a t u r e o f neur o t i c d i s o r d e r s and, f i n a l l y , i t s p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e s c i e n t i f i c t r a d i t i o n . A s p e c i f i c t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n ( o r " s u p e r s t r u c t u r e " a c c o r d i n g t o van D i j k , 1 9 8 0 ) c a n be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a s e t o f s p e c i f i c c o n t e n t c a t e g o r i e s subsuming t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s o f t h e t e x t t h a t f o l l o w e a c h o t h e r i n a s p e c i f i c o r d e r . One p o s s i b l e b a s i c t y p e o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n i n t h e example p r e s e n t e d above w o u l d be t o f i r s t d e s c r i b e p s y c h o a n a l y s i s as a w h o l e , i . e . , a c c o r d i n g t o a l l a s p e c t s p r e s e n t e d above, and t o p r o c e e d w i t h b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y i n t h e same way. T h i s t y p e may be c a l l e d " o r g a n i z a t i o n b y o b j e c t " . A n o t h e r b a s i c t y p e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n w o u l d be t o f i r s t d e s c r i b e p s y c h o a n a l y s e s and b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y from t h e f i r s t aspect, then t o deal w i t h both t h e r a p i e s from t h e n e x t a s p e c t e t c . T h i s t y p e may be c a l l e d " O r g a n i z a t i o n b y a s p e c t " . S e v e r a l y e a r s ago, some i n v e s t i g a t i o n s were c a r r i e d o u t t o a n a l y z e t h e d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s o f b o t h t y p e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n on l e a r n i n g and r e c a l l ( F r a s e , 1969, 1973; S c h u l t z and D i V e s t a , 1972; Friedman and G r e i t z e r , 1972; P e r l m u t t e r and Royer, 1973; Myers, Pezdek and Coulson, 1973; D i V e s t a , S c h u l t z and Dangel, 1 9 7 3 ) . I n t h e s e s t u d i e s o n l y s i m p l e n a m e - a t t r i b u t e a s s o c i a t i o n s were used as l e a r n i n g c o n t e n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , p r i o r knowledge was e l i m i n a t e d as much as p o s s i b l e b y u s i n g f i c t i t i o u s s u b j e c t m a t t e r . I n t h e normal c o u r s e o f e v e n t s , however, p e o p l e r e a d i n o r d e r t o i n c r e a s e knowledge t h e y a l r e a d y possess and t o e l a b o r a t e i t . The amount o f p r i o r knowledge a f f e c t s t h e k i n d o f p r o c e s s i n g t h e y d o . So i t was p r e c i s e l y t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h p r i o r knowledge t h a t was e l i m i n a t e d i n t h e s e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s f r o m t h e start. F o r t h i s r e a s o n , i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s t u d y a l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n was s e l e c t e d i n w h i c h a l e a r n e r , who a l r e a d y has some p r i o r knowledge a b o u t t h e t o p i c , i s g i v e n a r a t h e r l o n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t w i t h complex s u b j e c t m a t t e r t o r e a d . I n one case, t h e c o n t e n t was o r g a n i z e d b y o b j e c t and i n t h e o t h e r c a s e b y a s p e c t . The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s were t o be answered:

-

How do a l t e r a t i o n s i n t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n c o r r e s p o n d t o changes i n p r o c e s s i n g demands?

- How do t h e s e p r o c e s s i n g demands i n t e r a c t w i t h p r i o r k n o w l e d g e ? I n o t h e r words: Do s p e c i f i c d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r i o r knowledge have d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s on p r o c e s s i n g , d e p e n d i n g on t h e t y p e o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n ? COHERENCE AND PRIOR KNOWLEDGE The knowledge conveyed b y a t e x t r e p r e s e n t s a c o h e r e n t w h o l e w h i c h can be i m a g i n e d as a k i n d o f n e t w o r k . D u r i n g t e x t p r o c e s s i n g t h e l e a r n e r has t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h i s n e t w o r k by f i n d i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e t o c o n n e c t each new p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h t h e knowledge s t r u c t u r e a c q u i r e d so f a r ( s e e F r i j d a , 1978; A e b l i , 1 9 8 0 ) . The d i f f i c u l t y o f r e c o n s t r u c t i n g a c o h e r e n t knowledge s t r u c t u r e d i f f e r s d e p e n d i n g on t h e k i n d o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n . For example, o r g a n i z a t i o n b y a s p e c t ( A - o r g a n i z a t i o n ) c o n t a i n s s e v e r a l t h e m a t i c

HOW DIFFERENT READERS LEARN

89

r u p t u r e s where we s w i t c h from one o b j e c t t o t h e o t h e r , i n t h e example presented above, from p s y c h o a n a l y s i s t o behavior t h e r a p y , and v i c e v e r s a . A t these p o i n t s , t h e r e a d e r i s f o r c e d t o make a mental s w i t c h , i . e . , he/she has t o r e p e a t e d l y turn t o t h e o t h e r s u b j e c t m a t t e r . The knowledge s t r u c t u r e on t h i s s u b j e c t a c q u i r e d so f a r has t o be r e a c t i v a t e d in memory in o r d e r t o relate the following propositions t o p r i o r information in t h e t e x t . I f the t e x t i s o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t ( 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n ) , however, i t i s not n e c e s s a r y t o make such f r e q u e n t mental s w i t c h e s t o r e p e a t e d l y r e a c t i v a t e knowledge s t r u c t u r e s , because each o b j e c t i s d e s c r i b e d a s a whole b e f o r e the n e x t one i s taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a n d , t h u s , t h e t e x t runs through more o r l e s s smoothly. T e x t s o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t could be s a i d t o c o n t a i n o b s t a c l e s , which do n o t o c c u r i n t e x t s o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t . The r a t e a t which an A-organized text can be p r o c e s s e d depends among o t h e r f a c t o r s on the speed with which t h e s e o b s t a c l e s can be overcome. Mental s w i t c h e s should be t h e e a s i e r f o r a r e a d e r , t h e b e t t e r he/she i s a l r e a d y a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e t o p i c a r e a , i . e . , t h e more p r i o r knowledge he/ she has about t h e t e x t c o n t e n t . In g e n e r a l , one can e x p e c t a l e a r n e r w i t h g r e a t e r p r i o r knowledge t o be a b l e t o perform more p r o c e s s i n g o p e r a t i o n s during a s p e c i f i c time p e r i o d and so t o have a h i g h e r r a t e o f p r o c e s s i n g , t h a n o t h e r l e a r n e r s w i t h l e s s p r i o r knowledge. B u t , s i n c e t h e s p e c i f i c p r o blem o f mental s w i t c h e s mentioned above o n l y o c c u r s i n the c a s e o f A-organiz a t i o n , t h e h y p o t h e s i s can be f o r m u l a t e d t h a t t h e r a t e o f p r o c e s s i n g w i l l depend more s t r o n g l y on p r i o r knowledge in t h e c a s e o f A-organization than in t h e c a s e o f 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n . STAGING, READING PERSPECTIVE, AND PRIOR KNOWLEDGE The s t r u c t u r e of a t e x t u s u a l l y c o r r e s p o n d s t o a s p e c i f i c communicative f u n c t i o n , i . e . , i n choosing a p a r t i c u l a r t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n t h e a u t h o r pres e n t s t h e c o n t e n t from a p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t o f view. By means o f t h e t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n a t t e n t i o n i s focussed o n t o s p e c i f i c p r o p o s i t i o n s and t h e semant i c r e l a t i o n s between them. Grimes (1975) r e f e r s t o t h i s a s " s t a g i n g " . Texts d e s c r i b i n g two o b j e c t s and comparing them w i t h e a c h o t h e r a l l o w f o r a d i s t i n c t i o n between two main t y p e s o f s e m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s : R e l a t i o n s within t h e o b j e c t s r e f e r t o t h e coherence among t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s d e s c r i b i n g each of t h e o b j e c t s . S i n c e i n t h i s c a s e , t h e comprehension p r o c e s s c o n s i s t s in c o n s t r u c t i n g a n i n t e g r a t e d mental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e o b j e c t a t hand, t h i s may be c a l l e d " i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g " . R e l a t i o n s between t h e o b j e c t s on t h e o t h e r hand, r e f e r t o t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e o b j e c t s , i . e . , the comparison between them. P r o c e s s i n g o f t h e s e r e l a t i o n s may be c a l l ed "compa r a t i ve p r o c e s s i no" ~

In o r d e r t o r e l a t e two p r o p o s i t i o n s t o each o t h e r both must be a c t i v a t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , i . e . , t h e y have t o be i n working memory. S i n c e p r o c e s s i n g c a p a c i t y i s l i m i t e d , t h i s i s o n l y p o s s i b l e f o r a small number of p r o p o s i t i o n s . According t o the model of text comprehension o f Kintsch and van D i j k ( 1 9 7 8 ) , t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f a new p r o p o s i t i o n whose r e f e r e n t i s no l o n g e r a v a i l a b l e i n working memory o r i n t h e s h o r t - t e r m memory b u f f e r r e q u i r e s t h e r e a d e r t o engage i n e l a b o r a t e and time-consuming s e a r c h e s in e p i s o d i c longterm memory t o f i n d t h i s r e f e r e n t i n o r d e r t o connect t h e new p r o p o s i t i o n t o i t . In a d d i t i o n , one could h y p o t h e s i z e t h a t t h e s e a r c h e s become h a r d e r , t h e f u r t h e r back the p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e s e r e f e r e n t s o c c u r r e d . From t h i s t h e following may be deduced: I f a r e a d e r i s p r o c e s s i n g t h e second o f two s e m a n t i c a l l y r e l a t e d p r o p o s i t i o n s , t h i s r e l a t i o n becomes more a p p a r e n t and i t s p r o c e s s i n g e a s i e r , t h e s m a l l e r the d i s t a n c e between t h e s e two p r o p o s i -

90

TEXT STRUCTURE

t i o n s ( s e e Walker and Meyer, 1 9 8 0 ) . S i n c e a l t e r a t i o n s i n t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n r e s u l t i n changes i n t h e d i s t a n c e between p r o p o s i t i o n s i n t h e t e x t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e s t a g i n g dimension, the f o l l o w i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two t y p e s o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n can be deduced: With 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o p o s i t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e same o b j e c t f o l i o w r a t h e r immediately upon each o t h e r , so t h e d i s t a n c e s between them a r e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l . However, t h e d i s t a n c e s between t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s i n t h e two o b j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n s a r e r a t h e r g r e a t , s i n c e f i r s t one obj e c t i s d e s c r i b e d a s a whole b e f o r e t h e next one i s t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The o p p o s i t e i s t r u e i n t h e c a s e o f A - o r g a n i z a t i o n . Here t h e d i s t a n c e s between the c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s i n t h e two o b j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n s a r e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l . O n t h e o t h e r hand, t h e d i s t a n c e s between p r o p o s i t i o n s r e f e r r i n g t o t h e same o b j e c t a r e g r e a t e r on t h e a v e r a g e because two p a r a graphs on t h e same o b j e c t a r e always s e p a r a t e d by one paragraph on t h e o t h e r o b j e c t due t o t h e a l t e r n a t i n g p r e s e n t a t i o n . From t h i s one can deduce t h a t 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n f o c u s s e s a t t e n t i o n above a l l on i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g and t h a t under t h i s c o n d i t i o n t h i s kind o f p r o c e s s i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y e a s y . Here, comparative p r o c e s s i n g i s not a c c e n t u a t e d and d o i n g i t would be r e l a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t . A - o r g a n i z a t i o n , on t h e c o n t r a r y , f o c u s s e s a t t e n t i o n on comparative p r o c e s s i n g , a n d i t i s t h i s kind o f p r o c e s s i n g which i s f a c i l i t a t e d i n t h i s c a s e . B u t , s i n c e a comparison i s o n l y p o s s i b l e i f t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e o b j e c t s have been u n d e r s t o o d , A - o r g a n i z a t i o n not only c a l l s f o r comparative p r o c e s s i n g , b u t f o r i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g , t o o . I n a s i m p l i f y i n g way, the d i f f e r e n c e between both t y p e s of t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o s t a g i n g may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s f o l l o w s : With 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n t h e r e a d e r i s i m p l i c i t e l y c a l l e d upon t o c o n s t r u c t a c o n s i s t e n t mental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f each o b j e c t . A - o r g a n i z a t i o n on t h e o t h e r hand demands t h a t t h e r e a d e r c o n s t r u c t n o t o n l y a c o n s i s t e n t mental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e obj e c t s , but a l s o f i n d o u t how much t h e y have i n common and how t h e y d i f f e r . I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t l e a r n e r s a r e t o some e x t e n t guided by t h e s t a g i n g o f t h e t e x t . T h u s , d i s r e g a r d i n g i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , one can make t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t r e a d e r s p r e s e n t e d with a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t do more comparative p r o c e s s i n g on t h e a v e r a g e than r e a d e r s p r e s e n t e d with 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n . I f one f u r t h e r assumes t h a t t h e amount o f i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g i n both c a s e s i s about t h e same, i t i s a l s o t o be expected t h a t the r e a d e r s o f a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t w i l l on the a v e r a g e do more processing a l t o g e t h e r and t h e r e f o r e , t a k e more r e a d i n g t i m e , t h a n t h e r e a d e r s o f a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t . However, t h e l e a r n e r i s n o t compelled t o j o i n t h e p e r s p e c t i v e suggested by t h e s t a g i n g o f t h e t e x t . He may choose h i s own personal r e a d i n g p e r s p e c t i v e and p r o c e s s t h e t e x t a c c o r d i n g l y . P i c h e r t and Anderson (1977) and Anderson, Reynolds, S c h a l l e r t and Goetz (1977) found t h e l e a r n e r s ' i n d i v i d u a l reading p e r s p e c t i v e t o have a s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e on l e a r n i n g and r e c a l l . Although i n t h e c a s e of 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n a t t e n t i o n i s focussed o n l y on i n t e g r a t i v e proc e s s i n g - a c c o r d i n g t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s mentioned above - t h e r e a d e r can o f h i s / h e r own i n i t i a t i v e choose a comparative r e a d i n g p e r s p e c t i v e a n d , t h e r e f o r e n o t o n l y do i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g b u t comparative p r o c e s s i n g a s w e l l . When r e a d i n g a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t , however, t h e l e a r n e r has much l e s s scope t o choose h i s / h e r own p e r s p e c t i v e , as t h e s t a g i n g o f t h e t e x t w i l l induce him/her t o do both t y p e s of p r o c e s s i n g anyway. T h i s l e a d s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s i s : When r e a d i n g a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t a l l l e a r n e r s w i l l p r i n c i p a l l y do comparative p r o c e s s i n g - w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s o f t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a b i l i t i e s ( p r i o r knowledge, s k i l l s e t c . ) , o f c o u r s e . I f t h e t e x t i s o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t , t h e r e a d e r s a r e f r e e t o choose whether t h e y w i l l do


91

comparative p r o c e s s i n g . Pence, some r e a d e r s w i l l engage i n t h i s kind o f proc e s s i n g , whereas o t h e r s w i l l n o t . T h u s , g r e a t e r i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the amount o f comparative p r o c e s s i n g a r e t o be e x p e c t e d i n t h e c a s e o f t e x t s organized by o b j e c t , than i n t h e c a s e of t e x t s o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t . S i n c e comparative p r o c e s s i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t w i t h 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n and, s i n c e t h i s d i f f i c u l t y i s l e s s s e v e r e f o r r e a d e r s w i t h h i g h e r p r i o r knowledge, i t can a l s o be e x p e c t e d t h a t l e a r n e r s with more p r i o r knowledge w i l l be more l i k e l y t o engage i n a d d i t i o n a l comparative p r o c e s s i n g .

METHOD Experimental text. The text used i n t h i s s t u d y was a d e s c r i p t i o n o f psychoa n a l y s i s and b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y a s mentioned above. Text l e n g t h was 1079 words. To d e s c r i b e each o b j e c t one paragraph was used f o r each a s p e c t . The paragraphs were o r d e r e d i n such a way a s t o produce e i t h e r a t e x t organized by o b j e c t o r a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t . For both t y p e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n t h e r e was a v e r s i o n s t a r t i n g w i t h p s y c h o a n a l y s i s and a v e r s i o n s t a r t i n g w i t h behavior therapy, r e s u l t i n g i n 4 text v a r i a n t s a l t o g e t h e r . S u b j e c t s . 20 s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e e x p e r i m e n t . They were randomly assigned t o t h e d i f f e r e n t t e x t v a r i a n t s so t h a t each o f t h e 4 v a r i a n t s was given t o 5 s u b j e c t s . In o r d e r t o a s s e s s p r i o r knowledge on t h e t e x t c o n t e n t , the s u b j e c t s were f i r s t given a number o f c o n c e p t s about p s y c h o a n a l y s i s and behavior t h e r a p y which t h e y were asked t o e x p l a i n . They r e c e i v e d knowledge s c o r e s f o r their a n s w e r s . Procedure. S u b j e c t s were asked t o read the t e x t in such a way a s t o be a b l e t o r e t e l l t h e c o n t e n t by f r e e r e c a l l t o a n o t h e r s t u d e n t l a t e r on. The cont e n t should be p r e s e n t e d i n such a way t h a t t h e o t h e r s t u d e n t would be capable o f answering comprehension q u e s t i o n s on i t . T a s k - o r i e n t e d r e a d i n g was supposed t o be induced by t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n . The i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a r e a l addressee f o r communicating the text c o n t e n t t o a f t e r the l e a r n i n g p e r i o d was supposed .to make t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n more r e a l i s t i c . There was no l i m i t t o r e a d i n g t i m e . Reading time was r e c o r d e d . A f t e r an i n t e r v a l 'of 15 minutes f o l l o w i n g t h e r e a d i n g p e r i o d , t h e s u b j e c t s communicated t h e cont e n t t o a n o t h e r s t u d e n t . A f t e r w a r d s , t h e y were p r e s e n t e d with s t a t e m e n t s comparing p s y c h o a n a l y s i s and b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . These s t a t e m e n t s were p a r t l y t r u e and p a r t l y f a l s e . The s u b j e c t s were asked t o judge whether t h e y were t r u e o r f a l s e w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e t e x t and t o g i v e r e a s o n s f o r t h e i r answers. The aim o f t h i s comparison t a s k was t o f i n d o u t how well t h e students had i d e n t i f i e d the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between both t y p e s o f t h e r a p y . For each s u b j e c t , t h e number o f e r r o r s which h e / s h e had i d e n t i f i e d in t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s was s c o r e d . In sum, t h e f o l l o w i n g measures were a v a i l a b l e f o r each s u b j e c t : P r i o r knowledge, r e a d i n g t i m e , r e c a l l performance (number of t e x t p r o p o s i t i o n s r e c a l l e d c o r r e c t l y ) and performance i n t h e comparison t a s k . Furthermore, t h e number o f c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d p r o p o s i t i o n s per r e a d i n g time was computed f o r each s u b j e c t . RESULTS

Table 1 shows t h e means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f t h e measures mentioned above f o r the group who read a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t (0-group) and f o r t h e group who r e a d a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t (A-group). As one can s e e , p r i o r knowledge was n e a r l y the same f o r both groups on t h e a v e r a g e = 14.4, = 14.2 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Table 2 c o n t a i n s t h e s e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s which a r e r e l e v a n t f o r t e s t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s mentioned above

(x

TEXT STRUCTURE

92

T a b l e 1. Means

(x) and

standard deviations

(5)

i n b o t h groups

object group P r i o r know1 edge

x

=

s = Reading t i m e

Recall performance

7.99

x

=

s =

14.2 5.87

x

=

17.4

x

=

18.7

s

=

5.9

s

=

3.7

x

=

51.4

x

=

55.3

s = 17.4

s

=

15.2

Recall per reading time

Comparison t a s k p e r f o r m a n c e

14.4

aspect group

=

3.16

x =

3.03

s =

1.23

s =

0.92

x =

3.70

x =

5.30

s

2.31

s

1.06

=

=

and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g c o e f f i c i e n t s o f d e t e r m i n a t i o n . I t may be assumed t h a t an i n c r e a s e i n t h e number o f p r o c e s s i n g o p e r a t i o n s l e a d s t o a b e t t e r i n t e g r a t e d memory s t r u c t u r e w i t h more i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n s between t h e s t o r e d p r o p o s i t i o n s . T h i s r e s u l t s i n an i n c r e a s e i n r e t r i e v a b i l i t y o f t h e l e a r n e d i n f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g r e c a l l . Thus, r e c a l l p e r f o r m a n c e may s e r v e as an i n d e x o f t h e amount o f p r o c e s s i n g done b y t h e l e a r n e r . I n a d d i t i o n , r e c a l l p e r r e a d i n g t i m e may t h e r e f o r e be u s e d as an i n d e x o f t h e r a t e o f p r o c e s s i n g . I f , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s m e n t i o n e d above, r a t e o f p r o c e s s i n g depends more s t r o n g l y on p r i o r knowledge w i t h a t e x t o r g a n i z e d b y a s p e c t t h a n i t does w i t h a t e x t o r g a n i z e d b y o b j e c t , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between p r i o r knowledge and r e c a l l p e r r e a d i n g t i m e i n t h e A-group s h o u l d be h i g h e r t h a n i n t h e 0 - g r o u p . As a p p e a r s i n T a b l e 2, t h e r e i s i n d e e d a c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e : The c o e f f i c i e n t o f d e t e r m i n a t i o n o n l y amounts t o r 2 = 7% i n the 56% w h i c h i s s i g n i f i c a n t 0 - g r o u p , whereas i n t h e A-group i t amounts t o r 2 l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m z e r o ( p = . 0 0 6 ) . The d i f f e r e n c e between b o t h g r o u p s i s e s p e c i a l l y r e m a r k a b l e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f a c t t h a t t h e v a r i a n c e o f p r i o r knowl e d g e i n t h e A-group i s even s m a l l e r t h a n t h e v a r i a n c e i n t h e 0 - g r o u p (see T a b l e 1). The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e t w o c o e f f i c i e n t s does n o t r e a c h t h e 5 % l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , s i n c e t h e number o f d e g r e e s o f freedom i s r a t h e r small, but the r e s u l t c l e a r l y tends t o support t h e hypothesis, t h a t r a t e o f p r o c e s s i n g depends more s t r o n g l y on p r i o r knowledge i n t h e c a s e o f a t e x t o r g a n i z e d b y a s p e c t t h a n i n t h e case o f a t e x t o r g a n i z e d b y o b j e c t .

The h y p o t h e s i s t h a t r e a d e r s do more c o m p a r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g on t h e average when r e a d i n g an A - o r g a n i z e d t e x t t h a n when r e a d i n g an 0 - o r g a n i z e d t e x t was g l s o c l e a r l y s u p p o r t e d : mean performance i n t h e c o m p a r i s o n t a s k amounted t o x = 5 . 3 i n t h e A-group opposed t o o n l y i( = 3.7 i n t h e 0 - g r o u p . The d i f f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t ( t = 1.99, p = . 0 3 ) . The h y p o t h e s i s t h a t l e a r n e r s r e a d i n g a t e x t o r g a n i z e d b y a s p e c t w i l l on t h e a v e r a g e d o more p r o c e s s i n g a l t o g e t h e r


93

Table 2 . C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s , p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s and c o r r e s p o n d i n g c o e f f i c i e n t s o f d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n both groups. r object

r aspect

Recal l / R e a d i n g Time, P r i o r Knowledge

.27

.75""

Comparison Task, Reading Time P r i o r Know1 edge

.67*

Comparison Task, P r i o r Knowledge

.39

2 object

2 aspect

7%

56%""

.03

45%"

0%

.42

15%

18%

"p C ( 1 ) > C ( 2 )

P 1-re1 eva n t el ements

C ( 1 ) = C ( 2 ) > C(0)

P2-re1 evant el ements

C ( 2 ) > C(0) > C ( 1 )

Second, we will consider the e f f e c t s of t h e proposed r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y . In t h e r e t r i e v a l phase the induced goal of how and when t o use information will b e d e c i s i v e . Of course, the r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y can only operate on what i s a v a i l a b l e , i . e . , t h e stored representation. Subjects i n Condition C(0) should only have t h e goal of r e c a l l i n g t h e s t o r y because they think t h a t t h i s will be t h e end of the experiment. Therefore, there should not be a g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e stored representation a n d the generated recall except f o r some elaborations or omissions due t o inaccuracy. I n c o n t r a s t , C ( 1 ) - and C(2)-subjects know t h a t the actual problem-solving p a r t will s t a r t subsequently t o the recall t a s k . They i n t e r p r e t the request to recall t h e s t o r y as n o t being r e l a t e d t o problem solving which i s t h e i r ultimate goal. Therefore, they a r e 1 ikely t o suppress t h e respective problem-releva n t information although i t i s present i n the stored representation. Consequently, one would predict d i f f e r e n c e s between s t o r e d and generated representations f o r Pi-relevant elements in b o t h conditions. A s u b s t a n t i a l decrease i n Pp-relevant information s h o u l d only be expected i n Condition C ( 2 ) . 5 . RESULTS AND D I S C U S S I O N

The experiment provides two s e t s of d a t a . The f i r s t s e t r e s u l t s from the w r i t t e n notes the subjects took while simultaneously l i s t e n i n g t o the tape. We consider t h i s note-taking as an on-1 ine r e g i s t r a t i o n of t h a t information rated relevant by the subjects a t the time of encoding i n accordance with t h e i r c u r r e n t problem o r i e n t a t i o n . I t can be assumed t h a t subjects p a r t i c i pating i n t h e experiment a r e very f a m i l i a r w i t h t h i s kind of s i t u a t i o n because they a r e used t o taking notes while attending l e c t u r e s and seminars. Although t h e w r i t t e n notes a r e , of course, n o t t h e stored representation i t s e l f they do r e f l e c t e s p e c i a l l y those f e a t u r e s t h a t will be a f f e c t e d

372

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

during encoding. The second s e t c o n s i s t s of data obtained from t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n s of the oral recall protocols and i s considered t o r e f l e c t t h e impact of the r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y . The findings of g r e a t e s t i n t e r e s t a r e shown in Figures 2 , 3, and 4 which present the data on both encoding and r e t r i e v a l a t t h e same time. The d i f ferences between t h e dashed and the s o l i d l i n e s demonstrate the e f f e c t of the r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y operating on the s t o r e d representation Rs. Figure 2 presents the data f o r t h e s t o r y elements.

O----+

ORAL RECALL

O---O

WRITTEN NOTES

\ \

\

‘s a W L L r o

...

-0

F i g . 2 . Number o f s t o r y elements encoded and recalled.

Considering f i r s t the mean proportion of s t o r y elements in t h e w r i t t e n notes, one finds a highly s i g n i f i c a n t decrease as the number of problems increases; F(2,80) = 23.6, Fcrit.(2,80) = 4.85 f o r p < 0.01. This i n d i c a t e s t h a t subjects were very s e n s i t i v e to the induced problem o r i e n t a t i o n . The same finding s t i l l holds f o r the oral r e c a l l , F(2,80) = 20.2, b u t t h e r e i s an i n t e r e s t i n g increase r e l a t i v e t o t h e information present i n t h e w r i t t e n notes. Subjects in a l l conditions recall o r a l l y more than t h e i r w r i t t e n notes on the s t o r y elements show. This i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g because the s e t t ing and s c r i p t information provided by t h e t e x t can be e a s i l y reconstructed from j u s t a few notes by means of inferences. Furthermore, one has t o bear i n mind t h a t subjects have additional information i n t h e i r memory and thus generate a more comprehensive p i c t u r e of the s t o r y by f i l l i n g in s c r i p t based information. I n summary, i t should be noted t h a t the more subjects were oriented to a s p e c i f i c problemlsolving t a s k , the fewer s t o r y elements

TEXT COMPREHENSION A N D PROBLEM SOLVING

373

were r e c a l l e d . These s t o r y elements, however, would be high i n a t e x t base hierarchy a s proposed by t h e conventional text-based models reviewed in Section 1. Therefore, they should b e encoded and re c a lle d t o a high degree which i s n o t t h e case here. I n c o n t r a s t , t h e i r re c a ll depends o n the problem o r i e n t a t i o n a s predicted by o u r model and thus confirms our hypotheses a s s t a t e d i n Table 1. The following two f i g u r e s show t h e r ecal l p at t ern f o r problem-relevant information which c o n s i s t s of minor d e t a i l s i n the de sc ription o f the p a t i e n t s ( P i ) and musicians (P2). According t o a propositional a n a l y s i s a s , f o r example, proposed by Kintsch (1974) and described in d e t a i l in Turner a n d Greene ( 1 9 7 7 ) , t h i s information would be represented by modifier proposit i o n s a n d t h e r e f o r e low i n t h e hierarchy.

o----*

WRITTEN NOTES

70%

i

d

ORAL RECALL

20% 10%

Umber o f P,- relevant problem elements encoded

and recalled. As t h e dashed l i n e i n f i g u r e 3 i n d i c a t e s , s u b j ec ts i n Conditions C ( 1 ) and C(2) encode more Pi-relevant problem elements t h a n g r o u p C(0); F(2,80)=6.2.

Computing c o n t r a s t s , one f i n d s two s u b s et s : C(0) vs. C ( l ) and C ( 2 ) . This confirms again our prediction i n Table 1 based on t h e proposed encoding s p e c i f i c i t y according t o a PI-problem o r i e n t a t i o n . O n the o t h e r hand, s u b j e c t s i n c ( 1 ) a n d C ( 2 ) reproduce t h i s information only t o a small degree i n o r a l r e c a l l . This can be i n t er p r et ed i n terms of our proposed r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y . The c o n t r o l l i n g goal a t t h i s point in time determines t h a t the problem-relevant information i s not r e l e v a n t f o r r e c a l l i n g t h e s t o r y because i t i s only needed i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t problem-solving phase. There a r e

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

374

even a number of subjects in these conditions who s t a t e d t h i s goal e x p l i c i t l y while generating t h e i r oral r e c a l l . This s t r a t e g y i s not followed by t h e C(0)-subjects. They reproduce a l l they know about problem P i , because they do not have a f u r t h e r qoal. (They did n o t know t h a t t h e r e wa a problemsolving p a r t t o t h e experiment.)-This d i f f e r e n c e in r e t r i e v a s t r a t e g y i s r e f l e c t e d by t h e number of recalled Pi-elements, F(2,80) = 6 5, again res u l t i n g in two subsets C(0) vs. C ( l ) ahd C(2). F i n a l l y , we will turn to P2-relevant problem information. On y s u b j e c t s in the C(2)-condition did know about P2 before l i s t e n i n g t o the s t o r y .

*--a

P

WRITTEN NOTES

/

/ /

ORAL RECALL

F i g . 4 . Number of P2-relevant problem elements encoded and recalled.

Again, t h e r e s u l t s support our t h e s i s . Figure 4 shows t h a t C(2)-subjects a r e superior t o the o t h e r two groups with respect to the encoding of P2-information; F(2,80) = 12.3. I n t h i s case, t h r e e subsets could be i d e n t i f i e d . C ( 1 ) - s u b j e c t s a r e worse than C(0)-subjects, because by knowing only about P I before, they a r e s e t t o deal with i t exclusively. Although C(0)-subjects did n o t know about P 2 , they will w r i t e down some of t h i s information a s they take notes on t h e whole s t o r y . Considering the recall data, the e f f e c t of t h e r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y i s q u i t e noticeable. C(0)-subjects recalled a l most everything they wrote down f o r P2, whereas C(2)-subjects, having t h e most information a v a i l a b l e , r e c a l l e d very l i t t l e of i t . C(1)-subjects, having minimal information o n P2, consequently r e c a l l e d the l e a s t of a l l t h r e e groups; F(2,80) = 6 . 8 .

TEXT COMPREHENSION AND PROBLEM SOLVING

375

I n summary, we may conclude t h a t the data of the experiment provided evidence f o r t h e existence of the postulated s t r a t e g i e s of encoding a n d ret r i e v a l . Moreover, i t has been demonstrated t h a t the induced problem orient a t i o n s and goals controlled these s t r a t e g i e s in the predicted way. A l though in t h i s experiment d i f f e r e n t problem o r i e n t a t i o n s a n d goals were only simulated, i t seems t o be necessary t o extend text-based models in the proposed way i f they a r e t o deal with t h e real world.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported i n p a r t by a grant from t h e Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Do 200/4) t o Gerd Luer. The author wishes t o thank Hans-Willi Schroiff f o r useful ideas and his a s s i s t a n c e a t many stages of t h e research. Helmut Buchner, Monika Krummbach, and Jurgen Heck helped t o c o l l e c t the d a t a . Wilfried Holtum and Thomas Staufenbiel a r e thanked f o r t h e i r help with scoring the protocols. Walter Huber provided helpful suggestions. The r e a d a b i l i t y of the English version was improved by Ingwer Borg, Rudiger Schreyer, and - during t h e f i n a l e d i t i n g - by Eileen Kintsch. Finally, thanks a r e due t o Gerd Luer who made i t a l l possible and provided guidance t h r o u g h o u t t h e research.

REFERENCES

Black, J.B. and Bower, G . H . Story understanding as problem solving. Poetics, 1980, 9 , 223 - 250. Bock, M . Wort-, Satz-, Textverarbeitung. S t u t t g a r t : Kohl hammer, 1978. Flammer, A . , S c h l a f l i , A . , and Keller, B. Meeting the r e a d e r ' s i n t e r e s t s Who should c a r e ? In M.M. Gruneberg, G . E . Morris, and R . N . Sykes ( E d s . ) . Practical aspects of memory. London: Academic Press, 1978, 679 - 686. Frederiksen, C . H . Representing logical a n d semantic s t r u c t u r e of knowledge acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 1975 a , 7 , 371 - 458. Frederiksen, C . H . Effects of context-induced twocessinq operations o n s e mantic information acquired from discourse.' Cognitive Psychology, 1975 b , 7. 139 - 166. Graesser, A . C . , Higgenbotham, M . W . , Robertson, S . P . , and Smith, W . R . A nat u r a l inquiry i n t o the National Enquirer: Self-induced versus task-induced reading cbmprehension. Discourse Processes, 1978, 1, 355 - 372. Kintsch, W . The representation of meaning in memory. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1974. Kintsch, W . Memory f o r Prose. I n Cofer, C . N . ( E d . ) . The s t r u c t u r e of human memory. San Francisco: Freeman, 1976. Kintsch, W . and van Dijk, T . A . Tcward a model o f t e x t comprehension arid production. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 363 - 394. Mandler, J.M. and Johnson, N.S. Remembrance of things parsed: Story s t r u c ture a n d r e c a l l . Co 1977, 9, 111 - 151. Melton, A.W. and Mart ng processes i n human memory. Washington, D . C . : Winston, 1972. Meyer, B.J.F. The organization of prose and i t s e f f e c t s on memory. Amsterdam: North-Hol land, 19/5. Minsky, M.A. A framework f o r representing knowledge. I n P . H . Winston ( E d . ) . The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

376

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

Norman, D . A . a n d Rumelhart, D . E . Explorations i n cognition. San Francisco: Freeman, 1975. P i c h e r t , J.W. a n d Anderson, R . C . Taking d i f f e r e n t perspectives on a s t o r y . Journal of Educational Psychology, 1977, 69, 309 - 315. Putz-Osterloh, W . uber d i e Beziehunq zwischen T e s t i n t e l l i q e n z u n d Problemloseerfolg. Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r Psychologie, 1981, 189, 79 : 100. Putz-Osterloh, W. u n d LUer, G . uber d i e Vorhersagbarkeit komplexer Problemloseleistungen durch Ergebnisse in einem Intel1 i g e n z t e s t . Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 1981, 28, 309 - 334. Rumelhart, D . E . Understanding and summarizing b r i e f s t o r i e s . I n D . LaBerge and J . Samuels (Eds.). Basic processes i n readinq: Perception and comrehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. Ruielhart, D . E . and Ortony, E . The representation o f knowledge i n memory. I n R . C . Anderson, R.J. Spiro, an W.E. Montague Eds. . Schoolin a n d the a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge. Hi:lsdale, N.J.: E!lbauL, Rumelhart, D . E . Notes on a schema f o r s t o r i e s . I n D . G . Bobrow a n d A . Collins ( E d s . ) . Representation and understandinq. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Schank, R . C . and Abelson, R . P . S c r i p t s , l a n s , o a l s , a n d understanding. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 197% S t r e i t z , N.A. Die Bedeutung der Reprasentation von Wissen beim Problemlosen. Aachen, 1981 (unpublished manuscript). Thorndyke. P.W. Coqnitive s t r u c t u r e s i n comprehension and memory of n a r r a t ive ciscourse. Cognitive Psychology, 1977; 9, 77 - 110. Turner. A . and Greene. E . The construction and use of a propositional text , . base: I n s t i t u t e f o r * t h e Study o f I n t e l l e c t u a l Behavior. Techn. Report No. 63, University o f Colorado, Boulder, 1977. van Dijk, T . A . Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discourse comprehension. In M.A. J u s t and P . Carpenter ( E d s . ) . Cognitive Processes in comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.

APPENDIX A This appendix i s meant t o provide a b e t t e r idea of t h e content and t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e x t used i n the experiment. Due t o l i m i t a t i o n s o f space i t i s not possible t o r e p r i n t the t e x t . For the complete German version r e f e r t o S t r e i t z (1981) T h e text s t a r t s out w i t h t h e introduction of the theme (concert by request) and of two groups of characters ( p a t i e n t s and musicians). In additioij, there i s a general description o f t h e s e t t i n g ( h o s p i t a l , p e d i a t r i c s ward, nurse, ward physician). Then t h e s t o r y continues as a sequence of the following episodes and events.

TEXT COMPREHENSION AND PROBLEM SOLVING

377

- c o n v e r s a t i o n between a n u r s e and t h e ward p h y s i c i a n a b o u t t h e announced concert - r e q u e s t f o r p e r m i s s i o n by a p a t i e n t t o a t t e n d t h e c o n c e r t - a r r i v a l o f t h e musicians i n t h e h a l l - s e t t i n g up t h e equipment - c o n v e r s a t i o n between t h e m u s i c i a n s and t h e ward p h y s i c i a n - a r r i v a l o f t h e audience ( t h e p a t i e n t s ) i n t h e h a l l - f o r m a t i o n o f t h e band on s t a g e - announcement o f t h e band by t h e ward p h y s i c i a n who o r g a n i z e d t h e c o n c e r t - f i r s t p a r t o f t h e performance o f t h e band i n t e r r u p t e d by r e a c t i o n s and applause o f t h e audience - announcement o f an i n t e r m i s s i o n - c o n v e r s a t i o n s and a c t i o n s d u r i n g t h e i n t e r m i s s i o n - second p a r t o f t h e performance o f t h e band i n c l u d i n g e n t h u s i a s t i c r e a c t i o n s o f t h e audience - r e q u e s t f o r an encore - encore - end o f t h e performance - musicians a r e p a c k i n g up t h e i r i n s t r u m e n t s - audience l e a v e s W i t h i n t h e s e episodes i n f o r m a t i o n d e s c r i b i n g s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e s o f t h e f i v e p a t i e n t s ( P i - r e l e v a n t elements) and o f t h e f i v e musicians ( P 2 - r e l e v a n t elements) i s p r o v i d e d as demonstrated i n t h e f o l l o w i n g examples ( t r a n s l a t ed from t h e German v e r s i o n ) . " I n t h e meantime, t h e p a t i e n t s o f Ward I11 assemble i n t h e h a l l . F i r s t , a p a t i e n t i n a w h i t e night-gown e n t e r s t h e h a l l . Because he s u f f e r s f r o m asthma he walks v e r y s l o w l y . " ... who wears a b l a c k l e a t h e r v e s t asks h i s c o l l e a g u e t o h e l p him w i t h s e t t i n g up t h e equipment." ...

"u

.. .

I n t h e f i r s t example, " w h i t e night-gown'' and "asthma" e s t a b l i s h a n a f f i r m a t i v e r e l a t i o n between two P i - r e l e v a n t elements. The same i s t r u e f o r "Bernd" and " b l a c k l e a t h e r v e s t " f o r problem P2. P a i r s ( o r t r i p l e s ) o f t h i s k i n d o f p r o b l e m - r e l e v a n t elements e s t a b l i s h t h e a f f i r m a t i v e and n e g a t i v e ( o r " i n between") r e l a t i o n s . They a r e d i s t r i b u t e d o v e r t h e t e x t i n such a way t h a t t h e r e i s no advantage f o r any o f t h e two problem domains as m i g h t be p o s s i b l e b y a primacy and/or recency e f f e c t . T h i s i s accomplished b y i n s e r t i n g t h e problem r e l e v a n t elements which a r e o f no r e l e v a n c e f o r t h e s t o r y ' s p l o t i n an a l t e r n a t i n g way i n t h e above mentioned episodes.

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

37%

APPENDIX B

INSTRUCTIONS s u b j e c t s were presented w i t h b e f o r e l i s t e n i n g t o t h e t a p e . C o n d i t i o n C(0): You w i l l now hear a s t o r y w h i c h has been t a p e r e c o r d e d b e f o r e . T h i s s t o r y w i l l be t h e b a s i s f o r t h e r e s t o f t h e experiment. You w i l l h e a r t h e s t o r y twice. D u r i n g t h e f i r s t time, y o u w i l l have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b t a i n a g e n e r a l i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e s t o r y . Please, l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y . D u r i n g t h e second time, y o u w i l l have t h e chance t o t a k e notes w h i l e l i s t e n i n g . A f t e r h a v i n g heard t h e s t o r y t w i c e , y o u a r e t o g i v e an o r a l r e c a l l o f t h e s t o r y . You w i l l be a l l o w e d t o make use o f y o u r w r i t t e n n o t e s and e v e r y t h i n g e l s e t h a t you s t i l l remember o f t h e s t o r y . C o n d i t i o n s C ( l ) and C ( 2 ) : ( I n t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s s u b j e c t s g o t t h e same i n s t r u c t i o n s as t h e C ( O ) - s u b j e c t s and i n a d d i t i o n t h e f o l l o w i n g problem o r i e n t a t i o n s . ) The w r i t t e n notes and e v e r y t h i n g e l s e t h a t i s s t i l l i n y o u r memory i s supposed t o be t h e b a s i s f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r t o f t h e experiment, namely, t o s o l v e a problem. The problem i s r e l a t e d t o t h e s t o r y you w i l l hear. C o n d i t i o n C( 1) I t c o n s i s t s i n answering t h e f o l l o w i n g question: "What i s t h e name o f t h e p a t i e n t who has t h e concussion?" You w i l l have a s u f f i c i e n t amount o f t i m e t o s o l v e t h i s problem.

C o n d i t i o n C(2) I t c o n s i s t s i n answering t h e f o l l o w i n g two q u e s t i o n s : "What i s t h e name o f the p a t i e n t who has t h e concussion?" and "What i s t h e name o f t h e m u s i c i a n who p l a y s t h e g u i t a r ? " You w i l l have a s u f f i c i e n t amount o f t i m e t o s o l v e t h e s e two problems.

I n a l l c o n d i t i o n s , after h a v i n g l i s t e n e d t o t h e t a p e t w i c e , s u b j e c t s were presented w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g r e c a l l i n s t r u c t i o n : Now, p l e a s e g i v e a n o r a l r e c a l l o f t h e s t o r y y o u j u s t heard. You a r e a l l o w ed t o make use o f y o u r w r i t t e n notes and o f e v e r y t h i n g e l s e y o u s t i l l r e member.

DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . F'lnmmer and W.Kintsch (eds.) @ North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982

CHANGING

THE READER'S

PERSPECTIVE^

August Flammer and Marianne Tauber Department o f Psycho1ogy U n i v e r s i t y o f F r i bourg Switzerland

College students read a 748 word t e x t either f r a n the perspective o f a potential homebuyer or from the perspective of a potential burglar. The t e x t was an enlarged version of the one used i n the Anderson and Pichert (1978) experiment. A free r e c a l l t e s t was given either immediately or a f t e r a 20 minute delay, either f r a n t h e original reading perspective or f m the 1ater introduced a1ternative perspective. Recall from the shifted perspective was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than from the reading perspective. Yet. contrary t o the hypothesis, which was based on t h e assumption o f d i f f e r e n t i a l forgetting, t h i s r e c a l l difference was not bigger i n the delay condition than i n the immediate condition. I n comparing several interpretations most additional evidence was found i n favor of the interpretation t h a t suggests t h a t the text's own perspective overrode the special perspectives as instructed.

A schema may be defined as a mental device t o organize a s e t o f ideas. Such an o r g a n i z a t i o n i m p l i e s , among o t h e r things, t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between i m p o r t a n t ideas and unimportant ideas. What an i m p o r t a n t idea is, has been d e f i n e d i n d i f f e r e n t ways, i.e., i n terms o f a h i g h p o s i t i o n i n t h e p r o p o s i t i o n hierarchy of t h e t e x t base according t o K i n t s c h (19741, o r o f a h i g h p o s i t i o n i n t h e h i e r a r c h y o f r e w r i t e - r u l e s i n t h e s t o r y grammar according t o Thorndyke (1977) or simply by means o f s u b j e c t i v e r a t i n g s I t has been repeatedly shown t h a t t h e (Johnson, 1970). importance/unimportance d i s t i n c t i o n has s t r o n g imp1 i c a t i o n s f o r t h e memory processes ( f o r a r e c e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n see Yekovich and Thorndyke, 1981).

Most s e t s o f ideas can be a l t e r n a t i v e l y organized by several d i f f e r e n t schemata. P i c h e r t and Anderson (1977) had s u b j e c t s read a 373 word passage e i t h e r w i t h t h e p e r s p e c t i v e of a p o t e n t i a l homebuyer or w i t h t h e It had been determined beforehand by p e r s p e c t i v e o f a p o t e n t i a l burglar. s u b j e c t i v e ratings, t h a t under t h e d i f f e r e n t perspectives d i f f e r e n t ideas were i d e n t i f i e d as i m p o r t a n t ones. Under both conditions, t h e subjects' f r e e r e c a l l data showed c l e a r s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e ideas t h a t were i m p o r t a n t t o t h e i r perspective over t h e ideas t h a t were e x c l u s i v e l y i m p o r t a n t t o t h e a l t e r n a t i v e perspective. T h i s was n o t o n l y t r u e f o r t h e immediate r e c a l l b u t a l s o f o r t h e delayed r e c a l l o f those ideas which already had been

---------------__ The c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e coding o f data by Usula Waser i s acknowledged. 379

380

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

r e c a l l e d i m m e d i a t e l y . Thus, t h e s u p e r i o r i t y i n r e c a l l o f t h e i m p o r t a n t i d e a s over t h e u n i m p o r t a n t ones, as d e f i n e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a c t u a l perspective, i n c r e a s e d o v e r ti me. What happens i f t h e r e a d i n g p e r s p e c t i v e i s changed b e f o r e r e c a l l ? Anderson and P i c h e r t (1978) used t h e same t e x t and procedure as P i c h e r t and Anderson (19771, y e t i n t r o d u c e d a s h i f t i n p e r s p e c t i v e between t h e i m m e d i a t e and t h e delayed r e c a l l . S u b j e c t s had t o work on a d i s t r a c t o r t a s k f o r f i v e m i n u t e s between t h e i m m e d i a t e f r e e r e c a l l and t h e delayed f r e e r e c a l l . I n one e x p e r i m e n t s u b j e c t s w i t h p e r s p e c t i v e s h i f t produced on t h e second r e c a l l c l e a r l y more i d e a s i m p o r t a n t t o t h e second p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t had been u n i m p o r t a n t t o t h e f i r s t p e r s p e c t i v e and f e w e r i d e a s u n i m p o r t a n t t o t h e second p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t had been i m p o r t a n t t o t h e f i r s t . Subjects t h e r e f o r e d i d remember i d e a s i n t h e second r e c a l l which t h e y had n o t remembered i n t h e f i r s t r e c a l l . According t o s e l f - r e p o r t s by t h e s u b j e c t s t h i s was n o t t o be a t t r i b u t e d t o an o u t p u t e d i t i n g s e l e c t i o n process, b u t r a t h e r t o t h e p e r s p e c t i v e dependent r e t r i e v a l o f c e r t a i n ideas. I n t h e Anderson and P i c h e r t e x p e r i m e n t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between i m p o r t a n t and u n i m p o r t a n t i d e a s was t h e r e f o r e o p e r a t i v e i n t h e r e t r i e v a l processes, independent o f whether o r n o t i t had a l r e a d y been o p e r a t i v e i n t h e s t o r a g e processes. Does t h i s mean t h a t any new p e r s p e c t i v e would be e q u a l l y o p e r a t i v e a f t e r any r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l ? That schemata a r e a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r e s u l t of t h e r e t r i e v a l processes i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on t h e s t o r a g e processes does n o t i m p l y t h a t t h e schemata governing t h e s t o r a g e and r e t e n t i o n processes a r e w i t h o u t i n f l u e n c e on t h e r e s u l t o f t h e r e t r i e v a l processes. As Moscovitch and C r a i k (1976, p. 455) s t a t e d it, "encoding o p e r a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h a c e i 1 i n g on p o t e n t i a1 memory performance, and r e t r i e v a l cues d e t e r m i n e t h e e x t e n t t o which t h a t p o t e n t i a l i s u t i l i z e d . " And depending on t h e t i m e t h a t f o l l o w s s t o r a g e t h i s c e i l i n g m i g h t w e l l change i n d i f f e r e n t ways, b o t h q u a n t i t a t i v e l y and q u a l i t a t i v e l y . The c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n of t h e f o l l o w i n g e x p e r i m e n t was whether t h e Anderson and P i c h e r t (1978) r e s u l t was g e n e r a l i z a b l e o v e r any l e n g t h o f r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l . O r more p r e c i s e l y , does f r e e r e c a l l f r o m a new p e r s p e c t i v e f a v o r t h e newly i m p o r t a n t i d e a s over t h e f o r m e r l y i m p o r t a n t ones independent of t h e r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l ? According t o t h e Moscovitch and C r a i k (1976) c e i l i n g concept, t h e answer depends on t h e f a t e o f t h e memory t r a c e s o v e r time. I f what i s u n i m p o r t a n t t o t h e encoding schema i s u n r e t r i e v a b l e a f t e r a c e r t a i n time, t h e n c e r t a i n k i n d s o f new p e r s p e c t i v e s m i g h t be q u i t e i n a p p r o p r i a t e r e p r o d u c t i o n cues. New p e r s p e c t i v e s c o u l d t h e r e f o r e y i e l d q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s depending on t h e 1ength o f r e t e n t i on in t e r v a l . I n fact, i t i s w i d e l y h e l d t h a t l e s s i m p o r t a n t i d e a s a r e t y p i c a l l y f o r g o t t e n w i t h i n a s h o r t e r t i m e i n t e r v a l t h a n t h e more i m p o r t a n t ideas. T h i s i s most c l e a r l y demonstrated e x p e r i m e n t a l l y f o r t h e s u r f a c e nonsurface distinction, t h a t is, a r b i t r a r y surface s t r u c t u r e r e a l i z a t i o n s a r e more e a s i l y r e p l a c e a b l e w i t h o u t b e i n g n o t i c e d (i.e., forgotten) than t h e corresponding meaning o r deep s t r u c t u r e c o n t e n t (Sachs 1967; 1974; Begg, 1971; B r a n s f o r d and Franks, 1971; Franks and Bransford, 1972; Anderson, 1974; P l a s e t al., 1977). These r e s u l t s a r e e s p e c i a l l y c o n v i n c i n g because t h e y were gathered w i t h a r e c o g n i t i o n procedure; d i f f e r e n t i a l f o r g e t t i n g a s demonstrated i n f r e e r e c a l l c o u l d j u s t as w e l l be a t t r i b u t e d t o a p r o d u c t i on mechani sin i n s t e a d o f a r e t e n t i on mechani sm.

-

CHANGING THE READER'S PERSPECTIVE

381

How about d i f f e r e n t i a l f o r g e t t i n g among semantic i t e m s ? T h i s has o f t e n been s t u d i e d w i t h t h e f r e e - r e c a l l procedure (Johnson, 1970; Kintsch, 1974; K i n t s c h and van D i j k , 1975; K i n t s c h e t al., 1975; Meyer, 1975; P i c h e r t and Anderson, 1977). There a r e a few experiments done w i t h t h e r e c o g n i t i o n procedure; t h e r e s u l t s p a r t i a l l y p o i n t i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n . McKoon (1977) had s u b j e c t s v e r i f y sentences r e l a t e d t o i m p o r t a n t vs. unimportant s e t s o f ideas, e i t h e r immediately a f t e r reading o r 25 minutes l a t e r . I n t w o experiments, importance d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e e r r o r s i n immediate r e c o g n i t i o n b u t d i d a f f e c t t h e number o f e r r o r s i n delayed recognition, t h a t i s , i m p o r t a n t ideas were v e r i f i e d more a c c u r a t e l y and f a s t e r than unimportant ideas. Caccamise and K i n t s c h (1978) were a b l e t o show t h a t c o r r e c t paraphrases o f t o p i c ideas were more o f t e n c o r r e c t l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from f a l s e ones than c o r r e c t paraphrases o f d e t a i l ideas from f a l s e ones. T h i s was t r u e both i n t h e immediate and i n t h e delayed condition. The d i f f e r e n t i a l f o r g e t t i n g hypothesis has n o t been s t a t i s t i c a l l y tested, b u t t h e f i g u r e s c l e a r l y show a g r e a t e r s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e i m p o r t a n t ideas over t h e unimportant ones i n del ayed r e c o g n i t i o n as compared t o immedi a t e recognition. There a r e a l s o t w o s t u d i e s t h a t f a i l t o support t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l f o r g e t t i n g hypothesis: M i l l e r e t al. (1977) c o u l d n o t f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t a1 1 in r e c o g n i t i o n of superordinate vs. subordinate i deas, n e i t h e r immediately nor a f t e r a t w o day i n t e r v a l ; and Yekovich and Thorndyke (1981) found n e i t h e r a d i f f e r e n c e i n r e c o g n i t i o n accuracy w i t h respect t o importance nor an i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l ( 0 vs. 60 minutes).

I f i t i s t h e case t h a t l e s s i m p o r t a n t ideas a r e f o r g o t t e n e a r l i e r than more i m p o r t a n t ideas we conclude t h a t t h e way i n t h a t t h e r e t r i e v a l r e s u l t depends on t h e encoding schema would a l s o change over t h e l e n g t h o f t h e encoding-retrieval i n t e r v a l . And b u i l d i n g on t h i s , we expect r e c a l l performance from a s h i f t e d p e r s p e c t i v e t o depend on t h e t i m e i n t e r v a l between t h e t i m e t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was stored and t h e p o i n t a t which t h e p e r s p e c t i v e s h i f t occurred. More precisely, we expect t h e r e t r i e v a l o f ideas t h a t were unimportant a t t h e t i m e o f encoding b u t a r e i m p o r t a n t t o t h e r e t r i e v a l p e r s p e c t i v e t o be harder t o r e c a l l a f t e r a c e r t a i n r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l than im e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e storage phase. While l i t t l e work has been done on p e r s p e c t i v e s h i f t , t h e r e e x i s t s an i n t e r e s t i n g body o f knowledge on a comparable experimental v a r i a b l e , i.e., A t i t l e may be taken as presence vs. absence o f an a p p r o p r i a t e t e x t t i t l e . c l u e t o a c e r t a i n o r g a n i z a t i o n both f o r t h e a c q u i s i t i o n / e n c o d i n g processes and f o r t h e retrieval/reconstruction processes; i t s absence m i g h t prevent s u b j e c t s from achieving a convincing and thorough organization, l e a v i n g t h e content mental l y unorganized o r p a r t i a1 l y and i n c o n s i s t e n t l y organized. P r o v i d i n g t h e t i t l e a f t e r t h e reading may i n t r o d u c e i m p o r t a n t / u n i m p o r t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n s among s e t s o f ideas i n s o f a r as they a r e s t i l l r e t r i e v a b l e , i n a way q u i t e s i m i l a r t o t h e working of a new perspective. It has been shown repeatedly t h a t t i t l e s given a t t h e beginning o f t e x t s do have a f a c i l i t a t i n g e f f e c t on f r e e r e c a l l (e.g., most r e c e n t l y Bock, 1978, 1981; Schwarz and Flammer, 1979, 1981). Yet i n several experiments t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a t i t l e was n o t e f f e c t i v e i f given a f t e r reading t h e t e x t i n s t e a d o f before (Bransford and JOhnSOnt 1972; Dooling and Lachman, 1971;

382

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

D o o l i n g and M u l l e t , 1973). T h i s can i n d e e d be t a k e n as evidence f o r t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e t r a c e s o f f o r m e r l y u n i m p o r t a n t and l a t e r i m p o r t a n t i d e a s were no l o n g e r r e t r i e v a b l e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t i t l e p r e s e n t a t i o n . It m i g h t seem s u r p r i s i n g t h a t f o r g e t t i n g was so f a s t ; b u t one has t o c o n s i d e r t h a t m o s t of t h e t i t l e e x p e r i m e n t t e x t s w e r e s e v e r a l pages long, w h i l e t h e r e c o g n i t i o n e x p e r i m e n t s r e p o r t e d above used t e x t s o f some 200 t o 400 words. Furthermore, t h e t i t l e e x p e r i m e n t t e x t s were d e l i b e r a t e l y chosen t o be d i f f i c u l t t o understand w i t h o u t t i t l e s so t h a t u n l i k e Anderson's t h e r e s i m p l y was no a p p r o p r i a t e and perspective experiments comprehensive encoding schema a v a i l a b l e Hence much o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n m i g h t never have been a l l o c a t e d t h e necessary encoding resources.

--

--

To remedy t h i s , Schwarz (19801, i n o u r l a b o r a t o r y had s u b j e c t s r e a d a l i t e r a r y t e x t t h a t seemed q u i t e easy t o understand, a l t h o u g h t h e m a i n message was somewhat unusual. Between t h e r e a d i n g and t h e f r e e r e c a l l a l l There w e r e f o u r s u b j e c t s had t o work on a t e n - m i n u t e d i s t r a c t o r task. c o n d i t i o n s , t h r e e w i t h an a p p r o p r i a t e t i t l e and one w i t h o u t t i t l e ( c o n t r o l ) . The t i t l e was presented e i t h e r b e f o r e r e a d i n g o r i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r reading ( w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o rehearse t h e t e x t ' s content) o r a f t e r t h e d i s t r a c t o r task, i.e., immediately before f r e e r e c a l l (again w i t h t h e rehearsal instructions). T o t a l p r o c e s s i n g t i m e was h e l d c o n s t a n t i n a l l c o n d i t i o n s . F r e e r e c a l l was h i g h e s t when t h e t i t l e was r e a d f i r s t , second h i g h e s t when t h e t i t l e was g i v e n i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r reading, and w o r s t when t h e t i t l e was e i t h e r n o t g i v e n o r g i v e n i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e f r e e r e c a l l b u t a f t e r t h e i n t e r v e n i n g d i s t r a c t o r task. Thus, a1 though r e c a l l was boosted m o s t by p r o c e s s i n g t h e t i t l e b e f o r e t h e t e x t passage, t h e t i t l e was s t i l l o f s i g n i f i c a n t h e l p when g i v e n a f t e r t h e t e x t , p r o v i d e d t h e t i m e i n t e r v a l between t h e o r i g i n a l encoding and t h e t i t l e p r e s e n t a t i o n was n o t as l o n g as t h e i n t e r v a l between encoding and r e c a l l . As a p a r a l l e l t o t h e Schwarz design we adopted t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s i n t h i s experiment: (1) no p e r s p e c t i v e s h i f t ( c f . t i t l e b e f o r e reading). (2) p e r s p e c t i v e s h i f t i n t r o d u c e d a f t e r r e a d i n g and b e f o r e i m m e d i a t e f r e e r e c a l l (cf. t i t l e i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r reading), ( 3 ) p e r s p e c t i v e s h i f t i n t r o d u c e d a f t e r t h e r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l and b e f o r e delayed f r e e r e c a l l ( c f . t i t l e a f t e r r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l ) . There was no p a r a l l e l t o t h e n o - t i t l e c o n d i t i o n . The c e n t r a l dependent v a r i a b l e was t h e number o f i d e a s r e c a l l e d The w h i c h were i m p o r t a n t t o t h e new p e r s p e c t i v e b u t n o t t o t h e o l d one. h y p o t h e s i s was t h a t c o n d i t i o n 1 would be s u p e r i o r t o c o n d i t i o n 2 and t h a t t h e l a t t e r would be s u p e r i o r t o c o n d i t i o n 3.

As a general model we assumed t h a t g i v e n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n t o r e c a l l f r o m a new p e r s p e c t i v e a s u b j e c t would search t h r o u g h t h e s e t o f encoded i d e a s and t r y t o c o n s t r u c t a m e a n i n g f u l as f a r as t h e y were s t i l l r e t r i e v a b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n from the new perspective. The expected r e s u l t s would t h e n s u p p o r t t h e hypothesis t h a t an encoding schema would a1 ready d i s t i n g u i s h between i m p o r t a n t and u n i m p o r t a n t i d e a s i n a way t h a t would cause t h e If, u n i m p o r t a n t i d e a s t o s u r v i v e l e s s l o n g t h a n t h e i m p o r t a n t ideas. however, t h e s u r v i v a l p r o b a b i l i t y were t h e same f o r i m p o r t a n t and u n i m p o r t a n t i d e a s and b o t h woul d decrease equal l y o v e r ti me, t h e r e s h o u l d be no d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s h i f t and t h e n o - s h i f t c o n d i t i o n , b u t an o v e r a l l r e c a l l d i f f e r e n c e between i m m e d i a t e and delayed r e c a l l . T h i s second r e s u l t i s n o t v e r y l i k e l y g i v e n t h e f i n d i n g by P i c h e r t and Anderson (1977) t h a t under the same p e r s p e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f l e s s i m p o r t a n t i d e a s decreased from t h e i m m e d i a t e t o t h e delayed r e c a l l .

--

--


383

METHOD Subiects. Seventy-two U n i v e r s i t y o f F r i bourg f i r s t and second y e a r s t u d e n t s i n psychology or i n e d u c a t i o n v o l u n t e e r e d as subjects. They were randomly assigned t o one o f e i g h t c o n d i t i o n s , n i n e i n each. A l l were n a t i v e German speakers; sex was disregarded. M a t e r i a l . The 373-word P i c h e r t and Anderson (1977) t e x t was t r a n s l a t e d i n t o German, s l i g h t l y adapted t o Swiss c o n d i t i o n s , and extended by adding new i n f o r m a t i o n t o double i t s l e n g t h (748 words). The t e x t d e s c r i b e d a boy i n t r o d u c i n g h i s f r i e n d t o h i s parents' house w h i l e nobody e l s e was a t home. The d e s c r i p t i o n c o n t a i n e d a s e t o f i t e m s which would be o f i n t e r e s t t o a p o t e n t i a l homebuyer and an e q u i v a l e n t s e t o f i t e m s w h i c h would be of i n t e r e s t t o a p o t e n t i a l burglar. The t e x t was d e l i b e r a t e l y made l o n g e r t h a n both t h e Anderson t e x t and t h e t e x t s used i n t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l r e c o g n i z a b i l i t y e x p e r i m e n t s r e p o r t e d above; t h i s was i n o r d e r t o enhance t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e r e would be a t l e a s t some f o r g e t t i n g , w h i c h was a t e c h n i c a l c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e t e s t t o be performed i n t h e experiment. Desian. A c o m p l e t e l y randomized 2 x 2 x 2 between s u b j e c t s design was used w i t h t h e f a c t o r s : r e c a l l p e r s p e c t i v e (homebuyer vs. burg1 ar). p e r s p e c t i v e s h i f t ( n o - s h i f t vs. s h i f t , i.e., same p e r s p e c t i v e i n r e a d i n g a s i n r e c a l l vs. t w o d i f f e r e n t perspectives), and t i m e i n t e r v a l between t h e end o f r e a d i n g and t h e b e g i n n i n g o f f r e e r e c a l l (one vs. 20 minutes). Procedure. The e x p e r i m e n t was conducted w i t h groups o f 8 t o 20 s u b j e c t s each. I n each group a l l e i g h t c o n d i t i o n s were employed. The s u b j e c t s worked independently; t h e experimenter's r o l e was t o g i v e a general i n t r o d u c t i o n and t o pace t h e t i m i n g . The i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n i n each subject's booklet. F i r s t t h e s u b j e c t s were asked t o r e a d t h e t e x t f o r which ample t i m e was a l l o t e d , namely s i x minutes. S u b j e c t s were t o l d t o read t h e t e x t i n o r d e r t o be o p t i m a l l y prepared t o reproduce r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n t o a p o t e n t i a l homebuyer/burglar afterwards. The one-minute i n t e r v a l a f t e r r e a d i n g was f i l l e d i n a l l c o n d i t i o n s w i t h a comprehensi b i 1 i t y r a t i n g o f t h e t e x t ' s vocabulary and syntax. During t h e f o l l o w i n g f i v e m i n u t e s h a l f o f t h e s u b j e c t s had t o p r o v i d e a w r i t t e n f r e e r e c a l l o f i m p o r t a n t i t e m s from a given perspective ( s h i f t / n o - s h i f t ) , w h i l c t h e o t h e r s r e c e i v e d a v e r b a l comprehension t e s t (Riegel, 1967) (immediate/delayed r e c a l l ) . The n e x t 20 m i n u t e s were f i l l e d w i t h o t h e r u n r e l a t e d t a s k s o u t f r o m t h e same t e s t b a t t e r y . When t h i s 20-minute i n t e r v a l was over, e i t h e r t h e delayed r e c a l l ( s h i f t / n o - s h i f t ) or t h e v e r b a l comprehension t e s t was administered. F i n a l l y , a l l s u b j e c t s were asked t o g i v e a c o m p l e t e w r i t t e n f r e e r e c a l l o f each and every b i t o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y were s t i l l a b l e t o remember. F i f t e e n m i n u t e s were a l l o w e d f o r t h i s second r e c a l l . RESULTS

A s e t o f 90 i d e a s f r o m t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e whole t e x t was s e l e c t e d and used f o r t h e s c o r i n g o f t h e r e c a l l protocols. I n a p r e l i m i n a r y experiment, f o u r psycho1 o g i s t s f r o m t h e Department's r e s e a r c h s t a f f had g i v e n independent f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e r a t i n g s about how i m p o r t a n t each o f t h e s e l e c t e d 90 i d e a s were t o t h e homebuyer p e r s p e c t i v e ; f o u r d i f f e r e n t p s y c h o l o g i s t s had done

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

384

t h e r a t i n g s f o r t h e b u r g l a r perspective. T h e i r agreement seemed t o be acceptable (average i n t e r - r a t e r c o r r e l a t i o n o f .88 f o r t h e b u r g l a r p e r s p e c t i v e and .81 for t h e homebuyer perspective). A s e t o f fourteen "important ideas" was chosen f o r each perspective, correspondig t o t h e c r i t e r i o n t h a t t h e median r a t i n g was equal t o o r below 2 f o r one perspective and equal t o o r above 4 f o r t h e o t h e r perspective, and v i c e versa. Data a n a l y s i s was conducted w i t h and w i t h o u t h o l d i n g constant t h e covariance between t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s and t h e verbal comprehension t e s t as covariate. Since t h e a n a l y s i s o f covariance added n o t h i n g t o t h e power o f t h e analyses, o n l y t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e r e s u l t s a r e r e p o r t e d here. F i r s t recall The f i r s t a n a l y s i s was performed on t h e number o f ttimportantll ideas from t h e r e s p e c t i v e r e c a l l perspective. Exact numbers a r e given i n Table 1. Two factors, r e c a l l p e r s p e c t i v e and p e r s p e c t i v e s h i f t , produced s i g n i f i c a n t main differences; t i m e o f r e c a l l was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , nor were any o f t h e interactions. Table 1 Average number o f f r e e l y r e c a l l e d ideas i m p o r t a n t t o the r e c a l l perspective

________________________________________-----------------_______________________------------__-------------------------_--Recall p e r s p e c t i v e Burglar Hcmebuyer

Without p e r p e c t i v e sh f t Immedi a t e r e c a l l Del ayed r e c a l l

7.89 7.67

5.11 4 .OO

With s h i f t e d perspect ve Immediate r e c a l l Del ayed r e c a l l

5.44 5.44

4.44 3.78

The perspective s h i f t produced a g e n e r a l l y l o w e r r e c a l l score than t h e nos h i f t c o n d i t i o n : 4.78 vs. 6.18; F(1,64) = 6.1; p = 0.016. T h i s r e s u l t was predicted. Also as predicted, t h e average immediate r e c a l l score was h i g h e r (5.72) than t h e delayed r e c a l l score (5.22), but the difference did n o t reach s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . And i t was a l s o p r e d i c t e d t h a t i n t h e delayed r e c a l l c o n d i t i o n t h e s h i f t would be r e l a t i v e l y more d e t r i m e n t a l than i n t h e immediate r e c a l l c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e r e c a l l o f t h e newly i m p o r t a n t ideas; yet, t h e data d i d n o t show t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n . The remaining main e f f e c t concerns t h e r e c a l l perspective.

There was an


385

average o f 6.61 i m p o r t a n t ideas f o r t h e b u r g l a r r e c a l l p e r s p e c t i v e and 4 3 3 f o r t h e homebuyer perspective; F(1,64) = 16.3; p < .01. This difference may be taken as a Swiss c o r r o b o r a t i o n o f t h e P i c h e r t and Anderson (1977) r e s u l t t h a t American c o l l e g e students i d e n t i f i e d more l e a d i l y w i t h t h e burg1 a r p e r s p e c t i v e than w i t h t h e homebuyer perspective. Another e x p l a n a t i o n i s simply t h a t t h e s c o r i n g procedure adopted here favored t h e A l a t e r check o f t h e s c o r i n g o b j e c t i v i t y by r e s c o r i n g b u r g l a r perspective. a sample o f t h e answer sheets by another person i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f i r s t person o f t e n d i d n o t 'give' t h e score on a homebuyer i d e a where t h e second person judged t h e ' g i s t ' of t h e i d e a t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y indicated. T h i s was r a r e l y t h e case f o r t h e b u r g l a r ideas. Thus, t h e number o f agreed upon scores was a p o r t i o n o f .93 f o r t h e i m p o r t a n t b u r g l a r ideas, b u t .47 f o r t h e homebuyer ideas. I n any case t h e data a n a l y s i s was done w i t h t h e s c o r i n g o f t h e f ir s t s c o r i n g person. The number o f 9mportant1' ideas r e c a l l e d from t h e 14 predefined ones m i g h t n o t have p e r m i t t e d a very powerful t e s t o f our hypotheses: t h e r e was some u n r e l i a b i l i t y i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f these ideas, some u n r e l i a b i l i t y i n t h e s c o r i n g procedure (see above), and i n any case a r a t h e r small number o f countable ideas a t a l l . We t h e r e f o r e decided t o do t w o f u r t h e r analyses i n order t o handle more adequately t h e problem o f t h e a p r i o r i d e f i n i t i o n o f an ideals importance or unimportance. The second a n a l y s i s took i n t o account t h a t each s u b j e c t could have had (and d i d employ) a d i f f e r e n t concept o f what an i m p o r t a n t i d e a was f o r a given perspective. Thus, f o r each s u b j e c t a l l ideas were counted as i m p o r t a n t f o r a given perspective i f t h e s u b j e c t had w r i t t e n i t down on h i s / h e r f r e e r e c a l l protocol, provided they belonged t o t h e t o t a l s e t o f t h e 90 predefined ideas. T h i s second a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d one s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t , namely, perspective s h i f t , and one s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n , namely, p e r s p e c t i v e s h i f t x r e c a l l perspective. The a n a l y s i s o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n ( F ( L 6 4 ) = 4.9, p < .05) l e d t o t h e conclusion t h a t t h e n o - s h i f t advantage was r e a l l y due t o a s i n g l e p e r s p e c t i v e s h i f t main e f f e c t i n t h e b u r g l a r p e r s p e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n (11.78 vs. 7.95 ideas, as opposed t o 9.56 vs. 9.34 i n t h e homebuyer perspective). Although t h e r e was no p e r s p e c t i v e main e f f e c t i n t h i s analysis, t h e i n t e r a c t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t w o perspectives a r e n o t f u l 1y interchangeable. The most i m p o r t a n t r e s u l t o f t h e second a n a l y s i s was again t h e absence o f a s i g n i f i c a n t perspective s h i f t x t i m e o f r e c a l l i n t e r a c t i o n . A t h i r d a n a l y s i s was done w i t h a g a i n s t t h e average importance p r e l i m i n a r y experiment, again, t o t a l s e t o f t h e 90 predefined

each subject's r e c a l l e d ideas weighed r a t i n g t h a t had r e s u l t e d frm t h e provided t h e r e c a l l e d ideas belonged t o t h e ideas.

The r e s u l t s d i d n o t l e a d t o new i n s i g h t s . The a n a l y s i s o f t h e data weighed according t o t h e b u r g l a r importance r a t i n g s y i e l d e d t w o s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s , r e c a l l p e r s p e c t i v e and p e r s p e c t i v e s h i f t , and one s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n , r e c a l l perspective x perspective s h i f t . T h i s i s what we had obtained i n t h e e a r l i e r analyses. The a n a l y s i s o f t h e data as weighed according t o t h e homebuyer importance r a t i n g s y i e l d e d t h e same t w o s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s , r e c a l l p e r s p e c t i v e

386

GOAL PERSPECTNES

and p e r s p e c t i v e s h i f t , and no o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t . Most i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e t i m e o f r e c a l l x perspective s h i f t i n t e r a c t i o n again was n o t there, nor was t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t t i m e o f r e c a l l main e f f e c t . Nevertheless, immediate r e c a l l was always b e t t e r than delayed r e c a l l and t h e e r r o r p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s m a l l e r than .20 i n each case. Second r e c a l l I n t h e second f r e e - r e c a l l attempt s u b j e c t s were s i m p l y asked t o reproduce e v e r y t h i n g they could remember. The p r o t o c o l s were scored w i t h t h e number o f reproduced ideas i n t e r s e c t i n g w i t h t h e s e t o f t h e 90 a p r i o r i d e f i n e d admissable ideas. N e i t h e r o f t h e t h r e e f a c t o r s nor: any i n t e r a c t i o n produced a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e t o t a l number o f e d i t e d ideas. An a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s was done on t h e second f r e e - r e c a l l data b u t weighed f o r importance e i t h e r t o t h e one o r t o t h e o t h e r perspective. Again, n e i t h e r o f t h e t h r e e f a c t o r s nor any i q t e r a c t i o n between them produced a s i g n i f i c a n t effect. DISCUSSION

When t h e reading p e r s p e c t i v e was n o t t h e same as t h e r e c a l l perspective, r e c a l l was worse than i n t h e i d e n t i c a l perspective ( n o - s h i f t ) condition. T h i s means t h a t ideas unimportant t o t h e reading p e r s p e c t i v e had a s m a l l e r p r o b a b i l i t y t o be r e c a l l e d , even i f they had become i m p o r t a n t from t h e r e c a l l perspective. T h i s can be taken as a consequence o f t h e encoding c e i l i n g which was biased by t h e encoding perspective. Some o f t h e f o r m e r l y unimportant m a t e r i a l j u s t m i g h t n o t have been encoded i n some permanent way. Indeed, t h e t w o perspectives adopted i n t h i s experiment were q u i t e d i f f e r e n t and t h e r e were many ideas completely unimportant t o one p e r s p e c t i v e and very i m p o r t a n t t o t h e other. Examples are: t h e j e w e l r y i n t h e mother's closet, t h e father's c o i n c o l l e c t i o n , t h e newly painted l i v i n g room, t h e l e a k i n t h e o l d roof. Thus, many ideas may have been f i l t e r e d o u t e a r l y i n t h e r e a d i n g process; they were t h e r e f o r e j u s t n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r r e c a l l from whatever perspective. It m i g h t have been p o s s i b l e t o i n f e r them. Yet, w i t h t h i s m a t e r i a l t h e r e was l i t t l e chance from t h e o u t s e t t o f i l l i n c o r r e c t ideas by mere i n f e r e n c e because these ideas tapped very concrete f a c t s and formed a small s e l e c t i o n o f t h e p o s s i b l e universe of such items. A d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , however, i s n o t t o be excluded. namely, t h a t t h e perspective s h i f t f o r c e d t h e s u b j e c t s t o r e t r i e v e and t o e d i t t o according a schema whose f a m i l i a r i t y a t t h e moment was l e s s advanced than t h e r e t r i e v a l / e d i t i n g schema i n t h e n o - s h i f t c o n d i t i o n which had already been thoroughly a c t i v a t e d i n t h e reading phase. I t had been expected t h a t t h e disadvantage o f t h e s h i f t c o n d i t i o n as compared t o t h e n o - s h i f t c o n d i t i o n would have been stronger i n t h e delayed r e c a l l as compared w i t h t h e immediate r e c a l l . The assumption was t h a t t h e l e s s i m p o r t a n t ideas r e l a t i v e t o t h e encoding schema would be f o r g o t t e n f a s t e r than t h e more i m p o r t a n t ideas ( d i f f e r e n t i a l f o r g e t t i n g hypothesis).


387

However, t h e experimental r e s u l t s d i d n o t support t h i s k i n d o f reasoning, s i n c e t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e r e c a l l s h i f t f a c t o r and t h e d u r a t i o n o f r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l factor. The r e s u l t s d i d n o t even i n d i c a t e a t r e n d i n t h e expected d i r e c t i o n , i.e., i t was n o t t h e case t h a t t h e i n f e r i o r i t y o f t h e s h i f t c o n d i t i o n t o t h e n o - s h i f t c o n d i t i o n was g r e a t e r i n delayed r e c a l l than i n immediate r e c a l l . The r e s u l t s even p o i n t e d s l i g h t l y i n t h e opposite d i r e c t i o n . One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n of t h i s r e s u l t could be t h a t i n so f a r as unimportant ideas a r e even encoded i n some long-term s t o r e they a r e f o r g o t t e n a t t h e same r a t e as t h e i m p o r t a n t ideas. T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n i s n o t t e s t a b l e by our data, n o t even i n d i r e c t l y , since t h e t i m e o f r e c a l l f a c t o r d i d n o t produce any s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t , i.e., t h e r e was h a r d l y any f o r g e t t i n g d u r i n g t h e r e t e n t i on i n t e r v a l . Although i n our experiment t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t f o r g e t t i n g d u r i n g t h e 20-minute i n t e r v a l , t h e r e was f o r g e t t i n g on t h e whole, since already i n t h e immediate r e c a l l and n o - s h i f t c o n d i t i o n o n l y an average o f about s i x o f t h e 1 4 'important' ideas were reproduced. It seems as i f t h e r e was a huge amount o f f o r g e t t i n g d u r i n g reading (e.g., by s e l e c t i o n f o r permanent encoding) o r i n s t a n t l y a f t e r reading. I n designing t h e experiment t w o precautions were made i n order t o g i v e t o t h e unimportant ideas a r e a l chance t o become l o s t from t h e r e t r i e v a b l e memory, i.e., by extending t h e r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l (20 minutes, as opposed t o 10 minutes i n t h e Schwarz study and 5 minutes i n t h e Anderson and P i c h e r t study) and by lenghtening t h e Anderson and P i c h e r t experimental t e x t . The second i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t we o f f e r i s , then, t h a t t h e l a s t mentioned precaution l e d t h e s u b j e c t s t o a q u i t e r a d i c a l foregrounding o f t h e i m p o r t a n t ideas and t o a ready suppression, o r f i l t e r i n g out, o f t h e urnimportant ideas. T h i s means t h a t t h e c r i t i c a l p o i n t i n t i m e where a g r e a t many o f t h e unimportant ideas had a1 ready f a l l e n below t h e r e t r i e v a l t h r e s h o l d w h i l e s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i m p o r t a n t ideas were s t i l l above t h i s t h r e s h o l d occurred even b e f o r e t h e immediate r e c a l l , and t h a t d u r i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g 20 minutes f o r g e t t i n g was a minor event. T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n f i t s both t h e absence o f t h e s h i f t x t i m e of r e c a l l i n t e r a c t i o n and t h e s i g n i f i c a n t s h i f t main e f f e c t as discussed above. We would l i k e t o o f f e r some speculation concerning a t h i r d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , based on t h e ( n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ) r e s u l t , t h a t t h e perspective s h i f t disadvantage tended t o decrease ( i n s t e a d o f increase) over t h e 20-minute r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l : Perhaps storage i n long-term memory was n o t so much organized according t o t h e p r e s c r i b e d encoding schema, i.e., t h e proposed perspective, b u t according t o some t h i r d perspective. T h i s c o u l d have been e i t h e r a very personal and i d i o s y n c r a t i c one o r one t h a t was more t e x t i n h e r e n t than both t h e others, perhaps t h e t e x t author's own. I n an e a r l i e r experiment on q u e s t i o n asking we were l e d t o t h e comparable conclusion t h a t s u b j e c t s adopted more than one o r g a n i z i n g schema w h i l e a c q u i r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n (Flammer e t al., 1981). Assume t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e and nonprescri bed p e r s p e c t i v e was more comprehensive and produced l e s s b i a s i n storage; t h e consequence would be t h a t any p r e s c r i b e d r e c a l l perspective would o f f e r a r e t r i e v a l schema t h a t i s more o r l e s s d i f f e r e n t from t h e storage organization, and t h a t a f t e r a c e r t a i n r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l even t h e p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t was a l s o p r e s c r i b e d i n t h e reading phase would be a strange p e r s p e c t i v e w i t h respect t o t h e storage organization, t h u s reducing t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e n o - s h i f t

3aa

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

c o n d i t i o n over t h e s h i f t c o n d i t i o n d u r i n g t h e r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l as our data suggest. The r e s u l t s o f t h e second r e c a l l a l s o f a v o r t h e t h i r d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , though n o t s t r o n g l y : The second r e c a l l (comprehensive, w i t h o u t prescribed perspective) d i d n o t show any p e r s p e c t i v e s h i f t main effect. The t h i r d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has a l e s s demanding v a r i a n t , one t h a t does n o t invoke t h e omnipresent idiosyncrasy o f i n f o r m a t i o n processing t o argue f o r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t t h e mere p r e s c r i b i n g o f a reading p e r s p e c t i v e m i g h t only have a minor e f f e c t on storage i n long-term memory. I n t h i s experiment a t e x t was used which apparently was q u i t e i n t e r e s t i n g t o read. Maybe i t i s j u s t very d i f f i c u l t t o adopt a suggested p e r s p e c t i v e w h i l e reading a f a s c i n a t i n g t e x t w i t h i t s own perspective. And t h e r e i s even more t o t h i s : going through t h e t e x t again we r e a l i z e d n o t o n l y t h a t t h e t e x t d i d have i t s own schema, or perspective, i.e., t h e one o f t h e t w o boys' discovery adventure, b u t t h a t i t s own p e r s p e c t i v e was n o t t h a t n e u t r a l w i t h regard t o t h e t w o experimental perspectives as P i c h e r t and Anderson and t h e authors o f t h e present experiment had supposed i t t o be. Although t h e t w o boys were n o t burglars, what they d i d was much nearer t o t h i s than t o homebuying: t h e boys stayed away from school, thus doing something r a t h e r i l l e g a l ; they i n t r u d e d i n t o a house whose owners were n o t a t home; they inspected each and every room, had a l o o k a t t h e f a t h e r ' s c o i n c o l l e c t i o n , h i s famous p a i n t i n g c o l l e c t i o n and t h e mother's j e w e l r y , c e r t a i n l y something they would n o t have done had t h e parents been a t home. I f we adopt t h e i d e a t h a t t h e perspective which i s i n h e r e n t i n t h e t e x t i t s e l f o v e r r i d e s t h e suggested p e r s p e c t i v e i n t h e l o n g r u n and i f we a l s o assume t h a t t h e t e x t ' s own perspective was much nearer t o t h e b u r g l a r p e r s p e c t i v e than t o t h e homebuyer perspective, then another r e s u l t i s a l s o easy t o understand, namely, t h a t t h e scores on i m p o r t a n t ideas were h i g e r according t o t h e b u r g l a r perspective than t o t h e homebuyer perspective. T h i s i s a f i n d i n g t h a t occurred throughout t h e f i r s t r e c a l l (immediate and delayed). We a l s o found i t i n t h e second o r comprehensive r e c a l l , i n comparing t h e scores t h a t were weighed according t o importance f o r t h e burg1 a r perspective as opposed t o t h e homebuyer perspective. How ever, these a r e t w o d i f f e r e n t scales, and although i n t u i t i v e l y comparable, they a r e n o t necessarily e q u a l l y demanding. Note f i n a l l y t h a t according t o Table 1 f o r g e t t i n g was much s m a l l e r from t h e b u r g l a r perspective than from t h e homebuyer perspective, i.e., t h e between-subjects d i f f e r e n c e s from t h e b u r g l a r p e r s p e c t i v e were 0.22 ( n o - s h i f t c o n d i t i o n ) and 0.00 ( s h i f t c o n d i t i o n ) and t h e corresponding d i f f e r e n c e s from t h e homebuyer p e r s p e c t i v e were 1.11 and 0.68. This interaction i s admittedly not significant s t a t i s t i c a l l y b u t i t f i t s t h e t h i r d in t e r p r e t i on. Given t h e t w o v a r i a n t s o f t h e t h i r d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( i d i o s y n c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n on which t h e prescribed perspective would have had o n l y a short-term i n f l u e n c e vs. t e x t - i n h e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e which was much nearer t o t h e b u r g l a r p e r s p e c t i v e than t o t h e homebuyer perspective) i t i s hard t o decide on t h e b a s i s o f these data which one t o favor. The f i r s t v a r i a n t would have very s t r o n g educational i m p l i c a t i o n s i n t h a t o r i e n t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s would n o t be very powerful i n reading. T h i s i s n o t what much o f t h e research t o date suggests (cf. Mayer, t h i s volume), i t i s n o t what f a i t h i n humanistic education would l e a d one t o believe. nor i s i t what e a r l i e r r e s u l t s from o u r l a b o r a t o r y on t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e reader fffocussing" suggested (Flammer e t al., 1978). Thus, so f a r these authors f a v o r t h e second v a r i a n t o f t h e t h e t h i r d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .


389

From t h i s s t a n d p o i n t t h e r e a r e a l s o t w o ways t o i n t e r p r e t t h e c o r r o b o r a t i o n o f t h e P i c h e r t and Anderson (1977) r e s u l t t h a t t h e r e c a l l o f i m p o r t a n t i d e a s according t o t h e p r e s c r i b e d b u r g l a r p e r s p e c t i v e was h i g h e r than t h e r e c a l l of i m p o r t a n t i d e a s according t o t h e p r e s c r i b e d homebuyer perspective. One i s t h a t both American and Swiss c o l l e g e students would be more f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e b u r g l a r p e r s p e c t i v e than w i t h t h e homebuyer p e r s p e c t i v e ( P i c h e r t and Anderson, 1977, p. 133). The o t h e r one, which we o b v i o u s l y prefer, i s t h a t t h e t e x t i t s e l f suggested a p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t was more o f a b u r g l a r p e r s p e c t i v e than o f a homebuyer perspective. A f t e r c o m p l e t i n g t h i s report, t w o r e c e n t papers came t o o u r a t t e n t i o n . The f i r s t i s an unpublished study by Anderson, Pichert, and Shirey (1979 ) . They r e p o r t e d t w o experiments which demonstrated t h a t t h e p e r s p e c t i v e a f f e c t e d both encoding w h i l e reading, and r e t r i e v a l . As i n our data, s h i f t o f p e r s p e c t i v e y i e l d e d poorer f r e e r e c a l l than t h e n o - s h i f t c o n d i t i o n , even though t h e s u b j e c t s were asked t o r e c a l l Itevery b i t o f t h e s t o r y t 1 unlike our s u b j e c t s who were i n s t r u c t e d t o s i m p l y r e c a l l from t h e given perspective. Furthermore, t h e re1 a t i v e disadvantage o f t h e s h i f t c o n d i t i o n increased s l i g h t l y , although n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y over a two-week i n t e r v a l .

-

The second study (Fass and Schumacher, 1981) used t h e P i c h e r t and Anderson (1977) t e x t ; i t demonstrated t h a t Y h e r e t r i e v a l p e r s p e c t i v e i n f l u e n c e d t h e r e c a l l o f a d d i t i o n a l i m p o r t a n t in f o r m a t i on when r e c a l l was immedi a t e b u t n o t a t delayed recall." Indeed, according t o Fass and Schumacher's Table 1, t h e l o s s over t i m e based on a between-subject comparison was c l e a r l y b i g g e r i n t h e s h i f t c o n d i t i o n t h a n i n t h e n o - s h i f t condition, both i n a b s o l u t e and i n r e l a t i v e terms. T h i s i s what we had p r e d i c t e d b u t n o t o b t a i n e d i n our study.

--

--

T h i s d i f f e r e n c e c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d t o several f a c t o r s : (i) t h e difference i n t h e l e n g t h o f t h e i n t e r v a l between r e a d i n g and t h e t h e delayed r e c a l l , which was 24 hours i n t h e Fass and Schumacher (1981) study as opposed t o 20 minutes i n ours; (ii)Fass and Schumacher used t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t , w h i l e t h e Fass and Schumacher asked t h e i r ours was doubled i n length; (iii) s u b j e c t s t o r e c a l l Itas much o f t h e e x a c t passage as they c o u l d remembertt, w h i l e our s u b j e c t s j u s t had t o r e c a l l from a s p e c i f i c perspective. Thus. both Anderson and Fass and Schumacher employed t h e same t y p e o f i n s t r u c t i o n s as were used i n a l l o f Andersonls studies, w h i l e our i n s t r u c t i o n s were d i f f e r e n t . It seems p l a u s i b l e t h a t t h e r e t r i e v a l and r e c a l l processes a r e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t under t h e t w o d i f f e r e n t conditions. R e c a l l i n g from a given p e r s p e c t i v e s t r e s s e s more t h a t perspective, i.e., having t o r e s t r i c t themselves t o one p e r s p e c t i v e o n l y may have l e d our s u b j e c t s t o t r y harder w h i l e r e c a l l i n g , i n order t o w r i t e a reasonable amount o f t e x t . Whether t h e use o f t h i s procedure i n our study e x p l a i n s t h e non-occurrence o f t h e p r e d i c t e d i n c r e a s e over t i m e o f t h e r e l a t i v e disadvantage o f t h e s h i f t c o n d i t i o n remains t o be s t u d i e d under a s t r i c t l y comparable experimental design. REFERENCES Anderson, J. (1974) Verbati m and p r o p o s i t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f sentences i n immediate and long-term memory. Journal o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l Behavior, J.3, 149-162. Anderson, RC. and Pichert, J.W. (1978) R e c a l l o f p r e v i o u s l y u n r e c a l l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n f o l l o w i n g a s h i f t i n perspective. Journal qf V e r b a l 1 ear-

390

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

Verbal Behavior. U , 1-12. Anderson, R.C., P i c h e r t , J.W., and S h i r e y , L.L. (1979) E f f e c t s o f t h e reader's schema a t d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s i n time. Technical Report No. 119. U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s a t Urbana Champaign: Center f o r t h e Study o f Reading. Begg, I.(1971) Recognition memory far sentences meaning and wording. Journal o f Verbal k a r n i n o and Verbal Behavior, & 176-181. Bock, M. (1978) Ueberschriftsspezifische Selektionsprozesse bei der Textverarbeitung. A r c h i v f l rL-P & 77-93. Bock, M. (19811 Eine auf merksamkei t s t h e o r e t i sche I n t e r p r e t a t i o n sprachl i c h e r Selektionsprozesse. I n Mandl, H. (Ed.) & Psvcholoaie & Textverarbeituna. Muenchen: Urban and Schwarzenberg, 63-107. Bock, M. (1981) Some e f f e c t s o f t i t l e s on b u i l d i n g and r e c a l l i n g t e x t structures. Discourse Processes, 1, 301-311. Bransford, J.D. and Johnson, M.K. (1972) Contextual p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r understanding. Journal o f Verbal L e a r n i n a and Verbal Behavior. ll, 717726. Bransford, J. and Franks, J. (1971) The a b s t r a c t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c ideas. C o a n i t i v e Psvcholoav. & 231-350. Caccamise, D.J. and Kintsch, W. (1978) Recognition o f i m p o r t a n t and unimportant statements from stories. American Journal o f Psvcholoav. 651-657. Dooling, D.J. and Lachman, R. (1971) E f f e c t s o f comprehension on t h e r e t e n t i o n o f prose. Journal o f Fxperimental Psvcholoav. 881 216-222. Dooling, D.J. and M u l l e t , R. (1973) Locus o f t h e m a t i c e f f e c t s i n r e t e n t i o n o f prose. Journal of FxDerimental Psvc holoavL 92, 404-406. Fas5.W. and Schumacher, G.M. (1981) Schma theory and prose r e t e n t i o n : boundary c o n d i t i o n s f o r encoding and r e t r i e v a l e f f e c t s . Discourse Processes, 4, 17-26. Flammer, A., S c h l a e f l i , A., and K e l l e r , B. (1978) Meeting t h e reader's interests who should care? I n Gruneberg, M.M., Morris, P.E., Sykes, R.N., Eds., P r a c t i c a l aspects Qf memorL London: Academic Press. Flammer, A,. Kaiser, H., and Mueller-Bouquet, P. (1981) P r e d i c t i n g what q u e s t i ons peopl e ask. Psvcholoaical Researcht 34, 421-429. Franks. J.J. and Bransford, J.D. (1972) The a c q u i s i t i o n o f a b s t r a c t ideas. J o u r n a l o f Verbal Learnina and Verbal Behaviort JL311-315. Johnson, RE. (1970) Recall o f prose as a f u n c t i o n of s t r u c t u r a l importance of t h e l i n g u i s t i c u n i t s . Journal o f Verbal L e a r n i n g 2nd Verbal Behaviorr 9, 12-20. K i n t s c h , W., Kozminsky, E., Streby, W.J., McKoon, G,. and Keenan, J.M. (1975) Comprehension and r e c a l l o f t e x t s as a f u n c t i o n o f conctent variables. Journal o f Yerbal I earnina and Verbal Behavior, 14, 196-214. Kintsch, W. and van D i j k , T.A. (1975) Comment on se r a p p e l l e e t on resume des h i s t o i res. Lanaaaes, 4, 98-116. Kintsch, W. (1974) J& reDresentation sf meaning memorv. H i l l s d a l e . N.J.: E r l baum. Mayer, R.E. (1982) I n s t r u c t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n t e x t processing. I n Flammer, A. and Kintsch, W. (eds.) Discourse Processing. Amsterdam: NorthH o l l and. McKoon, G. (1977) Organization o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n t e x t memory. Journal af Verbal Learning a d Verbal Behavior, J& 247-260. Meyer, B. (1975) graanization o f and i t s e f f e c t rnemorv. Amsterdam: North-Hol 1and. M i l l e r , R.B., P e r r y , F.L., and Cunningham, D.J. (1977) D i f f e r e n t i a l f o r g e t t i n g o f superordinate and subordinate i n f o r m a t i o n acquired f r o m prose m a t e r i a l . Journal af Fducat i o n a l Psvcholoa\Lt 730-735.

--

a

CHANGING THE READER’S PERSPECTIVE

391

Moscovitch, M. and Crai k, F.I.M. (1976) Depth o f processing, r e t r i e v a l cues, and uiqueness o f encoding as f a c t o r s i n r e c a l l . Journal o f Verbal J e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior. l.5,447-458. Pichert, J.W. and Anderson, RC. (1977) Taking d i f f e r e n t perspectives on a story. Journal o f Fducational Psvcholoav, 69, 309-315. Plas, R., Segui, J., and Kail, M. (1977) Reconnaissance de phrases appartenant a un t e x t e : aspects formel s e t semantiques. Psvcholooie exDerimentale & comDarde. Hommaae a Paul Fraisse, Paris: Presses u n i v e r s i t a i r e s de France. Riegel, K.F. (1967) Der s p r a c h l i c h e I e i s t u n a s t e s t .S&SKA. G o e t t i ngen: Hogref e. Sachs. J.S. (1967) Recognition memory f o r s y n t a c t i c and semantic aspects o f connected discourse. PerceDtion & Psvchophvsics, 2. 437-442. Sachs, J.S. (1974) Memory i n reading and l i s t e n i n g t o discourse. Memory and Cognition, 2, 95-100. Schwarz, M.N.K. and Flammer, A. (1979) E r s t i n f o r m a t i o n e i n e r Geschichte: I h r Behalten und i h r e Wirkung auf das Behalten der nachfolgenden I n f o r m a t i on. Z e i t s c h r i f t f u e r Entw i c k l unasDsvcholoaie & Paedaaoaische Psvcholoah 347-358. Schwarz, M.N.K. and Flammer, A. (1981) Text S t r u c t u r e and T i t l e Effects on Comprehending and Recall. Journal o f Verbal I e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior. & 61-66. Schwarz. M.N.K. (1980) Struktur, I n s t r u k t i o n und T i t e l I h r e E f f e k t e auf das Erinnern, Erfragen und Verstehen e i nes Prosatextes. D i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t a e t F r e i burg/Schw e i z. Thorndyke, P.W. (1977) C o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s i n comprehension and memory o f n a r r a t i v e discourse. C o a n i t i v e Psvcholoavr 9, 77-110. Yekovich, F.R and Thorndyke, PW . . (1981) An e v a l u a t i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e f u n c t i o n a l models o f n a r r a t i v e schemata. j o u r n a l o f Verbal I earnina and y e r b a l Behavior, 454-469.

-

--

a,

DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Fhmrner and W . Kintsch (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, I982

INFLUENCES OF TITLES ON THE RECALL OF INSTRUCTIONAL TEXTS Helmut

M. Niegemann

F a c h r i c h t u n g Allgemeine E r z i e h u n g s w i s s e n s c h a f t U n i v e r s i t a t des Saarlandes Saarbrucken F e d e r a l R e p u b l i c of Germany T h i s s t u d y examines t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t i t l e s i n f l u e n c e t h e q u a l i t y of t h e r e c a l l o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s i n a s e l e c t i v e way. I n t h r e e experiments one i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t a t a t i m e was p r o v i d e d w i t h two d i f f e r e n t t i t l e s , each r e f e r r i n g t o one o f two aspects o f t h e t e x t . S u b j e c t s r e a d t h e i r t e x t and r e c a l l e d i t i n w r i t i n g . R e s u l t s s u p p o r t e d t h e h y p o t h e s i s i n each case. S u b j e c t s r e c a l l e d r e l a t i v e l y more p r o p o s i t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e t i t l e . There i s o n l y l i t t l e e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s e a r c h e x p l i c i t l y c o n c e r n i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f t i t l e s on t h e comprehension and r e c a l l o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s . On t h e o t h e r hand, d u r i n g t h e l a s t t e n y e a r s t h e r e have been some e x p e r i ments p u b l i s h e d t h a t s t u d y t h e e f f e c t s o f c o n t e x t i n p r o c e s s i n g o f t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n u s i n g t i t l e s as s p e c i f i c c o n t e x t . A l t h o u g h one may conclude f r o m t h e r e s u l t s o f these s t u d i e s t h a t t i t l e s may i n f l u e n c e comprehension and r e c a l l o f t e x t s , i t seems r a t h e r d i f f i c u l t t o deduce c l e a r p r e s c r i p t i o n s f o r t h e d e s i g n o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s because t h e s t u d i e s mentioned v a r y c o n s i d e r a b l y i n r e s e a r c h i n t e n t i o n s as w e l l as i n ways t o o p e r a t i o nalize relevant variables. Among o t h e r s , such d i f f e r e n c e s concern

-

-

-

t h e Comprehension o r i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y o f a t e x t w i t h o r w i t h o u t a t i t l e ( t e x t s n o t understandable w i t h o u t t i t l e because o f i n c o m p l e t e i n f o r m a t i o n about i m p o r t a n t r e f e r e n t s ; a m b i g u i t y o f t e x t s r e s u l t i n g f r o m two p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ; e a s i l y understandable t e x t s , even w i t h o u t any t i t l e ) ; t y p e o f t i t l e s ( f u l l thematic; p e r s p e c t i v e ) ; type o f texts ( s t o r i e s , n a r r a t i v e s , descriptions, reports); t e s t s o f comprehension and r e c a l l ( f r e e r e c a l l , s c o r i n g words, sentences, i d e a s o r p r o p o s i t i o n s ; q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ; r a t i n g o f comprehens ib i1ity ) ; u n d e r l y i n g h y p o t h e s i s (assuming m a i n l y q u a n t i t a t i v e and/or qualitative effects).

An overview o f some o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s among e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d i e s on t i t l e e f f e c t s i s shown i n T a b l e 1. I n d e s i g n i n g an i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t t h e r e i s n o r m a l l y no q u e s t i o n whether t h e r e s h o u l d b e a t i t l e , b u t r a t h e r what k i n d o f t i t l e would p o t e n t i a l l y l e a d t o an i n c r e a s e i n comprehension and r e c a l l . I n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s themselves a r e ( o r s h o u l d b e ) a l m o s t unambiguous and understood even even w i t h o u t any t i t l e . 392

Table 1 Overview o f r e l e v a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d i e s c o n c e r n i n g t i t l e e f f e c t s , Study

Comprehensibility o f t e x t s used w i t h o u t any t i t l e

t y p e of title

type o f text

Test

Type o f e f f e c t s

DOOLING and LACHMAN (1971)

d i f f i c u l t t o comp reh end theme

themati c

story

f r e e r e c a l l (words)/ r e c o g n i ti on (words )

quantitative

BRANSFORD and JOHNSON (1972)

d i f f i c u l t t o comprehend t h eme

perspective

descriptive

f r e e r e c a l l/cornprehension r a t i n g

quantitative

DOOLING and MULLET (1973)

d i f f i c u l t t o comp r eh e nd t h eme

thematic

story

f r e e r e c a l l (words, sentences, e r r o r s ) / ques ti onnai r e

quantitative

SCHALLE RT (1976)

ambiguous

perspective

narrative

cued r e c a l l / r e cogni ti on

quantitative/ q u a l it a t i v e

KOZMI NSKY (1977)

comprehens ib l e

perspective

d e s c r i p t i v e / f r e e r e c a l l (Drooo.. narrative/ s i tions) report

BOCK (1978)

comprehensi b 1e

thematic

report

free recall

q u a l it a t i ve

SCHWARZ and comprehensible FLAMMER (1979, 1981)

full thematic

story

f r e e recall/comprehension r a t i n g

quantitative

HARTLEY e t a l . (1980)

thematic

biograph. report

ques ti ons

quantitative

cmprehensible

(?I

(?I

I

quantitative/ q u a l it a t i t v e W

m 0

? r-

394

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

As t h e s t u d i e s of Kozminsky (1977) and Bock (1978) demonstrate, t i t l e s may b i a s t h e r e c a l l o f t e x t s i n a s e l e c t i v e manner. T h e r e f o r e i t can be assumed, memory f o r t h e r e l e v a n t i d e a s , a c c o r d i n g t o sane s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s , c o u l d be s u p p o r t e d through t h e c h o i c e o f a p p r o p r i a t e ti tl es

.

I n t h r e e experiments one i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t a t a t i m e was p r e s e n t e d w i t h two d i f f e r e n t t i t l e s , each r e f e r r i n g t o one o f two aspects o f t h e t e x t . P r o p o s i t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e one o r t h e o t h e r a s p e c t had been s p e c i f i e d p r e v i o u s l y based on an a n a l y s i s o f t h e t e x t s ' m i c r o s t r u c t u r e s . The experiments s h o u l d i n v e s t i g a t e , whether t h e t i t l e s would b i a s t h e r e c a l l o f t h e t e x t s d i f f e r e n t i a l l y . The c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y o f t h e t e x t s s h o u l d n o t b e a l t e r e d b y t i t l e s i n any way.

METHOD S u b j e c t s . F o r t y - e i g h t s t u d e n t s f r o m t h r e e c o l l e g e s ( l a s t two y e a r s o f "Gymnasium") i n t h e S a a r l a n d and f i f t y - s e v e n f i r s t - and second-year U n i v e r s i t y o f t h e S a a r l a n d s t u d e n t s v o l u n t e e r e d as s u b j e c t s . M a t e r i a l s . The t h r e e t e x t s , w i t h about 550 - 750 words each had n o t been c o n s t r u c t e d , b u t were a c t u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s . One was t a k e n f r o m t h e s t u d y - m a t e r i a l o f a correspondence course i n H i s t o r y , t h e o t h e r s stemmed f r o m a German p o p u l a r - s c i e n c e p e r i o d i c a l ( B i l d d e r W i s s e n s c h a f t ) :

(1)

T i t l e A: "The d i s i n t e g r a t i o n o f Germanic f a m i l y bonds by Christianity", B: "The r e i g n o f t e r r o r o f K i n g Chlodwig" (The p a r t o f t h e t e x t t h a t t i t l e B r e f e r s t o f u n c t i o n s as an e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p a r t s r e p r e s e n t e d by t i t l e A ) ;

(2)

T i t l e A: "Phosphates p o l l u t e w a t e r s " ,

(3)

T i t l e A: " B e r y l l i u m

B: "Zeolith A

-

a new s u b s t i t u t e f o r phosphate"; seldom and d e s i r e d " ,

B: " B e r y l l i u m - chemical i n f l a m m a t i o n o f t h e l u n g s " , N( n e u t r a l ) : " B e r y l 1ium"

The a n a l y s i s of t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l m i c r o s t r u c t u r e s and t h e d e c i s i o n t o a s s i g n a c e r t a i n p r o p o s i t i o n as r e l e v a n t t o t h e one o r t h e o t h e r t i t l e f o l l o w e d e s s e n t i a l l y t h e procedures and r u l e s d e s c r i b e d by Kozminsky ( 1 9 7 7 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e r e were d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a s s i g n i n g some p r o p o s i t i o n s d e f i n i t e l y , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h t h e f i r s t t e x t . I n these (few) cases t h e r e s p e c t i v e p r o p o s i t i o n was e l i m i n a t e d f r o m f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s and s c o r i n g . Design. The e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n was a s i m p l e 2 x 3 f a c t o r i a l . The i n d e v a r i a b l e s were t h e r e l e v a n t p r o p o s i t i o n s , each assigned t o one o f t h e aspects o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e t e x t and t i t l e s ( t w o t i t l e s c o n c e r n i n g one p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t o f a t e x t i n each case and no t i t l e o r a n e u t r a l one f o r c o n t r o l ) . The dependent v a r i a b l e was t h e percentage o f r e l e v a n t propositions recalled.

INFLUENCES OF TITLES ON THE RECALL

395

Procedure. Experiments were executed i n groups o f f i f t e e n t o t h i r t y subj e c t s . S u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t they were p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a s t u d y on t h e c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y o f t e x t s . They were asked t o r e a d t h e i r t e x t c a r e f u l l y . There was n o t i m e l i m i t . Each s u b j e c t i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l groups r e c e i v e d a t y p e - w r i t t e n copy o f one o f t h e t e x t s , i n which t h e f i r s t s h e e t c o n t a i n e d m e r e l y one o f t h e t i t l e s . The c o n t r o l groups a l s o r e c e i v e d a copy o f t h e t e x t , however t h e cover s h e e t was b l a n k . A f t e r h a v i n g r e a d t h e passage, s u b j e c t s were g i v e n a comprehension r a t i n g s c a l e t o answer. H a v i n g done t h i s , they were asked t o r e c a l l t h e t e x t i n w r i t i n g as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e t o t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t . Experimenters were second-year U n i v e r s i t y of t h e S a a r l a n d s t u d e n t s f u l f i l l i n g a s t u d y r e q u i r e m e n t under t h e guidance and s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e author. S c o r i n g . Each r e c a l l p r o t o c o l was s c o r e d a g a i n s t i t s a p p r o p r i a t e t e x t base: P r o p o s i t i o n s f r o m t h e r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s were compared w i t h those o f t h e t e x t base, and i n case o f matching, a p r o p o s i t i o n was assigned t o t h e same c a t e g o r y as t h e r e s p e c t i v e t e x t - b a s e p r o p o s i t i o n . RESULTS As expected, t h e r e were no d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y w i t h o r w i t h o u t t i t l e s . F i g u r e s 1 - 3 show f o r each e x p e r i m e n t t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f r e c a l l e d p r o p o s i t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o one o f t h e two aspects o f t h e t e x t , as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e t i t l e v e r s i o n g i v e n i n each case.

To t e s t t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s , a c h i - s q u a r e t e s t f o r 2 x 3 c o n t i n g e n c y - t a b l e s was used. To l o c a l i z e e f f e c t s , each contingency t a b l e was p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o two s p e c i f i c components ( c f . Sachs, 1974, p. 370 f f ) , one c o n c e r n i n g t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e two t i t l e s and t h e r e l e v a n t p r o p o s i t i o n s , t h e o t h e r c o n c e r n i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e m a t i c t i t l e s and none o r a n e u t r a l t i t l e . To assess t h e degree o f contingency, t h e c o n t i n g e n c y - c o e f f i c i e n t CCkorr was computed ( c f . Sachs 1974) i n each case ( s e e F i g u r e s 1 - 3 ) .

396

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

10

-

m

x

Figure 1

8

Experiment I . Proportion of recalled propositions as a function of the t i t l e version. ( T i t l e A : "The d i s i n t e g r a t i o n of family bonds..."; t i t l e 6: "The reign of t e r r o r . . . " ; 0 : no t i t l e . P ( A ) : Propositions r e l a t e d to t i t l e A; P ( B ) : Propositions related t o t i t l e B . ) Overall differences were s i g n i f i c a n t ( ~ ~ ( =2 9.61, ) p < -01,CCkorr = .18), as was the i n t e r a c t i o n between t i t l e s and relevant propositions p < .05, CCkorr = .15) and the differences between t i t l e s ( ~ ~ ( =1 4.52, ) and no t i t l e with regard t o relevant propositions ( ~ ~ (= 15 .)0 5 , p < .05, CCkorr = .14).

1

P

8

A Figure 2

I

B

Experiment 11. Proportion of recalled propositions as a function of the t i t l e version. ( T i t l e A: "Phosphates pollute waters"; t i t l e €3: "Zeolith A . . . " ; @ : no t i t l e . P(A): Propositions r e l a t e d t o t i t l e A , P ( B ) : Propositions r e l a t e d t o t i t l e B . ) Both overall differences and the i n t e r a c t i o n s between t i t l e s and r e l e v a n t propositions were s i g n i f i c a n t a t the -001 level ( ~ ~ ( =2 14.98, ) CCkorr = .31, and ( ~ ~ ( =1 1)1 . 2 2 , CCkorr 7 34, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . However, the d i f f e rence between the t i t l e and n o - t i t l e conditions was not s i g n i f i c a n t with regard t o r e l e v a n t propositions (x2( 1) = 3,56, p > .05).

INFLUENCES OF TITLES ON THE RECALL %

397

,

4oi

ri

A

B

Figure 3 E x p e r i m e n t 111. P r o p o r t i o n o f r e c a l l e d p r o p o s i t i o n s as a f u n c t i o n o f ' t h e t i t l e v e r s i o n . ( T i t l e A: " B e r y l l i u m - r a r e and d e s i r e d " ; t i t l e B: " B e r y l l i u m - chemical i n f l a m m a t i o n o f t h e lungs"; N ( n e u t r a l t i t l e ) : "Beryllium".) S i m i l i a r r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d i n Experiment 111, i n which o v e r a l l d i f f e rences and t h e i n t e r a c t i o n b e b e e n t i t l e s and r e l e v a n t p r o p o s i t i o n s l i k e w i s e o b t a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t h e .001 l e v e l ( ~ ~ ( 2=) 17.04, CCk0t-r = 21; and ( ~ ~ ( = 1 )16.77, CCkorr = 24.81, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . D i f f e r e n c e s b e t ween t i t l e s A and B and t h e n e u t r a l t i t l e w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e r e l e v a n t p r o p o s i t i o n s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ( ~ ~ ( =1 ).30, p > . 0 5 ) . DISCUSS ION

C o n s i s t e n t w i t h Kozminsky's (1977) and B o c k ' s (1978) f i n d i n g s , t h e r e s u l t s t h i s s t u d y s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t i t l e s may i n f l u e n c e r e c a l l of t e x t s i n a q u a l i t a t i v e manner. T h i s e f f e c t occured i n t h r e e independent experiments w i t h d i f f e r e n t t e x t s and d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s . The f a c t t h a t t h e degree o f contingency between s p e c i f i c t i t l e s and r e c a l l o f r e l e v a n t p r o p o s i t i o n s i s m e r e l y moderate i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g : I t seems c l e a r t h a t r e c a l l o f t e x t s i s w i d e l y i n f l u e n c e d by much more i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e s , such as, among o t h e r s , macro- and s u p e r s t r u c t u r e s ( c f . Van D i j k 1977, 1980; K i n t s c h and Van D i j k , 1978), p r i o r knowledge, and degree and s p e c i f i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t e n t area of t h e t e x t . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e work o f Schwarz and Flammer (1979, 1981), primacy e f f e c t s may a l s o b i a s what i s remembered f r o m a t e x t . Thus, t e x t - s t r u c t u r e v a r i a b l e s and/or primacy e f f e c t s c o u l d have caused t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f p r o p o s i t i o n s r e c a l l e d i n t h e not i t l e v e r s i o n s i n Experiment I and 11. S i m i l a r l y , t h e f a c t t h a t o n l y i n E x p e r i m e n t I were t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t ween t h e t i t l e and n o - t i t l e v e r s i o n s s i g n i f i c a n t , c o u l d p o s s i b l y be explained by the s p e c i f i c s t r u c t u r e o f the H i s t o r y t e x t : One p a r t ( t h e f i r s t ) d e s c r i b e s h i s t o r i c a l e v e n t s , t h e o t h e r p a r t i s a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and e x p l a n a t i o n on a h i g h e r l e v e l . I n s o f a r as a text-grammar o r s u p e r - s t r u c t u r e model ( c f . Thorndyke, 1977; van D i j k , 1978, 1980) has n o t y e t been f o r h i s t o r y nor f o r science/technology texts, there are Thus, i t seems reasonable t o base f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n e f f e c t s upon analyses of the u n d e r l y i n g t e x t schemata.

Rumelhart, 1975; developed, n e i t h e r mere s p e c u l a t i o n s . o f the b i a s i n g

398

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

With r e g a r d t o t h e p r a c t i c a l purpose of d e s i g n i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s , one may c a u t i o u s l y conclude t h a t t h e r e i s sane evidence t h a t : (1) a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f i n d i n g s o f Kozminsky (1977) and Bock (1978) and t h e r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y , t i t l e s r e l a t e d t o a s p e c i f i c p a r t o r aspect o f t h e t e x t i n q u e s t i o n may b i a s memory i n a s e l e c t i v e way; and ( 2 ) a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f i n d i n g s o f Schwarz and Flammer (1979, 1981) f u l l - t h e m a t i c t i t l e s may have q u a n t i t a t i v e e f f e c t s on rerememberi ng t e x t p r o p o s i t i o n s .

Thus, i t seems reasonable t o recommend t h a t d e s i g n e r s o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s t r y t o use these e f f e c t s by d e l i b e r a t e l y s e l e c t i n g t i t l e s t h a t would enhance t h e q u a n t i t y as w e l l as t h e q u a l i t y o f p r o p o s i t i o n s r e membered by readers i n accordance w i t h t h e d e s i r e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l objectives.

REFERENCES B r a n s f o r d , J.D. and Johnson, M.K. C o n t e x t u a l p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r under s t a n d i n g : Some inves ti g a t i ons o f Comprehension and r e c a l l . J o u r n a l 11, 717. 6-2 7 o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal B e h a v i o r , 1972, Bock, M. Der E i n f l u B von K o n t e x t f a k t o r e n a u f d i e S p r a c h v e r a r b e i t u n g . Sprachpsychologische Oberlegungen zu e i n e r T h e o r i e d e r M e d i e n g e s t a l tung. Psychologische Rundschau, 1978, 29, 183 - 194. Bock, M. Wort-, S a t z - , T e x t v e r a r b e i t u n g . S t u t t g a r t : Kohlhammer, 1978. D o o l i n g , D.J. and Lachman, R. E f f e c t s o f comprehension on r e t e n t i o n o f 88, 216 - 222. prose. J o u r n a l o f Experimental Psychology, 1971, D o o l i n g , D.J. and M u l l e t , R.L. Locus o f t h e m a t i c e f f e c t s i n r e t e n t i o n o f p r o s e . J o u r n a l o f Experimental Psychology, 1973, 97, 404 406.

-

H a r t l e y , J., Kenely, J., Owen, G . and Trueman, M . The e f f e c t o f headings on c h i l d r e n ' s r e c a l l f r o m p r o s e t e x t . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l 50, 304 - 307. Psychology, 1980, K i n t s c h , W. and Van D i j k , T.A. T m a r d a model o f t e x t comprehension and 85, 363 - 394. p r o d u c t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1978, Kozminsky, E . A l t e r i n g comprehension: The e f f e c t o f b a s i n g t i t l e s on 5, 482 - 490. t e x t comprehension. Memory and C o g n i t i o n , 1977, Rumelhart, D . E . Notes on a schema f o r s t o r i e s . I n D . Bobrow and A . C o l l i n s ( E d s . ) . R e p r e s e n t a t i o n and u n d e r s t a n d i n g : S t u d i e s i n c o g n i t i v e s c i e n c e . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1975. Sachs, L . Angewandte S t a t i s t i k . B e r l i n : S p r i n g e r , 1974. S c h a l l e r t , D.L. I m p r o v i n g memory f o r p r o s e : The r e l a t i o n s h i p between depth o f p r o c e s s i n g and c o n t e x t . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and 621 - 632. Verbal B e h a v i o r , 1976,

5,

Schwarz, M. and F l a m e r , A . E r s t i n f o r m a t i o n e i n e r Geschichte: I h r Behalt e n und i h r e Wirkung a u f das B e h a l t e n d e r nachfolgenden I n f o r m a t i o n . Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r Entwi c k l ungspsychol o g i e und Padagogische Psycho1 o g i e , 19/9, 347 - 358.

11.

INFLUENCES OF TITLES O N THE RECALL Schwarz, M . N . K . a n d Flarnmer, A . Text s t r u c t u r e and t i t l e - Effects on comprehension and r e c a l l . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal 20, 6 1 - 6 6 . Behavior, 1981, Thorndyke, P .W. Cogni t i ve s t r u c t u r e s i n cornprehensi on and memory of n a r r a t i v e discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9,77 - 110. Van Dijk, T.A. Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames i n d i s course comprehension. I n M.A. J u s t a n d P . A . Carpenter ( E d s . ) . Cognitive processes i n comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977 Van Dijk, T.A. Textwissenschaft. MUnchen: d t v , 1980.

399

DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982

THE IMPACT OF P R I O R KNOWLEDGE ON ACCESSIBILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION FROM PROSE Samuel R. flathews I 1 E d u c a t i o n a l Research and Development Center The U n i v e r s i t y o f West F l o r i d a Pensacola, F l o r i d a U.S.A. The e f f e c t s o f p r i o r knowledge on a c c e s s i b i l i t y and a v a i l a b i l i t y a r e examined i n t h i s work. The i m p a c t of p r i o r knowledge on a c c e s s i b i l i t y was p r i m a r i l y q u a l i t a t i v e w h i l e t h e e f f e c t on a v a i l a b i l i t y was q u a n t i t a t i v e . Evidence f o r t h e e f f e c t was observed a t b o t h encoding and r e t r i e v a l . F u r t h e r , t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f t e x t was shown t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y v u l n e r a b l e t o p r i o r know1edge whi 1e t h e 1o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s among concepts i n t h e t e x t was n o t .

Anytime a r e a d e r i n t e r a c t s w i t h a t e x t , t h a t r e a d e r ' s knowledge a b o u t t h e c o n t e n t o f t h a t t e x t a f f e c t s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s t o r e d and r e t r i e v e d . F o r example, Anderson and P i c h e r t (1978) demonstrated t h a t when d i f f e r e n t bodies o f p r i o r knowledge were accessed, d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f a g i v e n t e x t were r e t r i e v e d . They demonstrated t h i s by a s k i n g s u b j e c t s t o r e a d a t e x t f r o m one o f two p e r s p e c t i v e s . F o l l o w i n g t h e r e a d i n g t a s k , s u b j e c t s were asked t o r e c a l l t h e t e x t f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l p r e s e n t a t i o n . A second r e c a l l t a s k was t h e n attempted. T h i s t i m e t h e s u b j e c t s were p r o v i d e d w i t h an a l t e r n a t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e and asked t o r e c a l l t h e t e x t a second time. Anderson and P i c h e r t (1978) found t h a t d i f f e r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n was accessed when d i f f e r e n t knowledge bases were i n s t a n t i a t e d w i t h t h e d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s on t h e t e x t . They suggest t h a t t h e knowledge base determines which i n f o r m a t i o n i s a c c e s s i b l e a t r e t r i e v a l f o r a f r e e r e c a l l t a s k . O t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s assume a somewhat d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e and suggest t h a t t e x t s t r u c t u r e determines t o a g r e a t e x t e n t w h i c h i n f o r m a t i o n i s access i b l e . F o r example, Meyer (1975) analyzed t e x t s i n t o a c o n t e n t s t r u c t u r e (Grimes, 1975) w h i c h y i e l d e d a h i e r a r c h y o f i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e t e x t . T h i s h i e r a r c h y i s made up o f concepts f r o m t h e t e x t w h i c h a r e i n t e r c o n n e c t e d w i t h r e l a t i o n a l terms. Some o f t h e s e terms a c c o r d i n g t o Grimes (1975) connect two concepts i n such a manner t h a t one i s s u p e r o r d i n a t e t o t h e o t h e r w h i c h y i e l d s t h e h i e r a r c h y o f concepts i n t h e t e x t . Meyer (1975) had a d u l t s r e a d t h e passages and f r e e l y r e c a l l them. She found t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h o c c u r r e d a t a p o i n t h i g h i n t h e h i e r a r c h y was more l i k e l y t o be r e c a l l e d t h a n i n f o r m a t i o n l o w e r i n t h e h i e r a r c h y of t h a t t e x t . Meyer (1975) concluded t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e o f a t e x t ( t h e h i e r a r c h y o f i n f o r m a t i o n ) was t h e m a j o r source o f v a r i a t i o n i n memory f o r t e x t .

400

IMPACT OF P R I O R KNOWLEDGE

401

There a r e t h r e e issues addressed i n t h i s study. They are: ( 1 ) t h e apparent discrepancy between t h e conclusions drawn by Anderson and P i c h e r t (1978) and Meyer (1975) r e g a r d i n g a c c e s s i b i l i t y ; ( 2 ) t h e e f f e c t o f p r i o r knowledge on a v a i l a b i l i t y ; and ( 3 ) t h e parameters o f t h e locus and n a t u r e o f t h e e f f e c t s o f p r i o r knowledge. There i s a manner i n which t h e discrepancy between t h e Anderson and P i c h e r t (1978) f i n d i n g s and t h e f i n d i n g s observed by Meyer (1975) can be resolved. For Meyer's s u b j e c t s , p r i o r knowledge about t h e passages used i n her experiment was n o t c o n t r o l l e d n o r e x p l i c i t l y c a l l e d i n t o p l a y . One m i g h t conc l u d e then, t h a t when p r i o r knowledge i s c a l l e d i n t o p l a y as i n t h e Anderson and P i c h e r t (1978) study, t h a t a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r e d i c t a b l y a f f e c t e d by t h a t p r i o r knowledge. For readers who a r e e i t h e r n a i v e w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e t o p i c o f a t e x t o r whose p r i o r knowledge i s n o t d i r e c t l y addressed when r e a d i n g o r r e t r i e v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f informat i o n can be p r e d i c t e d by t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a t e x t . The o t h e r i s s u e o f i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r e s e n t study i s t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n memory f o r t e x t s . While a c c e s s i b i l i t y r e f e r s t o t h a t informat i o n t h a t can be r e t r i e v e d from memory w i t h l i t t l e o r no cueing (e.g., as i n a f r e e r e c a l l t a s k ) , a v a i l a b i l i t y r e f e r s t o t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n which i s present i n memory b u t o n l y r e t r i e v a b l e when t h e s u b j e c t i s provided w i t h some g r e a t e r degree o f cueing (e.g., as i n a probed r e c a l l t a s k ) . One study which addressed t h e i s s u e o f t h e impact o f p r i o r knowledge on t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n prose was conducted by Pace (1978). I n t h i s study, Pace i d e n t i f i e d t o p i c s so t h a t they ranged from very f a m i l i a r t o her sample o f k i ndergarteners , second, f o u r t h , and s i x t h graders t o t o p i c s which were t o t a l l y u n f a m i l i a r t o even t h e o l d e s t c h i l d r e n . Using t h e "knowledge bases" provided by h e r s u b j e c t s , Pace c o n s t r u c t e d s t o r i e s app r o p r i a t e f o r each t o p i c . Each s u b j e c t l i s t e n e d t o each s t o r y and answered probe questions. This provided a measure o f a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t e x t u a l i n f o r mation i n memory. B a s i c a l l y , Pace found t h a t a t a l l ages, t h e g r e a t e r t h e l e v e l o f p r i o r knowledge, t h e g r e a t e r t h e number o f questions a c c u r a t e l y answered. Thus, if one possesses an a p p r o p r i a t e knowledge base, more i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be r e t a i n e d f o r a g i v e n t e x t than i f t h a t knowledge base i s missing. One controversy which has seen d i s c u s s i o n as o f l a t e i s t h a t o f t h e locus of t h e e f f e c t o f p r i o r knowledge on t e x t memory. There seems t o be a d i v i s i o n o f conclusions between those which f a v o r t h e l o c u s o f e f f e c t a t encoding and those who b e l i e v e t h a t t h e major impact i s a t r e t r i e v a l . As w i t h most dichotomies we c o n s t r u c t i n b e h a v i o r a l sciences, i t i s probably n o t an " e i t h e r - o r " case. I t i s more l i k e l y t h a t p r i o r knowledge impacts on memory f o r t e x t a t b o t h points--encoding and r e t r i e v a l (e.g., Pace, 1978 and Anderson 8 P i c h e r t , 1978 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Further, f o r readers who have no s p e c i f i c p r i o r knowledge about a t e x t t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e x t w i l l probably have a marked e f f e c t on a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n from t h a t t e x t (Meyer, 1975) w i t h t h i s e f f e c t o c c u r r i n g a t encoding. One assumption made i n t h i s study i s t h a t w h i l e t h e p a r t i c u l a r i n f o r m a t i o n accessed o r a v a i l a b l e i n memory may be a f f e c t e d by p r i o r knowledge, t h e r e a r e aspects of a t e x t which must remain i n t a c t i n o r d e r t o a s s e r t t h a t memory f o r a t e x t i s present. That aspect i s analagous t o what K i n t s c h has described as t h e cohesion graph ( K i n t s c h & van D i j k , 1978). I f we examine

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

402

t h e mode! proposed by K i n t s c h and van D i j k (1978), we f i n d two l e v e l s o f t e x t s t r u c t u r e which m i g h t be d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d by p r i o r knowledge. One i s t h e schematic s t r u c t u r e ( K i n t s c h & van D i j k , 1978). This describes t h e o v e r a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e t e x t and provides a guide f o r determining t h e " g i s t " o f a passage. The o t h e r l e v e l i s t h e m i c r o - s t r u c t u r e . ?he m i c r o - s t r u c t u r e a l l o w s us t o recognize a t e x t as d i s t i n c t from a s e r i e s o f randomly s e l e c t e d words i n t h a t i t e x p l i c a t e s t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e words (concepts) i n t h e t e x t . Three p r e d i c t i o n s evolved from t h e r e s u l t s o f e a r l i e r s t u d i e s . F i r s t , subj e c t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t knowledge about a t e x t should form d i f f e r e n t "macros t r u c t u r e s " and access d i f f e r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g r e c a l l . The second p r e d i c t i o n i s t h a t although d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f a t e x t may be accessed d u r i n g r e c a l l , t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n r e c a l l e d should m a i n t a i n c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e t e x t even f o r s u b j e c t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f p r i o r knov;ledge. F i n a l l y , p r i o r knowledge w i l l p r o v i d e a conceptual-pegl i k e c o n s t r u c t , thus i n c r e a s i n g t h e amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e i n memc ry

.

The prime o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s study i s t o d e s c r i b e t h e impact o f p r i o r knowledge on t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n which i s a c c e s s i b l e ( i n b o t h q u a n t i t a t ? v e and q u a l i t a t i v e terms), compare t h i s impact w i t h t h a t of t e x t s t r u c t u r e , and determine t h e impact o f p r i o r knowledge on a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n memory f o r t e x t . Method Subjects T h i r t y fourth-graders were s e l e c t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i::t h e study. T h e i r average age was 9.5 years (S.D. = 5 months), and t h e r e were 14 males and 16 femeles. School-aged c h i l d r e n were s e l e c t e d s i n c e t h e i r day-to-day a c t i v i t i e s i n school i n v o l v e a p p l y f n g i n f s r m a t i o n acquired on one day t o a subsequent day's l e a r n i n g demands, u s u a l l y thrcugh some form of t e x t processing. Design

A two-group between s u b j e c t s design was used. Each c h i l d heard and r e c a l l e d a passage f o l l o w i n g one o f two kinds o f experiences. The s u b j e c t s heard e i t h e r a passage r e l a t e d t o t h e t a r g e t passage ( p r i o r knowledge) or an u n r e l a t e d passage ( u n r e l a t e d knowledge). An equal number ( n = 15) o f s u b j e c t s was asssigned t o each group. Treatments I n t h e p r i o r knowledge treatment, t h e s u b j e c t s heard a passage which pro!n t h e u n r e l a t e d knowlv i d e d p r i o r knowledge r e l a t e d t o a t a r g e t passage. edge treatment, t h e s u b j e c t s heard a passage u n r e l a t e d t o t h e t a r g e t passage. Subjects i n t h e two knowledge treatment c o n d i t i o n s heard t h e t a r g e t passage and completed memory tasks 24 hours a f t e r b e i n g exposed t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e knowledge passages.

IMPACT OF P R I O R KNOWLEDGE

403

Assessment o f Memory f o r I n f o r m a t i o n from the Target Passage Two memory tasks were used t o assess r e c o l l e c t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n from memory f o r t e x t . The measures were f r e e r e c a l l and probed r e c a l l . The f i r s t , f r e e r e c a l l , was used t o assess two aspects o f a c c e s s i b i l i t y . One was t h e amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n accessed and t h e o t h e r was t h e content and structure o f the recall. The amount r e c a l l s d was measured by simply counting t h e number o f c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d m i c r o p r o p o s i t i o n s i n each p r o t o c o l . The content and s t r u c t u r e o f r e c a l l was determined by using Meyer's (1975) l e v e l - i n - t h e - h i e r a r c h y analys i s and a procedure f o r comparing m a t r i x s t r u c t u r e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . The second t a s k used t o assess r e c o l l e c t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i c n from t h e t e x t was probed r e c a l l . It was a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h i s measure would prov de an index o f t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e i n memory b u t n o t accessible t o f r e e r e c a l l . A t o t a l o f e i g h t probe questions was asked o f each s u b j e c t Ma t e r i a1 s The stimulus m a t e r i a l s used i n t h e presefit study consisted o f : ( 1 ) t h e t a r g e t passage; (2) t h e p r i o r knowledge passage; and ( 3 ) another passage which was u n r e l a t e d t o the t a r g e t passage. The t a r g e t passage appears i n F i g u r e 1.

* ]The small towns i n Wisconsin i n the 1800's d i d n o t p r o v i d e j o b s f o r t h e oungsters growing up i n them. 20ne town l i k e t h i s was Pleasant Ridge. SAlthough i t was d i f f e r e n t from many o t h e r towns, 4 a l l the people who l i v e d t h e r e were farmers and t h e r e were no s t o r e s o r f a c t o r i e s i n the town. 5For a l o n g time, t h e small town had o n l y 0r.e b u i l d i n g . 6A11 t h e town's meetings and p a r t i e s were h e l d i n t h a t b u i l d i n g . 7When t h e youngsters from t h e small town grew up, they moved away. 8They l e f t t o f i n d b e t t e r jobs. 9The reason t h a t t h e youngsters wanted b e t t e r 1OThe l o g j o b s was t h a t the town's school gave them a good education. schoolhouse had been b u i l t by t h e farmers and i t was t h e o n l y one o f i t s k i n d i n t h e n a t i o n . 11The teachers were very good arrd t h e students l i k e d t h e i r school. 12When they f i n i s h e d school, they wanted t o move away and see o t h e r places. 130nce t h e youngsters moved away from t h e small town, they never returned. 14Soon, t h e town was deserted. 15The o n l y p a r t of the town l e f t i s a cemet a r y where t h e s e t t l e r s o f t h e town a r e buried. Figure 1 Target Passage

*

The numbers i n t e x t r e f e r t o t h e numbers i n Figure 2 .

The t a r g e t passage and corresponding knowledge base were w r i t t e n so t h a t they were r e l a t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner. The knowledge base described

404

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

t h e growth o f a small midwestern American town and i n c l u d e d i n f o r m a t i o n passage described t h a t town's demise. The abcut i t s school. The t;rget u n r e l a t e d knowledge base was about a d e s e r t r e g i o n and had no connection t o e i t h e r o f t h e o t h e r two t e x t s . A l l t e x t s were s e l e c t e d t o assure t h a t they would i n t e r e s t t h e c h i l d r e n t o be tested. The passage was w r i t t e n so t h a t i t was comprehensible by fourth-graders. This wss confirmed by a p i l o t study. The passage i s approximately 160 words long. When analyzed, t h e passage contained 82 m i c r o p r o p o s i t i o n s and 15 h i g h e r l e v e l u n i t s . The m i c r o p r o p o s i t i o n s were analyzed according t o K i n t s c h ' s (1974) t e x t bass. The h i g h e r l e v e l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e passage was determined by Grimes (1975) r h e t o r i c a l p r e d i c a t e s as used i n Meyer's work (Meyer, 1975). F i g u r e 2 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e network o f t h e h i g h e r l e v e l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e t a r g e t passage. This l e v e l o f s t r u c t u r e i s analagous t o t h e r h e t o r i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f Gi-imes' (1975) system and t h e schematic s t r u c t u r e o f K i n t s c h and van D i j k ' s (1978) model. I f one uses a l e v e l s i n t h e h i e r a r c h y approach such as t h a t used by Meyer (1975), l n i t 1 i s l o c a t e d a t t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l , u n i t s 2 and 7 a t t h e n e x t l o w e s t l e v e l and so on. I f , one considers t h e s t r u c t u r e as a s e r i e s o f i n t e r r e l a t e d concepts, w i t h no regard f o r h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e , then, a s e r i e s o f simple r e l a t i o n ships (e.g., 2-3, 3-4) and complex r e l a t i o n s h i p s (e.g. , 1-2 and 1-7 simultaneously; 7-8, 12, and 13) can be represented. Thus, both t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l and l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e may be represented u s i n g such a system.

/l\ 5/ 2 \ 3

I

6

8

L[\

13

I

I

I

4

10/ 9 \

11

'i 15

Figure 2 The Network o f I n t e r r e l a t i o n s o f t h e 15 R h e t o r i c a l P r o p o s i t i o n s i n t h e Target Passage Procedure There were two groups. One r e c e i v e d t h e p r i o r knowledge passage p r i o r t o t h e t a r g e t passage and t h e o t h e r an u n r e l a t e d knowledge passage. The procedure was t h e same f o r b o t h groups except f o r t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i n i t i a l passage. On t h e f i r s t day, each s u b j e c t l i s t e n e d t o t h e knowledge base a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e group. The tape was stopped a t v s r i o u s i n t e r v a l s and mastery questions asked o f t h e s u b j f c t s t o determine whether o r n o t t h e

IMPACT OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE

405

m a t e r i a l i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r knowledge base was b e i n g mastered. T h i s cont i n u e d u n t i l t h e passage was completed. A t t h e end o f t h e tape, each subj e c t was asked t o answer a l l of t h e mastery q u e s t i o n s . The t a p e was r e p l a y e d u n t i l a l l q u e s t i o n s were answered c o r r e c t l y . A l l s u b j e c t s e x c e p t two reached t h e c r i t e r i o n o f 100% mastery by t h e t h i r d r e p i t i t i o n o f t h e tape. On t h e second day, each s u b j e c t l i s t e n e d t o a r e c o r d i n g o f t h e t a r g e t passage. F o l l o w i n g t h i s , each s u b j e c t was i n s t r u c t e d t o " T e l l as much as p o s s i b l e as y o u remember from t h e t a p e you j u s t heard. T r y t o remember The r e c a l l e x a c t l y , b u t i f y o u c a n ' t remember e x a c t l y use y o u r own words." o f each s u b j e c t was recorded. When t h e s u b j e c t h e s i t a t s d , a prompt "Can y o u remember any more?" was g i v e n . T h i s c o n t i n u e d u n t i l t h e s u b j e c t s a i d no more < n f c r m a t i o n c o u l d be remembered. F o l l o w i n g r e c a l l , t h e probe q u e s t i o n s f o r t h e t a r g e t passage were asked and responses recorded. Protocol Analysis The responses o f each s u b j e c t were t r a n s c r i b e d and t h e f r e e r e c a l l analyzed i n t h e same manner as t h e t e x t o f t h e t a r g e t passage. The m i c r o p r o p o s i t i o n s w h i c h appeared i n each p r o t o c o l were compared t o t h o s e i n t h e t e x t a n a l y s i s . A s c o r i n g c r i t f r i o n which a l l o w e d a r e c a l l e d p r o p o s i t i o n t o be s c o r e d as c o r r e c t i f i t was s e m a n t i c a l l y e q u i v a l e n t was adcpted. The l e v e l of t h e t e x t s t r u c t u r e i n w h i c h a c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d m i c r o p r o p o s i t i o n appeared and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p ( s ) w i t h o t h e r p r o p o s i t i o n s was noted. I n t e r r a t e r agreement f o r t h e p r o t o c o l a n a l y s i s was o b t a i n e d by h a v i n g an independent r a t e r a n a l y z e randomly s e l e c t e d p r o t o c o l s from each group. The a n a l y s i s o f each p r o t o c o l s c o r e d by t h e independent r a t e r was compared t o t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h a t p r o t o c o l done by t h e a u t h o r . P r o p o s i t i o n s which occ u r r e d i n b o t h s c o r i n g p r o t o c o l s were s c o r e d as an agreement. Using t h i s method, an i n t e r r a t e r agreement o f 93% was o b t a i n e d . A l l disagreements were r e s o l v e d b y d i s c u s s i o n . Resu! t s Accessi b i 1it y The a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n was measured by f r e e r e c a l l . There a r e t h r e e c o m a r i s o n s o f i n t e r e s t t o be made betwcen t h e two arouDs. One i s a s i m p l e comparison o f t h e number o f p r o p o s i t i o n s r e c a l l e d . - A test for independent means i n d i c a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two groups i n terms The more i n t e r e s t i n g comparison o f o f t h e o v e r a l l amount o f r e c a l l (t.1). what was r e c a l l e d b y t h e d i f f e r e n t groups d i d y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . L e v e l s i n t h e h i e r a r c h y . Meyer (1975) p r o v i d e d d a t a which s u p p o r t e d t h e i d e a t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n h i g h i n t h e s t r u c t u r e o f a t e x t (Grimes, 1975) i s more a c c e s s i b l e t h a n i n f o r m a t i o n l o w e r i n t h a t s t r u c t u r e ( u n i t 1 vs. u n i t 1 5 i n F i g u r e 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Anderson and P i c h e r t (1978) have suggested, however, t h a t p r i o r knowledge mediatcs t h i s e f f e c t and i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a d e v i a t i o n from t h e " s t r u c t u r a l " p r e d i c t i o n . A comparison o f t h e number o f p r o p o s i t i o n s r e c a l l e d by each group a t t h e h i g h e s t and l o w e s t l e v e l o f t h e h i e r a r c h y p r o v i d e d r e s u l t s which s u p p o r t t h e t e x t s t r u c t u r e approach f o r t h e u n r e l a t e d knowledge group and t h e p r i o r

406

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

knowledge m e d i a t i o n p r e d i c t i o n f o r t h e p r i o r knowledge group. That i s , a t t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l i n t h e h i e r a r c h y , t h e u n r e l a t e d knowledge group r e c a l l e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t h a n d i d t h e p r i o r knowledge group [&(28) = 2.37 MSe = 1.228, p 0.05

X

S

T h i s was t h e case w i t h b o t h t e x t s .

DISCUSSION The r e s u l t s o f t h i s experiment can be q u i c k l y summarized. The k i n d o f p r e i n f o r m a t i o n determines t h e c h o i c e o f a t e x t t o a l a r g e e x t e n t b u t i t does n o t i n f l u e n c e t h e amount o f subsequent l e a r n i n g . One m i g h t ask i f a f a i l u r e t o demonstrate t h e e f f e c t o f a qoal s t a t e m e n t on t h e amount o f l e a r n i n g can be accounted f o r t h r o u g h s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s i n h e r e n t i n t h e experiment. I f we t a k e t h e f o l l o w i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h i s m i g h t be t h e case. The e f f e c t s o f t h e s u b j e c t i v e t y p e o f p r e - i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o l i e i n t h e f u t u r e , e. g.,when t h e s t u d e n t i s l e a r n i n g f o r an examination, o r when he o r she i s a c t i n g as e d u c a t o r o r t e a c h e r . F o r t h a t reason, a d i f f e r e n c e i n l o n g - t e r m memory s t o r a g e m i g h t be expected due t o t h e k i n d o f p r e - i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t a t e m e n t i n v o l v e d . P o s s i b l y i n t h e p r e s e n t experiment o n l y t h e subj e c t s ' w o r k i n g memory was r e q u i r e d . I n Experiment I1 an a t t e m p t was made t o demonstrate expected l e a r n i n g e f f e c t s on a d e l a y e d dependent v a r i a b l e .

EXPERIMENT I 1 T h i s experi.ment was a p e r f e c t r e p l i c a t i o n o f Experiment I except f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g : I n s o f a r as i t has a l r e a d y been shown t h a t l e a r n i n g had t a k e n place, t h e second t e s t was n o t g i v e n . I n s t e a d t h e s u b j e c t s were g i v e n a t e s t i n v e r b a l a n a l o g i e s (Amthauer, 1970) a f t e r h a v i n g r e a d t h e t e x t b u t b e f o r e answ e r i n g t h e t e x t - r e l a t e d t e s t , t h u s s u b j e c t s were p r e v e n t e d f r o m s o l v i n g t h e t e s t items t h r o u g h immediate r e c a l l , i. e., by means o f t h e i r immediate w o r k i n g memory. N = 141 s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n Experiment 11. RESULTS W i t h r e g a r d t o c h o i c e b e h a v i o r , t h e r e s u l t s o f Experiment I were r e p l i c a t e d . Again, t e x t C was p r e f e r r e d i n t h e c o n t r o l group ( c h o i c e group 1 1.

SUBJECTIVE VERSUS OBJECTIVE PRE-INFORMATION

c h o i c e group 1 N = 46



p ( C l h ) = 0.65

p ( C l o ) = 0.37

p ( C i s ) = 0.77

p ( R l h ) = 0.35

p ( R ~ S ) = 0.63

p ( R l o ) = 0.23

477

And o n c e a g a i n , t h i s Dreference was r e v e r s e d i n c h o i c e group 2 due t o t h e k i n d o f p r e - i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n . And a g a i n , t h e c o n t r o l group p r e f e r e n c e s were exceeded by t h o s e of c h o i c e group 3 due t o t h e p r e - i n f o r m a t i o n . Once more, t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e same groups were s i g n i f i c a n t ( p < 0.05). The l e a r n i n g phase l e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s . Pre- in f o r m a t i o n

N

x

Text C

by heading objectively s u b j e c t iv e l y

30 18 37

13.2 13.9 14.2

3.6 3.8 3.6

F = 0.66 df (2;82) p > 0.05

Text R

by heading objectively subjectively

16 11 29

16.7 14.6 15.4

3.2 3.6 4.3

F = 0.75 df (2;53) p > 0.05

S

d i t h r e g a r d t o t h e l e a r n i n g d a t a , Experiment I 1 i s a l s o a p e r f e c t r e p l i c a t i o n o f Experiment I.

DISCUSSION

Evidence has been accumulated t h a t t h e s u b j e c t i v e statement o f a goal has a c o n s i d e r a b l e impact on c h o i c e b e h a v i o r . B u t i t has a l s o been c o n f i r m e d t h a t t h i s p r e - i n f o r m a t i o n does n o t i n f l u e n c e t h e amount o f l e a r n i n g - a t l e a s t n o t t o any remarkable degree. F i n a l l y , comparing t h e r e s u l t s o f Experiment I1 w i t h t h o s e o f Experiment I, one must conclude t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f immed i a t e o r delayed r e c a l l have no i n f l u e n c e on achievement. Four reasons m i g h t e x p l a i n why t h e l e a r n i n g d a t a f a i l e d t o meet o u r expectations. ( 1 ) P o s s i b l y , t h e t h e o r y d e r i v e d f r o m W i l h e l m Rein i s n o t a n adequate one. ( 2 ) The s i z e o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l e f f e c t i s c o n s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r t h a n assumed. (3) The c h o i c e m i g h t have i n f l u e n c e d l e a r n i n g d a t a i n t h a t t h e c h o i c e o f t h e t e x t i t s e l f l e a d s t o t h e s u b j e c t s p l a c i n g themselves i n t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r exp e r i m e n t a l groups. Under t h e circumstances g i v e n , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s i n t h e d i f f e r e n t t e x t groups were a l m o s t e q u a l l y w e l l m o t i v a t e d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r t h e y had chosen. T h i s would p r e c l u d e any l e a r n i n g d i f f e r e n c e s produced by m o t i v a t i o n a l v a r i a n c e s i m p l y because t h e r e a r e no m o t i v a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s . ( 4 ) I t cannot be e x c l u d e d t h a t d i f f e r e n t g o a l statements do n o t i n f l u e n c e

47%

INSTRUCTIONAL IMPLICATIONS

t h e q u a n t i t y b u t t h e q u a l i t y o f l e a r n i n g . A r e c e n t l y performed m e t a - a n a l y s i s on i n t e n t i o n a l and i n c i d e n t a l l e a r n i n g w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s r e v e a l e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e enhancing e f f e c t o f goal statements on g o a l - r e l e v a n t i t e m s and a e q u a l l y c o n s i d e r a b l e n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on g o a l - i r r e l e v a n t i t e m s ( K l a u e r , l 9 8 1 ) . T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n would k i n l i n e w i t h Wilhelm R e i n ' s r e a s o n i n g , i . e . , t h a t t h e advance statement o f a goal has a d i r e c t i n g e f f e c t on t h e l e a r n e r ' s a t t e n t i o n (prediction 2). Experiment I 1 1 was performed t o t h r o w some l i g h t on a l t e r n a t i v e s ( Z ) , ( 3 ) , and ( 4 ) . EXPERIMENT I 1 I T h i s experiment was r u n as a p u r e l e a r n i n g experiment w i t h o u t t h e c h o i c e phase. I n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e d e t e c t i o n o f a p o s s i b l e sinall e x p e r i m e n t a l e f f e c t , ( a ) t h e number o f advance statement t y p e s was reduced f r o m t h r e e t o two which l e d t o a h i g h e r number o f s u b j e c t s i n each group; ( b ) t h e t o t a l number o f s u b j e c t s was r a i s e d ; and ( c ) an a t t e m p t was made t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e e x p e r i mental e f f e c t . T h i s was done by r e p l a c i n g t h e t e n o r i g i n a l headings o f t h e paragraphs w i t h s u b j e c t i v e l y o r i e n t e d headings i n t h e t e x t which was subj e c t i v e l y introduced. I f t h e d i f f e r e n t advance statements ( o b j e c t i v e v e r s u s s u b j e c t i v e ) d i r e c t e d t h e l e a r n e r ' s a t t e n t i o n d i f f e r e n t i a l l y , t h e n one would e x p e c t t h e s u b j e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n t o promote l e a r n i n g what i s r e l e v a n t t o t h e l e a r n e r ' s p e r sonal l i f e and a c t i o n s . C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , one would e x p e c t t h a t t h e o b j e c t i v e c o n d i t i q n would encourage s u b j e c t s t o l e a r n t h e g i s t o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n h e r e n t i n t h e t e x t . I n accordance w i t h t h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a knowl e d g e - o r i e n t e d t e s t and an a c t i o n - o r i e n t e d t e s t were c o n s t r u c t e d . The expect a t i o n was t h a t t h e s u b j e c t i v e l y p r e - i n f o r m e d group would o u t p e r f o r m t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g group i n t h e a c t i o n - o r i e n t e d t e s t and c o n v e r s e l y t h e o b j e c t i v e l y p r e - i n f o r m e d group would o u t p e r f o r m t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g group i n t h e knowledge-oriented t e s t .

METHOD M a t e r i a l s . T e x t C ( " C o o p e r a t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y " ) o f t h e f o r m e r experiments was used. Some s m a l l e r paragraphs f r o m t h e t e x t c o n t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on s p e c i a l f a c t s was d e l e t e d i n o r d e r t o o p t i m a l i z e t h e t e x t i t s e l f . Thus, t h e t e x t was reduced t o 1877 words. T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t was made i n two v e r s i o n s . The s u b j e c t i v e v e r s i o n c o n s i s t e d of a t e x t w i t h t e n headings above paragraphs which were r e p l a c e d w i t h headings t h a t were expected t o i n s t i g a t e some ego-involvement. F o r i n stance, t h e f i r s t heading was o r i g i n a l l y " E d u c a t i o n l e a d i n g t o cooperat i o n and d i s p l a y i n g s o l i d a r i t y " . I t was r e p l a c e d by " T h i s i s how y o u can educate y o u r p u p i l s t o be c o o p e r a t i v e and t o show s o l i d a r i t y " . The o b j e c t i v e v e r s i o n was i d e n t i c a l t o t h e o r i g i n a l one.

-

T e s t . The knowledge-oriented t e s t was i d e n t i c a l t o t e s t C o f t h e f o r m e r exp e r i m e n t s . W i t h r e g a r d t o Experiment I 1 1 i t s i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y was reduced

479


t o c1 = 0.66. The a c t i o n - o r i e n t e d t e s t was c o n s t r u c t e d , u s i n g i t e m s o f t h e shortanswer t y p e . I t c o n s i s t e d o f 1 2 e d u c a t i o n a l problems, and t h e t e s t e e had t o e x p l a i n how t o s o l v e them. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h i s t e s t was l o w ( a = 0.39). Procedure. I n t h e m a n i l a envelope were two s m a l l e r envelopes. One t h e them c o n t a i n e d t h e t e x t , t h e o t h e r t h e t e s t . On t h e o u t s i d e o f t h e enevelope cont a i n i n g t h e t e x t s t o o d t h e p r e - i n s t r u c t i o n a l statement. I t was e i t h e r of t h e s u b j e c t i v e o r t h e o b j e c t i v e s t a t e m e n t t y p e which t h e s u b j e c t s f i r s t r e a d bef o r e t h e y opened t h e envelope and t o o k o u t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t . A f t e r 20 minutes ( w h i c h was r e a d i n g t i m e enough f o r t h e m a j o r i t y o f them) t h e y were a l l o w e d t o t a k e t h e t e s t . The t e s t c o n t a i n e d t h e two d i f f e r e n t i t e m s t y p e s i n a random o r d e r . S u b j e c t s , N = 229 s t u d e n t s o f t h e same background as i n Experiment I and I 1 served as s u b j e c t s . RESULTS B e f o r e t u r n i n g t o t h e c h i e f r e s u l t s we s h o u l d c l a r i f y whether r e a d i n g t h e t e x t induces b e t t e r performance i n t h e newly c o n s t r u c t e d a c t i o n - o r i e n t e d t e s t Otherwise, one would n o t be j u s t i f i e d i n speaking o f l e a r n i n g a t a l l . To answer t h i s q u e s t i o n N = 141 s u b j e c t s t o o k t h e t e s t , namely N = 113 a f t e r h a v i n g r e a d t h e o r i g i n a l ( o b j e c t i v e ) v e r s i o n o f t h e t e x t , and an a d d i t i o n a l group o f N = 28 s u b j e c t s who had n o t r e a d t h e t e x t . The two groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from one a n o t h e r (21 = 6.0, s1 = 1.9, R 2 = 4.8, s g = 1.6, t = 3.18, d f = 139, p < 0.05) i n d i c a t i n g t h a t l e a r n i n g has t a k e n p l a c e by reading t h e t e x t . The r e s u l t s o f Experiment I 1 1 a r e shown i n t h e t a b l e . They i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e k i n d o f p r e - i n f o r m a t i o n - advance s t a t e m e n t p l u s paragraph headings - had

-

N

X

s

t

=

-.I8

objective

113

8.7

3.2

df

=

226

subjective

115

8.8

3.1

p

> 0.05

t

=

-.88

226

Know1edge-

Pre-i nformation

oriented test

228 Action oriented

objective

113

6.0

1.9

df

=

test

subjective

115

6.3

1.9

p

> 0.05

228

no i n f l u e n c e on l e a r n i n g . E s p e c i a l l y , t h e expected i n t e r a c t i o n p r e - i n f o r m a t i o n x t y p e o f t e s t " was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ( p > 0.05).

"

type of


480 COMPREHENSIVE

DISCUSSION

The p r e s e n t s e r i e s o f t h r e e experiments f a i l e d t o demonstrate t h a t an advance statement o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e had any e f f e c t on subsequent l e a r n i n g . The s p e c i a l p r e - i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e b e i n g e x p l o r e d had been d e r i ved from a c o g n i t i v e t h e o r y o f Wilhelm Rein ( 1 9 0 6 ) . From t h i s t h e o r y i t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t a s u b j e c t i v e statement as opposed t o an o b j e c t i v e one would produce more l e a r n i n g m o t i v a t i o n and hence more l e a r n i n g . F u r t h e r i t was hypothesized t h a t t h e s u b j e c t i v e p r e - i n s t r u c t i o n a l statement would l e a d t o emphasizing a c t i o n - o r i e n t e d i t e m s w h i l e t h e o b j e c t i v e t y p e o f s t a t e m e n t would l e a d t o emphasizing k n o w l e d g e - o r i e n t e d i t e m s , b o t h due t o d i f f e r e n t a t t e n t i o n d i r e c t i n g processes. None of these p r e d i c t i o n s were confirmed. I t i s assumed t h a t t h i s f a i l u r e cannot be e x p l a i n e d by t e c h n i c a l reasons, e..g., by i n s u f f i c i e n t power i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l design. Furthermore, t h e r e i s no reason f o r s p e c u l a t i n g t h a t t h e Yerkes-Dodson l a w p l a y e d any r o l e , where an i n c r e a s e i n m o t i v a t i o n m i g h t have t a k e n p l a c e b u t where t h e m o t i v a t i o n a l optimum m i g h t have event u a l l y been surpassed. F i n a l l y , when comparing t h e r e s u l t s o f Experiment 111 t o t h e p r e v i o u s experiments, one has t o conclude t h a t t h e s e l f - s e l e c t i o n o f t e x t s by t h e s u b j e c t s d i d n o t a l t e r t h e l e a r n i n g r e s u l t s . Should t h e e a r l y c o g n i t i v e t h e o r y o f Wilhelm Rein be abandoned? I t h i n k n o t . The s p e c i a l o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n I have g i v e n t o R e i n ' s concept o f advance statement f o r t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e has t u r n e d o u t t o have no i n f l u ence on l e a r n i n g . T h i s o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n f o l l o w e d Lehmensick's examples and c o n s i s t e d o f c o n n e c t i n g t h e m a t e r i a l t o be l e a r n e d w i t h t h e l e a r n e r ' s f u t u r e a t l e a s t w i t h regard t o learning.

A s t u d y o f Ross & Bush (1980) i s i n some r e s p e c t s comparable t o t h e p r e s e n t one. The a u t h o r s gave a s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o g r a m on p r o b a b i l i t y t o p r e s e r v i c e t e a c h e r s . The t r e a t m e n t s d i f f e r e d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of examples and e x p l a n a t i o n s , which were e i t h e r a b s t r a c t - s y m b o l i c o r education. r e l a t e d o r medicine r e l a t e d . The s u b j e c t s showed an i n c r e a s e i n t h e number of e d u c a t i o n - r e l a t e d t e s t i t e m s b u t n o t i n t h e number o f a b s t r a c t - s y m b o l i c o r medic i n e - r e l a t e d items. R e l a t i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l t o t h e subjects' fut u r e l i v e s as was done by Ross & Bush f a i l e d t o produce a general l e a r n i n g e f f e c t . This r e s u l t s i s i n l i n e w i t h t h e r e s u l t s o f the present study. Not o n l y t h e q u a n t i t y b u t a l s o t h e q u a l i t y o f l e a r n i n g was independent o f t h e p r e - i n f o r m a t i o n t y p e s used i n t h i s study. The c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t t h e t y p e s of p r e - i n f o r m a t i o n do n o t d i r e c t t h e l e a r n e r ' s a t t e n t i o n i n t h e way we had assumed. Another p o i n t deserves c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I n t h e c h o i c e experiments, s t r o n g e v i dence was accumulated showing t h a t s u b j e c t i v e t y p e o f p r e - i n f o r m a t i o n has a remarkable impact on c h o i c e b e h a v i o r . S u b j e c t s who have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o choose p r e f e r , t o a l a r g e e x t e n t , s u b j e c t i v e l y i n t r o d u c e d t e x t s r a t h e r t h a n o b j e c t i v e l y i n t r o d u c e d t e x t s . Again, t h e s u b j e c t i v e l y t y p e o f i n t r o d u c t i o n r e l a t e s t h e t e x t t o t h e l e a r n e r ' s f u t u r e l i f e whereas t h e o b j e c t i v e t y p e i s m e r e l y a summary.

In o r d e r t o e x p l a i n a l l t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d we can assume t h e f o l l o w i n g : T e l l i n g s t u d e n t s t h a t a t e x t i s i m p o r t a n t and why i t i s i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e i r f u t u r e l i v e s s t i m u l a t e s t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n t h a t t e x t b u t does n o t a l t e r t h e


48 1

way t h e t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n i s processed. I n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g can be modif i e d by t e l l i n g t h e s u b j e c t s which s p e c i f i c p a r t s o f t h e t e x t s h o u l d be i m p o r t a n t t o them. T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s i n l i n e w i t h experiments showing t h a t s p e c i f i c o b j e c L t i v e s have a g r e a t e r i n f l u e n c e on l e a r n i n g t h a n general o b j e c t i v e s (e. g. Kaptan & Rothkopf, 1974). T e l l i n g t h e s u b j e c t s t h a t t h e t e x t as a whole i s i m p o r t a n t f o r them m i g h t be e q u i v a l e n t t o t e l l i n g them t h a t t h e y s h o u l d l e a r n a l l t h a t i s b e i n g presented. B u t t h i s l a t t e r procedure has been t h e c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n i n a g r e a t number o f s t u d i e s i n i n t e n t i o n a l and i n c i d e n t a l l e a r n i n g where i t t u r n e d o u t t o be i n e f f i c i e n t compared w i t h g i v i n g s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s ( K l a u e r , 1981).

REFERENCES Amthauer, R. I n t e l l i g e n z - S t r u k t u r - T e s t . G o t t i n g e n : Hogrefe, 1970. Cohen, J. S t a t i s t i c a l power a n a l y s i s f o r e b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s . New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s . 7 7 . Kaplan, R, and Rothkopf; E. Z. I n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s as d i r e c t i o n s t o l e a r n e r s : E f f e c t o f passage l e n g t h amount o f o b j e c t i v e - r e l e v a n t c o n t e n t . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1974, 66, 448-456. K l a n I n t e n t i o n a l e s und i n z i d e n t e l l e s Lehren und Lernen b e i L e h r t e x t e n . E i n e Metaanalyse. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 1981, 9, 300-318. s y s t e m a t i s c h e r Darstellung; Dj,e Lehre von d e r B i l Rein, W. Padagogik d u n g s a r b e i t . Vol. 2. Langensalza: H. Beyer un Sohne, 1906. Ross. S. M.,and Bush. A. J. E f f e c t s o f a b s t r a c t and e d u c a t i o n a l l v o r i e n t e d l e a r n i n g . c o n t e x t s - o n achievement and a t t i t u d e s o f p r e s e r v i c e t e a c h e r s . ~J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1980, 84, 19-22.

a

DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W . Kintsch (eds.) @ North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982

EFFECTS O F ELABORATION O N RECALL OF TEXTS

Heinz Mandl and S t e f f e n - P e t e r B a l l s t a e d t Deutsches I n s t i t u t fiir F e r n s t u d i e n an d e r l l n i v e r s i t a t Tubingen Tu bi nge n Federal Republic o f Germany

E l a b o r a t i o n p r o c e s s e s a r e an i m p o r t a n t component i n any t h e o r y o f comprehension. T h e i r q u a n t i t a t i v e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and q u a l i t a t i v e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , however, p r e s e n t us w i t h a number o f methodological d i f f i c u l t i e s . In a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n i t could be showi t h a t e l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s can be i n f l u e n c e d by t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n . The d a t a a l s o i n d i c a t e an i n v e r t e d u-shaped r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e number o f e l a b o r a t i o n s and r e c a l l performance: A s u b j e c t who e l a b o r a t e s very l i t t l e and one who e l a b o r a t e s a g r e a t d e a l both perform l e s s well t h a n a s u b j e c t w i t h an a v e r a g e number o f e l a b o r a t i o n s .

Some time b e f o r e t h e development o f c o g n i t i v e psychology, i t was a l r e a d y known t h a t new i n f o r m a t i o n can o n l y be r e g i s t e r e d and comprehended through t h e mediation o f p r e v i o u s l y s t o r e d knowledge. H e r b a r t (1824/25) f o r example, d e s c r i b e d t h e p r o c e s s o f a p p e r c e p t i o n a s t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f new i d e a s r e r u l t i n g from p e r c e p t u a l p r o c e s s e s i n t o the a p p e r c e p t i v e mass a l r e a d y a v a i l a b l e . Hermeneutics, t o o , being t h e c l a s s i c r h e o r y o f t e x t comprehens i o n , s t r e s s e s t h e importance o f p r i o r knowledge f o r the way r e a d e r s a s s i m i l a t e t e x t s ( D i l t h e y , 1957; Gadamer, 1 9 6 0 ) . This a n c i e n t i d e a , fundamental t o a n y t h e o r y o f comprehension, o n l y e n t e r e d t h e a s s o c i a t i o n i s t i c t h e o r y o f verbal l e a r n i n g and c o g n i t i v e psychology through t h e back d o o r . On t h e assumption t h a t l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s e s a r e a l l based on t h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f e l e mentary u n i t s , experiments w i t h l i s t s o f meaningless s y l l a b l e s , words, and word p a i r s were conducted t o d i s c o v e r t h e r u l e s governing t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f a s s o c i a t i o n s . I t soon became a p p a r e n t t h a t i n l e a r n i n g t h e l i s t s , subj e c t s d i d not c o n f i n e themselves merely t o c r e a t i n g a s s o c i a t i v e 1 i n k s based on temporal c o n t i g u i t y a s p o s t u l a t e d , b u t t h a t a l o t o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s went on (Bredenkamp and Wippich, 1 9 7 7 ) . Let us t a k e the experimental paradigm o f p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g as an example. During t h e l e a r n i n g phase t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r p r e s e n t s t h e s u b j e c t s w i t h p a i r s of words, t h e f i r s t word o f each p a i r having t h e f u n c t i o n o f s t i m u l u s . and t h e second the f u n c t i o n o f r e s p o n s e . E f f i c i e n t l e a r n e r s n o t o n l y make connect i o n s between t h e p a i r e d words, but a l s o i n t e g r a t e them i n t o a s e m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h each o t h e r . Or, t h e y may g e n e r a t e non-verbal images i n which t h e c o n c e p t s p r e s e n t e d a r e i m a g i n a t i v e l y u n i t e d . These p r o c e s s e s o f m e d i a t i o n r e p r e s e n t a simple example of e l a b o r a t i v e encoding: i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e m a t e r i a l t h a t has been p r e s e n t e d , p r i o r knowledge has been a c t i v a t e d i n t o which the new i n f o r m a t i o n i s embedded. Treiber and Groeben ( 2 9 7 6 ) g i v e an e x t e n s i v e review o f t h e t r a n s i t i o n from a s s o c i a t i v e l e a r n i n g t h e o r y t o

482

EFFECTS OF ELABORATION ON RECALL OF TEXTS

483

t h e e l a b o r a t i o n model o f l e a r n i n g . F u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e e l a b o r a t i o n model can be f o u n d w i t h i n t h e l e v e l s o f - p r o c e s s i n g a p p r o a c h ( C r a i k and L o c k h a r t , 1972; Cermak and C r a i k , 1 9 7 9 ) . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s t h e o r y , i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s e s a r e supposed t o be l o c a t e d on a c o n t i n u u m r e a c h i n g f r o m p e r c e p t u a l t o s e m a n t i c a n a l y s i s , whereby e a c h l e v e l i s supposed t o have i t s s p e c i f i c memory t r a c e s ( K i n t s c h , 1 9 7 7 ) . The c o n c e p t o f p r o c e s s i n g d e p t h r e f e r s t o t h e l e v e l t h a t has been r e a c h e d i n each c a s e . A t t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l o f s e m a n t i c p r o c e s s i n g , however, t h e c o n c e p t o f p r o c e s s i n g b r e a d t h w o u l d be more adequate ( C r a i k and J a c o b y , 1 9 7 9 ) , s i n c e a number o f d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f i n f e r e n c e s o c c u r a t t h i s l e v e l d u r i n g r e a d i n g ( C r o t h e r s , 1979; F r e d e r i k s e n e t a1 ., 1 9 7 8 ) . A l l t h e s e i n f e r e n c e s a r e due t o t h e i n f l u e n c e o f schemata w h i c h have been a c t i v a t e d e i t h e r b y t h e t e x t o r by o t h e r schemata. B a s i c a l l y , t w o t y p e s o f i n f e r e n c e s can be d i s c e r n e d , e v e n t h o u g h i n some a c t u a l c a s e s i t may n o t a l w a y s be p o s s i b l e t o d r a w a c l e a r l i n e between them ( R e d e r , 1 9 8 0 ) : ( 1 ) S l o t - f i l l i n g i n f e r e n c e s a r e based on schemata t h a t have been a c t i v a t e d by t h e t e x t . T h i s t y p e o f i n f e r e n c e i s o b l i g a t o r y f o r any k i n d o f sentence o r t e x t c o m p r e h e n s i o n . Hence, a s e n t e n c e l i k e Peter drank too much again Last n i g h t c a n o n l y be u n d e r s t o o d i f t h e DRINKING-schema becomes a c t i v a t e d c o n t a i n i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i n e v e r y d a y l a n g u a g e " t o o much" u s u a l l y r e f e r s t o a l c o h o l i c d r i n k s . I n o t h e r words t h e empty argument s l o t o f t h e DRINKING-schema i s f i l l e d i n by p r i o r knowledge. I n many t e x t s c o h e r e n c e may o n l y be e s t a b l i s h e d b y i n f e r r i n g a r g u m e n t s . The s h o r t passage The car Jen t around t h e corner. The t i r e s sauealed needs t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f a C4Rschema c o n t a i n i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t i r e s r e p r e s e n t a p a r t o f a c a r , i n o r d e r t o become c o h e r e n t and, hence, u n d e r s t a n d a b l e . T h i s k i n d o f i n f e r e n c e r e p r e s e n t s m i n i m a l c o n d i t i o n s f o r c o m p r e h e n s i o n . I t i s a l s o c a l l e d an i n t e n d e d i n f e r e n c e s i n c e t h e a u t h o r o f t h e t e x t t h i n k s t h a t h e / s h e may r e l y on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e a d e r w i l l i n f e r t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h t h e h e l p o f h i s / h e r p r i o r knowledge ( C l a r k , 1 9 7 7 ) . (2) T h e r e a r e o t h e r i n f e r e n c e s , however, w h i c h go beyond s l o t - f i l l i n g , when a c t i v a t e d schemata have t h e e f f e c t o f e n l a r g i n g and s u p p l e m e n t i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e t e x t . F o r example, i f t h e t e x t c o n t a i n s t h e s e n t e n c e Many p l a n t s cont ain substances which are o f pharmaceutical use t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e t w o schemata PLANTS and ILLNESS c o u l d evoke t h e i d e a Some peopZe drink herb t e a s when they f e e 2 s i c k . These o p t i o n a l i n f e r e n c e s a r e e l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s . Through e l a b o r a t i o n s r e l a t i o n s a r e c r e a t e d t h a t go beyond t h o s e p r e s e n t i n t h e t e x t and t h a t r e l a t e t h e t e x t t o t h e v a r i o u s knowledge s t r u c t u r e s t h e r e a d e r possesses. E l a b o r a t i o n s h e l p t o make h i s / h e r knowl e d g e c o h e r e n t . T h i s happens as f o l l o w s : One c o n t e n t u n i t o f t h e t e x t a c t i v a t e s a schema o r a g r o u p o f schemata w i t h t h e h e l p o f w h i c h c o n c l u s i o n s g o i n g beyond t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e t e x t may be drawn. By means o f e l a b o r a t i o n s t h e knowledge s t r u c t u r e r e a l i z e d i n t h e t e x t may be e n l a r g e d i n a number o f ways. Thus, e l a b o r a t i v e i n f e r e n c e s c a n be r e g a r d e d as t h e c r e a t i v e a s p e c t o f r e a d i n g , f o r t h e y r e l a t e t h e n o v e l i n f o r m a t i o n t o knowledge ( s e m a n t i c memory) and t o e x p e r i e n c e ( e p i s o d i c memory) i n a number o f i d i o s y n c r a t i c ways. The number o f such i n f e r e n c e s can v a r y c o n s i d e r a b l y f r o m one r e a d e r t o a n o t h e r , d e p e n d i n g on h i s / h e r p r i o r knowledge, i n t e r e s t s , r e a d i n g t i m e , e t c . A l t h o u g h t h e r e a d e r may u n d e r s t a n d a t e x t w i t h o u t e l a b o r a t i o n s , t h e s e can s t i l l be r e g a r d e d as a h e l p t o w a r d s d e e p e r u n d e r standing. H e r h a r t was a l s o aware o f t h e e d u c a t i o n a l a d v a n t a g e s o f e l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s . L e a r n i n g can be f a c i l i t a t e d b y a c t i v a t i n g p r i o r knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e t h r o u q h v a r i o u s l e a r n i n g and t e a c h i n g t e c h n i q u e s . S t a r t i n g f r o m R o t h k o p f ' s 11970) t h e o r y of mathemagenic b e h a v i o r , Mayer ( 1 9 8 0 ) d e v e l o p e d

484

INSTRUCTIONAL IHPLICATIONS

a t h e o r y o f a s s i m i l a t i o n c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o H e r b a r t ' s approach. According t o t h i s t h e o r y , l e a r n i n g o f meaningful m a t e r i a l i s a f f e c t e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g two c o n d i t i o n s : ( 1 ) t h e l e a r n e r must p o s s e s s a meaningful p a t t e r n o f p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t he/she can use a s an " a s s i m i l a t i v e c o n t e x t " ; ( 2 ) t h e l e a r n e r must make a c t i v e use o f such an a s s i m i l a t i v e c o n t e x t during reading. Mayer (1980) assumes t h a t t h i s second c o n d i t i o n can be s u p p o r t e d by e l a b o r a t i v e t e c h n i q u e s . I f t h e novel i n f o r m a t i o n i s embedded in a broader p a t t e r n of p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s , t h i s should r e s u l t i n a more comprehensive and b e t t e r i n t e g r a t e d s t r u c t u r e . I n i n t e r p r e t i n g h i s own f i n d i n g s , he s t r e s s e s t h e importance o f l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s such a s t h e s e a r c h f o r r e l e v a n t p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s and t h e a c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s a v a i l a b l e knowledge t o keyc o n c e p t s a p p e a r i n g in t h e t e x t . I f t h e s e two c o n d i t i o n s a r e met, new i n formation can be a s s i m i l a t e d and i n t e g r a t e d . Some e l a b o r a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s such a s g e n e r a t i n g mental images, i n t e g r a t i v e s e n t e n c e s , o r q u e s t i o n i n g o n e s e l f , can be s u c c e s s f u l l y t r a i n e d ( B a l l s t a e d t , Mandl, Schnotz and Tergan, 1 9 8 1 ) . They p l a y an i m p o r t a n t p a r t in most memory t e c h n i q u e s . Weinstein ( 1 9 7 8 ) , W e i n s t e i n , Underwood, Wicker and Cubberly (1979) developed and conducted a complete e l a b o r a t i o n t r a i n i n g program f o r n i n t h g r a d e r s . Learning performance proved t o be b e t t e r in t h e experimental group, t r a i n e d i n e l a b o r a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s , than in t h e c o n t r o l group. The f i n d i n g s so f a r s u g g e s t t h a t e l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s can h e l p t o improve l e a r n i n g and memory performance. However t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether o r n o t t h e y a r e always h e l n f u l under any c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s s t i l l open. Anderson and Reder (1979) a s well a s Reder (1980) developed a s o - c a l l e d s c r i p t - e l a b o r a t i o n model based on t h e approach o f Schank and Abel son ( 1 9 7 7 ) . In t h i s model, e l a b o r a t i v e i n f e r e n c e s a r e made on t h e b a s i s o f a c t i v a t e d s c r i p t s i . e . , v e r y complex schemata c o n t a i n i n g knowledge about s t e r e o t y p e d sequences o f a c t i o n s and e v e n t s i n w e l l - d e f i n e d s i t u a t i o n s . The best-known example i s t h e famous RESTAURANT-script comprising a l l i n f o r m a t i o n n e c e s s a r y f o r a s u c c e s s f u l v i s i t t o a r e s t a u r a n t . Reder (1980) i d e n t i f i e s t h r e e funct i o n s t h a t e l a b o r a t i o n s may have in t h e p r o c e s s o f comprehension: ( 1 ) s e c u r i n g coherence between t h e passages and w i t h i n t h e memory s t r u c ture; ( 2 ) g e n e r a t i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s concerning f u r t h e r developments in t h e t e x t ; ( 3 ) d i s c o v e r i n g and r e s o l v i n g a m b i g u i t i e s i n t h e t e x t . E s p e c i a l l y the f i r s t o f t h e s e t h r e e f u n c t i o n s a l l o f which f a c i l i t a t e unders t a n d i n g , i s o f g r e a t importance because i t h e l p s t o i n t e g r a t e new knowl e d g e i n t o t h e knowledge b a s e . According t o Anderson (1980) t h e r e a r e two t h e o r e t i c a l r e a s o n s why e l a b o r a t i o n s l e a d t o b e t t e r r e c a l l . His argument i s based on the assumption t h a t knowledge i s r e p r e s e n t e d i n memory i n t h e form o f s e m a n t i c networks: ( 1 ) Because o f t h e i r g r e a t e r number, a node a v a i l a b l e in an e l a b o r a t e d network i s more l i k e l y t o be r e t r i e v e d , s i n c e i t i s r e l a t e d t o a g r e a t number o f o t h e r nodes. These c o n n e c t i o n s may s e r v e a s a l t e r n a t e r e t r i e v a l routes. ( 2 ) I f one node i s m i s s i n g i n t h e memory s t r u c t u r e , an e l a b o r a t e d network s t i l l l e a v e s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f i n f e r r i n g o r r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e m i s s i n g node from t h e n e i g h b o r i n g nodes. As a r u l e , i n f o r m a t i o n seems t o be b e t t e r r e t a i n e d i n an e l a b o r a t e d network s t r u c t u r e because there a r e more c u e s t o r e f e r t o , i f r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y . Such a p o s i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e i n f l u e n c e o f e l a b o r a t i o n s bears a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o a reconstructive theory of r e c a l l . A theory


485

concerned e x c l u s i v e l y with r e t r i e v a l o f s t o r e d i n f o r m a t i o n could n o t e x p l a i n why an i n c r e a s e in s t o r e d i n f o r m a t i o n should l e a d t o b e t t e r r e c a l l . Followi n g t h i s a p p r o a c h , Anderson and Reder assume t h a t r e c a l l performance i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a f f e c t e d by t h e number o f e l a b o r a t i o n s : t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f reconstruction appears t o increase a s a function of e l a b o r a t i v e connections. This q u a n t i t a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s seems p l a u s i b l e a t f i r s t s i g h t , but t h e r e i s reason f o r c a u t i o n . For one t h i n g , t h e r e c e r t a i n l y i s an upper l i m i t t o t h e number of e l a b o r a t i o n s t h a t may be c o n s i d e r e d u s e f u l . I f someone e l a b o r a t e s e n d l e s s l y , he/she w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d a v e r y d i s t r a c t i v e r a t h e r than an i n t e g r a t i v e l e a r n e r . H i s / h e r performance a t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n would probabl y be worse t h a n t h a t of a l e a r n e r w i t h l e s s e l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g . Perhaps t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e number o f e l a b o r a t i o n s and r e c a l l performance f o l l o w s an i n v e r t e d u-shaped c u r v e . T h e o r e t i c a l l y , t h i s could be e x p l a i n e d a s f o l l o w s : I f someone makes few o r no e l a b o r a t i o n s , t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y "woven i n t o " h i s knowledge s t r u c t u r e s and c o n s e q u e n t l y , be has few cues t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o f the t e x t . Recall p e r f o r mance w i l l a c c o r d i n g l y be poor. Someone who e l a b o r a t e s v e r y b r o a d l y , on the o t h e r hand, wi l l have d i f f i c u l t i e s i n r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t i n formation because s h e / h e has t o choose among an enormous number o f a c t i v a t e d schemata. The second c r i t i c i s m concerns t h e p u r e l y q u a n t i t a t i v e approach. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t e l a b o r a t i o n s may be "good" o r "bad" f o r t h e p r o c e s s o f l e a r n i n g , depending on t h e i r q u a l i t y . Some e l a b o r a t i o n s may d i s t r a c t t o o much from the t e x t and, hence, c o n t r i b u t e v e r y l i t t l e t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a c o h e r e n t knowledge s t r u c t u r e . This i s t h e a s p e c t Bransford and h i s coworkers focussed upon. The r e s e a r c h team around Bransford performed a few e x p e r i m e n t s showing q u i t e c l e a r l y t h a t n o t a l l kinds o f e l a b o r a t i o n s a r e e q u a l l y e f f i c i e n t a s r e g a r d s l e a r n i n g f a c i l i t a t i o n ( c f . review by B r a n s f o r d , Franks, Morris and S t e i n , 1979; B r a n s f o r d , 1 9 7 9 ) . S t e i n , Morris and Franks (1978) used t h e method o f cued r e c a l l o f t a r g e t words w i t h t h r e e experimental groups. Group 1 l i s t e n e d t o a l i s t o f base s e n t e n c e s such a s The t a l l man bought t h e crackers. Each s e n t e n c e i n t h e l i s t was u n d e r s t a n d a b l e and s e m a n t i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t . During the t e s t i n g p h a s e , a s e n t e n c e frame was p r e s e n t e d i n which t h e a d j e c t i v e , a s t h e t a r g e t word, was o m i t t e d and had t o be r e c a l l e d : The man bought the crackers. Groups 2 and 3 a l s o l i s t e n e d t o t h e b a s e s e n t e n c e s , but i n a d d i t i o n t h e y were given some e l a b o r a t i v e p h r a s e s a s c o n t e x t . Group 2 l i s t e n e d t o t h e p h r a s e : The t a l l man bought t h e crackers t h a t were on s a l e . Group 3 r e c e i v e d a d i f f e r e n t e l a b o r a t i v e cont e x t : The t a l l man bought the crackers t h a t were on the t o p s h e l f . Both e l a b o r a t i v e c o n t e x t s c o n s t i t u t e s e m a n t i c a l l y congruent c o n t i n u a t i o n s o f t h e base s e n t e n c e . The d i f f e r e n c e s l i e s in the f a c t t h a t the e l a b o r a t i v e c o n t e x t for Group 3 d e s c r i b e s a s i t u a t i o n which has a s p e c i f i c and n o n - a r b i t r a r y meaning f o r t h e t a r g e t c o n c e p t . The f i n d i n g s showed e x c e l l e n t cued r e c a l l s c o r e s f o r Group 3 w h i l e t h e Scores of Group 2 were bad. In p a r t , t h e s c o r e s o f Group 2 were even lower than t h o s e o f Group 1, showing t h a t e l a b o r a t i o n s may even reduce r e c a l l performance. I t f o l l o w s t h a t e l a b o r a t i o n s a r e o n l y e f f i c i e n t t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e y produce a r e l e v a n t c o n t e x t f o r t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f new i n f o r m a t i o n . A s e r i e s o f experiments by Auble and Franks (1978) shows t h a t f o r d i f f i c u l t s e n t e n c e s , e l a b o r a t i o n s conducive t o b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g improve r e c a l l Performance, whereas postcomprehension e l a b o r a t i o n s reduce performance. However, we must n o t f o r g e t t h a t t h e s e f i n d i n g s r e f e r t o e l a b o r a t i v e cont e x t s provided by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r and n o t g e n e r a t e d by t h e s u b j e c t s . The Same p r i n c i p l e might a p p l y t o spontaneous e l a b o r a t i o n s n o n e t h e l e s s . These f i n d i n g s s u p p o r t t h e t h e o r y o f comprehension by Bransford and McCarrell ( 1 9 7 4 ) ; Bransford ( 1 9 7 9 ) . According t o t h i s t h e o r y , t e x t comprehension con-

486


s i s t s o f a s e r i e s o f a c t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e s s e s . The l i n g u i s t i c i n p u t s e r v e s as a b a s i s f o r " s e m a n t i c d e s c r i p t i o n s " i n t e g r a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m p r e c e d i n g s e n t e n c e s ( 1 i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t ) , from t h e r e a d e r ' s p r i o r knowledge, and i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e s i t u a t i o n ( e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t ) . Elaborative inferences are e f f e c t i v e t o the extent t h a t they c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e s e i n f o r m a t i o n a l s o u r c e s . Thus, i n t h e end, t h e q u a l i t y o f e l a b o r a t i o n s may be s a i d t o be o f g r e a t e r i m p o r t a n c e t h a n t h e i r quant it y . We began w i t h a s e r i e s o f e x p e r i m e n t s i n t e n d e d t o f u r t h e r c l a r i f y t h e e f f e c t s o f e l a b o r a t i o n on t h e comprehension p r o c e s s , w i t h r e g a r d t o b o t h q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e a s p e c t s . I n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n t h e r e s u l t s o f the f i r s t experiment are reported. Based on t h e t h e o r e t i c a l approaches and r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d above, t h e i n f l u e n c e o f an i n s t r u c t i o n t o e l a b o r a t e a l o u d d u r i n g r e a d i n g and t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a t a s k e x p e c t a t i o n , namely, t h a t a t e x t w i l l have t o be r e c a l l e d a f t e r r e a d i n g , a r e t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e q u e s t i o n s w i l l be s t u d i e d : (1) I s t h e r e c a l l p e r f o r m a n c e o f a g r o u p w h i c h r e c e i v e s t h e e l a b o r a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n and t h e t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g f u t u r e r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e t e x t b e t t e r than t h a t o f a group which reads t h e t e x t w i t h o u t t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n o r task orientation? (2) Does an i n v e r t e d u-shaped r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t between t h e number o f e l a b o r a t i o n s and r e c a l l p e r f o r m a n c e ? ( 3 ) Do s p e c i f i c t y p e s o f e l a b o r a t i o n s a f f e c t r e c a l l p e r f o r m a n c e ?

METHOD' E x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n and p r o c e d u r e . Four e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p s were formed. The f i r s t g r o u p r e c e i v e d n o t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n , i.e., no i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t t h e y w o u l d have t o r e p r o d u c e a t e x t a f t e r r e a d i n g i t , and no i n s t r u c t i o n t o e l a b o r a t e a l o u d d u r i n g r e a d i n g . The second g r o u p a l s o r e c e i v e d no t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n , b u t t h e y were i n s t r u c t e d t o e l a b o r a t e . The t h i r d g r o u p r e c e i v e d t h e t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n , b u t n o i n s t r u c t i o n t o e l a b o r a t e . The f o u r t h g r o u p r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g b o t h t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n and e l a b o r a t i o n . A l l f o u r g r o u p s were t o l d t o r e a d t h e t e x t c a r e f u l l y , s e n t e n c e b y s e n t e n c e o r i n s e l f - c h o s e n u n i t s . B e f o r e t h e s u b j e c t s commenced w i t h t h e i r i n t e n s i v e work on t h e t e x t , t h e y were asked t o s k i m o v e r i t f o r one o r two m i n u t e s and t o f o r m an i d e a o f i t s c o n t e n t ( p r e s t r u c t u r i n g p h a s e ) . The t w o e l a b o r a t i o n g r o u p s were p a r t i c u l a r l y r e q u e s t e d t o c o n n e c t t h e s e p a r t s o f t h e t e x t conc e r n i n g i t s s u b j e c t o r t o p i c w i t h a n y t h i n g t h e y a l r e a d y knew, had r e a d , o r had h e a r d a b o u t t h a t s u b j e c t o r t o p i c . A l l s u b j e c t s were a l s o asked t o s a y a l o u d what went t h r o u g h t h e i r heads d u r i n g p r o c e s s i n g . They were a l s o asked t o v e r b a l i z e a n y f e e l i n g s , moods, o r j u d g m e n t s w h i c h o c c u r r e d t o them i n t h e p r o c e s s . The p r o c e d u r e was c a r e f u l l y e x p l a i n e d u s i n g an example. I t must be p a r t i c u l a r l y n o t e d t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s t h e m s e l v e s d e t e r m i n e d w h i c h p o r t i o n s of t e x t , s e n t e n c e s , o r o t h e r u n i t s t h e y wanted t o e l a b o r a t e upon a l o u d . As c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s and as i n t e r v e n i n g t a s k s between t e x t p r o c e s s i n g and r e c a l l , t h r e e s u b t e s t s o f t h e I n t e l 1 i g e n c e S t r u c t u r e T e s t b y Amthauer ( 1 9 7 1 ) o n v e r b a l i n t e l l i g e n c e ( w o r d s e l e c t i o n , f i n d i n g common a t t r i b u t e s , a n a l o g i e s ) and one memory s u b t e s t were p r e s e n t e d t o a l l f o u r g r o u p s . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between t h e g r o u p s o n t h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t ( c f . T a b l e 2 ) . The w r i t t e n r e c a l l o f t h e p r e v i o u s l y p r o c e s s e d t e x t t o o k p l a c e a f t e r t h e i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 m i n u t e s l a t e r .


487

S u b j e c t s and experimental t e x t . In o r d e r t o o b t a i n a group o f s u b j e c t s with r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous p r i o r knowledge r e g a r d i n g t h e t e x t , t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c a r r i e d o u t with 24 law s t u d e n t s . The experimental text was taken from an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o a n t h r o p o l o g y by N a c h t i g a l l (1974) and c o n t a i n e d 453 words. Analysis o f verbal p r o t o c o l s . The t e x t , verbal p r o t o c o l s , and t h e w r i t t e n t e x t r e p r o d u c t i o n s were d i v i d e d i n t o s o - c a l l e d c o n t e n t u n i t s ( c f . S c h n o t z , B a l l s t a e d t and Mandl, 1 9 8 1 ) . One c o n t e n t u n i t a p p r o x i m a t e l y c o r r e s p o n d s t o a s u p e r o r d i n a t e p r o p o s i t i o n i n K i n t s c h ' s model ( K i n t s c h , 1 9 7 8 ) . The e x p e r i mental t e x t , thus t r a n s f o r m e d , c o n s i s t e d o f 38 c o n t e n t u n i t s . Coding c a t e g o r i e s f o r e l a b o r a t i v e c o n t e n t u n i t s . Q u a l i t a t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f e l a b o r a t i o n s from verbal p r o t o c o l s proved t o be very d i f f i c u l t . The f i r s t a t t e m p t was t o s e l e c t f i v e c a t e g o r i e s supposed t o have an e f f e c t on l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s e s , t h e d i r e c t i o n o f which was s t i l l u n s p e c i f i c i n some c a s e s . R e f e r r i n g t o p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s shows t h a t t h e r e a d e r e x p l i c i t l y r e s o r t s t o t h e c o n t e x t of h i s own personal e x p e r i e n c e s . Perhaps t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f personal e x p e r i e n c e s improves r e c a l l performance due t o ego-involvement. The problem s t i l l i s t h a t i t a l s o depends on the communicative c o n t e x t whether personal e x p e r i e n c e s w i l l be s t a t e d o r n o t . Not a l l s u b j e c t s w i l l a c t u a l l y v e r b a l i z e a l l t h e i r personal e l a b o r a t i o n s , b u t r a t h e r d i s q u i s e them a s general knowledge a s t h e s u r f a c e l e v e l o f t h e t e x t . The f a c t t h a t g e n e r a t i o n o f images may a l s o enhance l e a r n i n g in t e x t proc e s s i n g seems t o be well e s t a b l i s h e d ( e . g . , Y u i l l e and P a i v i o , 1 9 6 9 ) . B u t t h e same argument a p p l i e s h e r e w i t h r e p o r t i n g personal c o n t e x t s . The u t t e r a n c e s may n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t t h e images t h a t u n d e r l i e i t . In a follow-up s t u d y - t h e q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g imagery w i l l be r e p l a c e d by a measure f o r c o n c r e t e n e s s o r imagery. The c a t e g o r y c r i t i c a l comments r e f e r s t o the e x t e n t t o which the r e a d e r i n t e r a c t s w i t h t h e t e x t in a c r i t i c a l and i n t e r e s t e d way. I t i s t o be expected t h a t t h i s kind o f i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l r e s u l t i n deeper o r broader proc e s s i n g a n d , hence, w i l l have a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on r e c a l l . Paraphrases f r e q u e n t l y occur i n verbal p r o t o c o l s . Whether t h e y r e f l e c t s u p e r f i c i a l o r thorough p r o c e s s i n g i s hard t o d e t e r m i n e . B u t t h e very f a c t o f r e p e a t i n g a meaning u n i t i n t h e s e n s e o f maintenance r e h e a r s a l w i l l probably have a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on r e c a l l . The l a s t c a t e g o r y r e f e r s t o s o - c a l l e d m e t a s t a t e m e n t s u s u a l l y r e p r e s e n t i n g s t a t e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e o r s t y l e ( o r g a n i z a t i o n ) o f the t e x t . S o - c a l l e d m e t a c o g n i t i o n s , w i t h which a s u b j e c t r e f e r s t o his/her own c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s i n a form o f s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n , were n o t counted a s e l a b o r a t i o n s . The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s procedure i s d e r i v e d from t h e f a c t t h a t m e t a c o g n i t i o n s o f t h i s kind make no d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e t o the c o n t e n t o f t h e t e x t . In Table 1 t h e l a b e l s f o r each c a t e g o r y a r e p r e s e n t e d and i l l u s t r a t e d with some examples drawn from o u r m a t e r i a l . I t should be emphasized once a g a i n t h a t we a r e d e a l i n g here w i t h a p r e l i m i n a r y system o f c a t e g o r i e s s t i l l in need o f r e v i s i o n .

488


Table 1. C a t e g o r i e s f o r e l a b o r a t i v e c o n t e n t u n i t s

C o n t e x t o f personal e x p e r i e n c e s : e x p l i c i t r e f e r e n c e t o some c o n t e x t , autobiographical data L a s t week I went t o an e x h i b i t i o n about t h e Chinese i n Z u r i c h . When I hear J u l i u s Cesar o r T a c i t u s , I am reminded o f my L a t i n course. Imagery: e x p l i c i t r e f e r e n c e t o mental imagery: c o l o r d e s c r i p t i o n s , s h a p e e s c r i p t i o n s , reference t o s p a t i a l c o n s t e l l a t i o n s Now I ' m v i s u a l i z i n g some people l i v i n g i n a small r u r a l community. I ' m seeing a map o f t h e w o r l d i n what k i n d o f people t h e y a r e .

my mind and

I'm

t r y i n g t o imagine

~~

~~~~

~

~

C r i t i c a l comments: e x p l i c i t v a l u e judgments, i m p l i c i t v a l u e j u d g ments t h r o u g h t h e use o f e v a l u a t i v e words, statements o f agreement o r d i s a p p r o v a l , c r i t i c i s m , q u e s t i o n s on t h e c o n t e n t

I t h i n k t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i s n ' t very precise. T h i s view i s t o o l i m i t e d i n my o p i n i o n . Paraphrases: r e p r o d u c t i o n o f c o n t e n t s i n own words T e x t : T h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e s u l t s from t h e h i s t o r y o f s c i e n c e - f o r a f t e r t h e p h i l o l o g i s t s had s t a r t e d r e s e a r c h on t h e w r i t t e n sources o f non-European c u l t u r e s , what was l e f t f o r e t h n o l o g y were i n t h e main non-1 i t e r a t e peopl es

.

Paraphrases: E t h n o l o g y i s concerned w i t h non-1 i t e r a t e peoples.

So Ethnology i s m e r e l y concerned w i t h non-1 i t e r a t e

peoples.

Metastatements: Statements c o n c e r n i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e and o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the t e x t

I c o n s i d e r t h i s a t t h e b e g i n n i n g as t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n . The sentence reads as i f t h i s was t h e p o i n t t o come.

RESULTS AND D I S C U S S I O N Q u e s t i o n 1. I n o r d e r t o o b t a i n an answer t o t h e q u e s t i o n of whether i n s t r u c t i o n s about e l a b o r a t i o n and t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n improve r e c a l l performance, a t w o - f a c t o r i a l a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was c a r r i e d o u t . I t showed no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s - as suggested by a s i m p l e i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e means: e l a b o r a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n : F (1.20) = 1.2 ns; t a s k - o r i e n t a t i o n : F (1.20) = 1.85 ns; i n t e r a c t i o n : F (1.20) = 1.35 ns. The r e s u l t s show ( c f . Table 2 ) t h a t r e c a l l performance i n Group 4 ( e l a b o r a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n , t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n ) was no b e t t e r t h a n t h a t i n Group 1 (no e l a b o r a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n , no t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n ) and i n Group 3 (no e l a b o r a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n , t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n ) .

Table 2. Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f e l a b o r a t i o n u n i t s , m e t a c o g n i t i o n s , r e c a l l u n i t s and i n t e l l i gence (IQ: X = 100; s = 10) Group 1 no e l a b o r a t i o n i n struction/no taskorientation X

S

~

-

X

96.0

elaboration u n i t s ~

Group 2 elaboration instruction/notask-orientation S

Group 3 no e l a b o r a t i o n i n struction/taskorientation X

S

73.0

Group 4 elaboration instruction/taskorientation X

155.2

S

106.6

~

elaboration categories:

m I-

personal e x p e r i e n c e imagery critical

comments

paraphrasing metastatements met acogn it i on s ~____

~

r e c a l l e d content units r e c a l l e d content units/minute o f processing time verbal i n t e l l i g e n c e (IST/IQ) memory

(IST/IQ)

0 ‘ 1

1.5 1.3 25.5

1.9 2.4 31.5

17.5 21.3

10.3 15.0

4.0

3.5

4.7 5.0 44.2 18.5

5.2 8.9 40.1 20.4

27.5

37.3

7.7

10.4

D

W 0

P rl 0 z

0

z

~

0

n

18.5

6.8

12.8

6.7

19.0

5.6

19.2

5.3

-4 X m

-I v)

2.9

1.4

0.9

0.4

3.1

1.5

1.0

0.6

111.0 113.3

8.8 7.9

109.6 110

3.6 9.4

107.9 107.7

4.4 10.2

110.4 110.5

4.4 4.9

490


Group 2 ( e l a b o r a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n , no t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n ) produced even lower s c o r e s than Group 1 ( n o e l a b o r a t i o n , no t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n ) and Group 3 ( n o e l a b o r a t i o n , t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n ) . However, t h e d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . These r e s u l t s do not s u p p o r t t h e assumption by Reder and Anderson (1979) t h a t e l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g a1 ways improves r e c a l l performance. However, t h e r e a r e two p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s o f o u r f i n d i n g s which would l e a v e t h i s assumption untouched. F i r s t o f a l l , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o c o n t r o l t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e groups w i t h o u t an e l a b o r a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n n e v e r t h e l e s s a c t u a l l y d i d e l a b o r a t e . Furthermore, t h e q u a l i t y o f e l a b o r a t i o n s i n t h e e l a b o r a t i o n groups was n o t c o n s i d e r e d . Following t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n by B r a n s f o r d , i t can be assumed t h a t t h e r e a r e e f f e c t i v e and i n e f f e c t i v e e l a borations w i t h respect t o the task. A1 so the v a r i a b l e " r e c a l l e d c o n t e n t u n i t s / m i n u t e s o f p r o c e s s i n g t i m e " showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p s . This v a r i a b l e w i l l n o t be used f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s . Q u e s t i o n 2 . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h c number o f e l a b o r a t i o n s in Group 4 ( e l a b o r a t i o n , t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n ) and r e c a l l performance showed an i n v e r t e d u-shaped d i s t r i b u t i o n ( c f . F i g u r e 1 ) . Curve f i t t i n g y i e l d e d the f o l l o w i n g t h e o r e t i c a l e q u a t i o n : ( B o r t z , 1978, p . 238, 6 . 5 1 ) : y = 1 . 6 2 + 0 . 5 5 ~- 2 . 1 2 ~ + 0 . 3 ~ 3 . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the t h e o r e t i c a l and t h e e m p i r i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n was R2 = .91.

zr f

RECALL UNITS (z-SCORE)

1,5--

1 -9,5--

-0

--

-0,5--

-1

--

-1,5--

t

, , -1.5

,

,

-1

,

, , -0,s

,

, ,

0

0.5

1 ' 1,5

*

I

2

ELABORATION UNITS (z-SCORE) F i g u r e 1. R e l a t i o n between e l a b o r a t i o n u n i t s and r e c a l l u n i t s

X


491

These f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t t h e f o l l o w i n g e x p l a n a t i o n : I f j u s t a f e w e l a b o r a t i o n s take place, the novel information i s o n l y minimally i n t e g r a t e d i n t o e x i s t i n g knowledge s t r u c t u r e s . T h e r e f o r e , r e c a l l i s based on v e r y few c l u e s . A p e r s o n who e l a b o r a t e s e x t e n s i v e l y c r e a t e s an i n t r i c a t e i n t e r w e a v i n g o f new and o l d knowledge, b u t t h e n has d i f f i c u l t y d i s c e r n i n g t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g r e c a l l . I n Group 2 ( e l a b o r a t i o n , n o t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n ) t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between e l a b o r a t i o n and r e c a l l p e r f o r m a n c e has a bimodal d i s t r i b u t i o n and t h u s a p p e a r s t o u s t o be u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e . E l a b o r a t i n g w i t h o u t t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n seems t o l e a d n o t o n l y t o i n f e r i o r r e c a l l p e r f o r m a n c e , b u t a l s o t o a l e s s c l e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between e l a b o r a t i o n and r e p r o d u c t i o n . Q u e s t i o n 3 . The v e r b a l i z a t i o n d a t a were e v a l u a t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c a t e g o r i e s d e s c r i b e d above: c o n t e x t o f p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s , i m a g e r y , c r i t i c a l comments, p a r a p h r a s e s , m e t a s t a t e m e n t s . I n s p e c t i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l c a t e g o r i e s o f e l a b o r a t i o n f o r Group 4 ( e l a b o r a t i o n , t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n ) r e v e a l s t h a t t h e y o c c u r i n v e r y d i f f e r e n t amounts. The m o s t f r e q u e n t c a t e g o r i e s a r e c r i t i c a l comments, m e t a s t a t e m e n t s , and p a r a p h r a s e s ; l e a s t f r e q u e n t a r e p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s and i m a g e r y . I t i s a l s o s t r i k i n g t h a t , q u a n t i t a t i v e l y speaking, t h e r e a r e v e r y l a r g e i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n each e l a b o r a t i o n c a t e g o r y . The c a t e g o r y c r i t i c a l comments r a n g e s f r o m 8 t o 109 e l a b o r a t i v e c o n t e n t u n i t s , m e t a s t a t e m e n t s f r o m 5 t o 102, p a r a p h r a s e s f r o m 3 t o 5 5 , i m a g e r y f r o m 0 t o 23, p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s f r o m 0 t o 1 4 . I f we l o o k a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f e l a b o r a t i o n and r e c a l l p e r f o r mance f o r Group 4, we f i n d f o r t h e c a t e g o r y p a r a p h r a s e s an i n t e r p r e t a b l e i n v e r t e d u-shaped r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h i s f i n d i n g a p p e a r s p l a u s i b l e , as p a r a p h r a s i n g i s t h e r e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e p r e s e n t e d t e x t i n o n e ' s own words, meaning t h a t e l a b o r a t i o n s a r e formed w h i c h s t a n d i n c l o s e c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e g i v e n t e x t . A l l o t h e r t y p e s o f e l a b o r a t i o n showed n o s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h r e c a l l d a t a . The p r e s e n t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f e l a b o r a t i o n s appears t o us t o be s t i l l u n s a t i s f a c t o r y , b o t h w i t h r e g a r d t o i t s t h e o r e t i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s and i t s e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s . D I SClJSS I ON There i s no d o u b t t h a t a c o m p l e t e model o f t e x t comprehension m u s t i n c l u d e e l a b o r a t i o n s as a d e c i s i v e component i n i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . There a r e , however, a number o f t h e o r e t i c a l and even more m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s w h i c h t u r n e l a b o r a t i o n s i n t o a d i f f i c u l t o b j e c t o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n . We w o u l d l i k e t o b r i e f l y present a few o f these problems here.

(1) E l a b o r a t i o n s a r e o n l y a c c e s s i b l e v i a t h e v e r b a l i z a t i o n s o f s u b j e c t s . T h i s method, however, o n l y r e v e a l s t h e t i p o f t h e i c e b e r g because, o u t o f t h e immense number o f e l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s a c t u a l l y t a k i n g p l a c e , s u b j e c t s s e l e c t o n l y t h o s e e l a b o r a t i o n s t h a t meet c e r t a i n s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a . F o r example, t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a a r e p l a u s i b l e : V e r b a l i z a b i l i t y : Can t h e s u b j e c t f i n d a s u i t a b l e word t o e x p r e s s a n e l a b o ration? Task o r i e n t a t i o n : How does t h e s u b j e c t v i e w t h e t a s k w h i c h i s demanded o f him/her i n t h e exoerimental s i t u a t i o n ? E v a l u a t i o n : Which' e l a b o r a t i o n s does t h e s u b j e c t c o n s i d e r w o r t h communicat i n g ? How i s v e r b a l i z a t i o n c o n t r o l l e d b y c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o n v e n t i o n s ? Thus, a v e r b a l p r o t o c o l o n l y o f f e r s a s e l e c t i v e l o o k a t t h e e l a b o r a t i v e processes o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g reading. ( 2 ) A n o t h e r p r o b l e m a r i s e s i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f v e r b a l p r o t o c o l s . How does one d e t e r m i n e t h e s i z e o f t h e u n i t o f a n a l y s i s ? We chose r e l a t i v e l y comprehensive c o n t e n t u n i t s which, r o u g h l y speaking, correspond t o a h i g h l e v e l p r o p o s i t i o n , encompassing s u b o r d i n a t e p r o p o s i t i o n s ( S c h n o t z , B a l l s t a e d t and

492


Mandl, 1 9 8 1 ) . A d i f f e r e n t s u g g e s t i o n with s m a l l e r u n i t s was p u t forward by Chafe ( 1 9 8 0 ) . l l s i n g p a r a l i n g u i s t i c and s y n t a c t i c c r i t e r i a , he d i v i d e d t h e t e x t s u r f a c e i n t o i d e a u n i t s roughly c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o p h r a s e s . I n a f o r t h coming i n v e s t i g a t i o n we w i l l compare o u r approach t o forming c o n t e n t u n i t s t o t h a t o f Chafe ( B a l l s t a e d t and Mandl, 1 9 8 2 ) . ( 3 ) Previous a t t e m p t s a t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f i n f e r e n c e s by C r o t h e r s (1979) and F r e d e r i k s e n e t a l . (1978) a r e c e r t a i n l y u s e f u l f o r some t y p e s o f q u e s t i o n s . They a r e h a r d l y p r a c t i c a l f o r work with l o n g e r t e x t s however, a s t h e y r e q u i r e an a n a l y s i s o f t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t , o f v e r b a l i z a t i o n , and o f r e c a l l on a p r o p o s i t i o n a l l e v e l . On t h e o t h e r hand, o u r c a t e g o r y system a p p e a r s t o us t o be t o o c o a r s e a s y e t , and i t s t h e o r e t i c a l f o u n d a t i o n t o o sketchy . ( 4 ) I f r e c a l l performance i s r e l a t e d t o p r o c e s s i n g time, t h e n t h e e l a b o r a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n has l i t t l e economizing e f f e c t on immediate r e c a l l : e l a b o r a t i o n r e q u i r e s time ( T a b l e 2 ) . However i t remains t o be t e s t e d whether t h e e f f o r t i s n o t worthwhile a f t e r a l l , a s e l a b o r a t i o n may improve long-term r e t e n t i o n a n d / o r cause broader p r o c e s s i n g t o t a k e p l a c e , a s s p e c i f i c comprehension t e s t s could show. They seem t o be more s u i t a b l e t o t e s t e f f e c t s o f e l a b o r a t i o n s than simple r e c a l l t a s k s . I t i s f u r t h e r m o r e c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t e l a b o r a t i o n s produce s p e c i f i c e f f e c t s on t a s k s o t h e r than t h e r e c a l l o f a t e x t . For i n s t a n c e , e l a b o r a t i o n may f a c i l i t a t e a c c e s s t o more c r e a t i v e s o l u t i o n s i n problem-solving t a s k s . This q u e s t i o n , t o o , w i l l be f u r t h e r investigated.

1 ) The d a t a were c o l l e c t e d by c a n d . r e r . s o z . Gerhard Walsken under i n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e a u t h o r s . The verbal p r o t o c o l s and t h e r e c a l l d a t a were c a t e g o r i z e d with a s s i s t e n c e o f c a n d . r e r . 8 0 ~ . Manfred Maikler and c a n d . r e r . s o z . R a i n e r Kluza. REFERENCES Amthauer, R. Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 70. G o t t i n g e n : Hogrefe, 1971. Anderson, J . R . C o g n i t i v e psychology and i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s . San F r a n c i s c o : W . M . Freeman and Co., 1980. Anderson, J.R. and Reder, L.M. An e l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g e x p l a n a t i o n o f d e p t h o f p r o c e s s i n g . In L.S. Cermak and F.I.M. C r a i k ( E d s . ) . Levels o f p r o c e s s i n g i n human memory. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979. Auble, P.M. and Franks, J . J . The e f f e c t s o f e f f o r t toward comprehension on r e c a l l . Memory and C o g n i t i o n , 1978, 6 , 20-25. B a l l s t a e d t , S . - P . and Mandl, H . Problems i n q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h on e l a b o r a t i o n s in t e x t p r o c e s s i n q . In H . Mandl, N . S t e i n and T . Trabasso ( E d s . ) . Learning and t e x t comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1982, i n p r e s s . B a l l s t a e d t , S . - P . , Mandl, H . , S c h n o t z , W . and Tergan, S.O. Texte v e r s t e h e n , Texte g e s t a l t e n . Munchen : Urban und Schwarzenberg, 1981. B o r t z , J . Lehrbuch d e r S t a t i s t i k . B e r l i n : S p r i n g e r , 1979. B r a n s f o r d , J.D. Human c o g n i t i o n , u n d e r s t a n d i n g and remembering. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : !dadsworth, 1979.

EFFECTS OF ELABORATICfv O N RECALL OF TEXTS

493

B r a n s f o r d , J . D . and M c C a r r e l l , N.S. A s k e t c h o f a c o g n i t i v e approach t o comprehension: some t h o u g h t s about u n d e r s t a n d i n g what i t means t o comprehend. In W . B . Weimer and D . S . Palermo ( E d s . ) . C o g n i t i o n a n d t h e symbolic p r o c e s s e s . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1979. B r a n s f o r d , J . D . , Franks, J . J . , M o r r i s , C . D . and S t e i n , B.S. Some general c o n s t r a i n t s on l e a r n i n g and memory r e s e a r c h . In L.S. Cermak and F.I.M. Craik ( E d s . ) . Levels o f p r o c e s s i n g in human memory. H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Erl baum, 1979. Bredenkamp, J . and Wippich, W . Lern- und G e d a c h t n i s p s y c h o l o g i e . Bd. 2 . S t u t t g a r t : Kohl hammer, 1977. Cermak, L.S. and C r a i k , F.I.M. ( E d s . ) , Levels o f p r o c e s s i n g in human memory. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979. Chafe, W . L . The flow o f t h o u g h t and t h e flow o f l a n g u a g e . In T . Givon ( E d . ) . Discourse and s y n t a x . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1979. C l a r k , H . H . I n f e r e n c e s i n comprehension. In D . LaBerge and S . J . Samuel8 ( E d s . ) . P e r c e p t i o n and comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977, 243-263. C r a i k , F.I.M. and Jacobv, L . L . E l a b o r a t i o n and d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s i n e p i s o d i c memory. In L . S . Cermak and F.I.M. Craik ( E d s . ) . Levels o f p r o c e s s i n g i n human memory. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979. C r a i k , F.I.M. and L o c k h a r t , R.S. Levels o f p r o c e s s i n g : A framework f o r memory r e s e a r c h . Journal o f Verbal Learning and Verbal B e h a v i o r , 1972, 11, 671-684. C r o t h e r s , E.J. Paragraph, s t r u c t u r e , i n f e r e n c e . Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1979. D i l t h e y , W . Die Entstehung d e r Hermeneutik. In Gesammelte S c h r i f t e n . Bd. 5 . G o t t i n g e n : Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1957. F r e d e r i k s e n , C . H . , F r e d e r i k s e n , J.D., Humphrey, F.M. and O t t e n s e n , J . D i s c o u r s e i n f e r e n c e : Adapting t o t h e i n f e r e n t i a l demands o f school t e x t s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e meeting o f t h e American Educational Research A s s o c i a t i o n . Toronto, 1978. Gadamer, H . - G . Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzuge e i n e r p h i l o s o h p i s c h e n Hermeneutik. Tubingen: Mohr, 1960. H e r b a r t , J . F . Psychologie a l s W i s s e n s c h a f t . E r s t e r und z w e i t e r T e i l . Konigsberg, 1824/25. K i n t s c h , W . Memory and c o g n i t i o n . New York: Wiley, 1977. K i n t s c h , W . Comprehension and memory of t e x t . In W . K . E s t e s ( E d . ) . Handbook o f l e a r n i n g and c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s . Vol. 6 . L i n g u i s t i c f u n c t i o n s i n c o g n i t i v e t h e o r y . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1 9 7 8 . Mayer, R . E . E l a b o r a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s t h a t i n c r e a s e the meaningfulness o f t e c h n i c a l t e x t : An experimental t e s t o f t h e l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g y h y p o t h e s i s . J o u r n a l o f Educational Psychology, 1980, 72,770-784. N a c h t i g a l l , H . Vo1 kerkunde. Eine EinfUhrung. Frankfurt/M. : Suhrkamp, 1974. Reder, L.M. The r o l e o f e l a b o r a t i o n i n t h e comprehension and r e t e n t i o n o f p r o s e : a c r i t i c a l review. Review o f Educational Research, 1980,50,5-53. Rothkopf, E . Z . T h e concept o f mathemagenic a c t i v i t i e s . Review o f Educat i o n a l Research, 1970, 40,325-336.

494


Schank, R . C . and A b e l s o n , R . P . S c r i p t s , l a n s , g o a l s and u n d e r s t a n d i n . An i n q u i r y t o human knowledge s t r u c t u r e s ! H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: E r l b a u m , 1 i 7 7 7 S c h n o t z , W . , B a l l s t a e d t , S . - P . and Mandl, H . K o g n i t i v e Prozesse b e i m Zusammenfassen von L e h r t e x t e n . I n H . Mandl ( E d . ) . Z u r P s y c h o l o g i e d e r T e x t v e r a r b e i t u n g . A n s a t z e , Befunde, Probleme. Munchen: Urban und Schwarzenb e r g , 1981. S t e i n , B . S . , M o r r i s , C . D . and B r a n s f o r d , J.D. C o n s t r a i n t s on e f f e c t i v e e l a b o r a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r . 1 9 7 8 ,

17,

707-714. T r e i b e r , B. and Groeben, N . Vom Paar-Assoziations-Lernen zum E l a b o r a t i o n s 3-46. m o d e l l . Z e i t s c h r i f t f i r S o z i a l p s y c h o l o g i e , 1976,

7,

W e i n s t e i n , C . E . E l a b o r a t i o n s k i l l s as a l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g y . I n H.F. O ' N e i l , j r . ( E d . ) . L e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1978. W e i n s t e i n , C.E., llnderwood, V.L., W i c k e r , F.W. and C u b b e r l y , W.E. C o g n i t i v e l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s : V e r b a l and i m a g i n a l e l a b o r a t i o n . I n H.F. O'Neil and C . S p i e l b e r g e r ( E d s . ) . C o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1 9 7 9 . Y u i l l e , J.C. and P a i v i o , A . A b s t r a c t n e s s and t h e r e c a l l o f c o n n e c t e d d i s c o u r s e . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 82, 467-472.

DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0North-Holhnd Publishing Company, 1982

ARGUMENT I N TEXT AND READING PROCESS

P e t e r Whalley The Open U n i v e r s i t y I n s t i t u t e o f E d u c a t i o n a l Technology

Measures o f r e a d i n g r a t e have c o n v e n t i o n a l l y been h e l d t o r e l a t e t o t h e s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e o f t e x t . Eye movement s t u d i e s d i r e c t e d a t t h e l e v e l o f r e c o g n i t i o n f i n d r e a d i n g r a t e t o be a f u n c t i o n of s y n t a c t i c and l e x i c a l c o m p l e x i t y . However experiments f o c u s i n g on comprehension, and t h e r e f o r e u s i n g l o n g e r t e x t s , i n d i c a t e a r e l a t i o n between t h e r e a d i n g process and t h e macro p r o p o s i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f t e x t . The a u t h o r ' s assigned relevance ( i n van D i j k ' s t e r m s ) appears t o be t h e m a j o r d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t o r o f r e a d i n g r a t e . The i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e p r e d i c t i v e p o t e n t i a l o f t h e a u t h o r ' s argument s t r u c t u r e f o r t h e s t u d y o f a c t i v e , f l e x i b l e r e a d i n g o f book l e n g t h t e x t s i s discussed, and a g e n e r a l methodology f o r e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n a t t h i s l e v e l i s p u t f o r w a r d .

Introduction

It is t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h i s paper t o b r i e f l y r e v i e w some o f t h e i n h e r e n t problems o f t e x t p r o c e s s i n g r e s e a r c h , and t o p u t f o r w a r d an e x p e r i m e n t a l methodology f o r t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f l o n g term s t u d y s t r a t e g i e s under n a t u r a l i s t i c r e a d i n g c o n d i t i o n s . The p r i n c i p a l t o p i c concerns t h e r o l e o f process measures o f r e a d i n g behaviour i n t e x t r e s e a r c h , and i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e use o f macro l e v e l r e a d i n g p r o t o c o l r e c o r d e r s . The f u n c t i o n o f such d e v i c e s i s t o p r o v i d e a r e a d i n g p r o t o c o l f o r s t u d i e s above t h e l e v e l of t h e sentence; w i t h o u t a r t i f i c i a l l y c o n s t r a i n i n g t h e c h o i c e o f t e x t m a t e r i a l o r t h e r e a d e r ' s s t u d y p a t t e r n . The t h r e e main s e c t i o n s d e a l w i t h t h e a n a l y s i s o f t e x t , t h e ways i n which i t may be used, and how i t i s understood. Analysing t e x t Many p s y c h o l o g i s t s i n t h e p a s t have accepted r a t h e r n a i v e i d e a s c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o m p l e x i t y and range o f t e x t , b u t i t i s now g e n e r a l l y a d m i t t e d t h a t i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o r e g a r d t e x t s as mere sequences o f sentences; the n o t i o n o f t h e u n i t y o f t e x t must be t a k e n i n t o account. Once t h e t e x t l i n g u i s t s had made i t a c c e p t a b l e t o c o n s i d e r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t e x i s t beyond t h e sentence, many o f t h e w o r s t c o n s t r a i n t s on c h o i c e o f e x p e r i m e n t a l m a t e r i a l and methods t h a t had f o l l o w e d on f r o m a d o p t i n g sentence l e v e l l i n g u i s t i c s disappeared. Table one summarises t h e main t e x t a n a l y s i s methodologies t o be found i n t h e t e x t p r o c e s s i n g l i t e r a t u r e . A l t h o u g h t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t space h e r e t o r e v i e w them a l l i n d e t a i l , t h e s u b j e c t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l analyses o f t e x t s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r i n t h e i r complementary r o l e as measures o f comprehension. 49 5


496

The most n e g l e c t e d a s p e c t o f t e x t a n a l y s i s r e l a t e s t o t h e r o l e o f t h e a u t h o r ’ s argument s t r u c t u r e . T e x t s should be seen as t h e embodiment o f an a u t h o r ’ s i n t e n t i o n , and n o t s i m p l y as a n e u t r a l l i s t o f u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d f a c t s . The consequence o f t h i n k i n g o f them i n t h i s way, as a d e s i g n r a t h e r t h a n a map, i s t h a t r h e t o r i c and p r e s e n t a t i o n , how t h e a u t h o r a r r i v e s a t a whole o r g a n i z e d t e x t , t h e n have t o be t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A u s e f u l framework f o r t h e c r e a t i o n o f discourse; as i t r e l a t e s t o s t u d i e s o f p r o s e comprehension, i s Clement’s (1975) staging a n a l y s i s , w i t h i t s e x p l i c i t model o f t e x t p r o d u c t i o n . Van D i j k ’ s (1979) a n a l y s i s o f reZeuance assignm e n t may a l s o be used t o e x p l i c a t e t h e a u t h o r ’ s i n t e n t i o n s b o t h i n terms o f l i n g u i s t i c aspects o f t e x t and a l s o i t s p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h i s wide r a n g i n g a n a l y s i s encompasses t y p o g r a p h i c a l s i g n a l l i n g , c o n v e n t i o n a l l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s o f t h e c o n n e c t i v e s and t h e a n a l y s i s o f argument s t r u c t u r e . W a l l e r (1980) develops an a n a l y t i c approach t o t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l aspects of t e x t . T h i s i s necessary f o r s t u d i e s concerned w i t h t h e use o f p a r a l l e l arguments o r e x p l i c i t cross referencing w i t h i n t e x t s .

Table 1. Methods of text analysis Surface

*

‘Readability’ formulae

*

Vocabulary analysis Range Particular: Evaluative, Assertive, Indefinite Reference Connectives: Relevance assignment, Argument, Parallelism

* *

I

Computer analysis possible

Reverse parsing (e.g. Rieger) Propositional depth (e.g. Meyer)

*

Staging (e.g. Clements)

* * * *

Coherence graphs (Kintsch) Reader structuring (Thomas) Reader scaling (e.g. Bisanz) Clustering (e.g. Pollard-Gott)

Personal

Another i m p o r t a n t and y e t n e g l e c t e d aspect o f t e x t a n a l y s i s i n t e x t p r o c e s s i n g r e s e a r c h concerns t h e i s s u e o f t e x t types. Most t e x t l i n g u i s t s have developed t h e i r own taxonomies and t a b l e two e x e m p l i f i e s t h e wide range i d e n t i f i e d ; and a1 so i n d i c a t e s t h e source o f t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s between t h e d i f f e r e n t t e x t genres. O f t e n i t may be necessary f o r r e s e a r c h e r s t o develop t h e i r own more s p e c i a l i z e d taxonomy. F o r i n s t a n c e t h e a u t h o r found i t necessary t o develop a f i n e r g r a i n a n a l y s i s o f t h e didactic t e x t t y p e , when a t t e m p t i n g t o r e l a t e r e a d e r ’ s p e r c e p t i o n s o f course s t r u c t u r e t o a computer a n a l y s i s o f t h e i n c i d e n c e and p a t t e r n s o f r e f e r e n t i a l l i n k s (Whalley, i n press).

ARGUMENT I N TEXT AND THE READING PROCESS

4 97

A d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f what a r e e s s e n t i a l l y o v e r l a p p i n g c a t e g o r i e s i s n o t r e l e v a n t here. The i m p o r t a n t p o i n t i s t h e w i d e range o f p o s s i b l e t e x t t y p e s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e v e r y n a r r o w range t h a t have r e c e i v e d a t t e n t i o n i n t h e prose l e a r n i n g l i t e r a t u r e . P s y c h o l o g i s t s have s t u d i e d t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f d e s c r i p t i v e and n a r r a t i v e p r o s e i n f a r g r e a t e r d e t a i l t h a n any o f t h e o t h e r t e x t genres. Very few s t u d i e s have examined t h e o t h e r types, and t h e s e have most o f t e n been i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h f i e l d where o n l y f a i r l y s i m p l e analyses o f t e x t s a r e made. There a r e o b v i o u s l y s e v e r a l reasons why t h i s has come about. D e s c r i p t i v e and n a r r a t i v e t e x t s f i t i n p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l w i t h t h e c u r r e n t l y p o p u l a r i d e a s o f frames and schemas. A l s o , w e l l developed models o f s t o r y grammars have been worked o u t f o r some t i m e , a l t h o u g h these t o o a r e n o t w i t h o u t t h e i r c r i t i c s . Table 2. A taxonomy of text types (Derived from de Beaugrande, 1980) Descriptive

Concerns objects and situations (frames).

Narrative

Concerns events and actions (schemas).

Conversational

An especially episodic and diverse range of sources for admissible knowledge. Changes of speaking turn.

Literary

Events and situations portrayed as exemplary elements. Linkages with real world events are problematized.

Poetic

Organization of the real world and the organization of discourse about that world are problematized.

Scientific

Linkages of events and situations are deproblematized via statements of causal necessity and order.

Argumentative

Entire propositions assigned values of truthfulness and reasons for belief as facts.

Didactic

Textual world presented via a process of gradual integration. Linkages of established facts are problematized and eventually deproblematized.

T h i s unbalanced emphasis would perhaps n o t m a t t e r i f i t were n o t t h a t t h e data a v a i l a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e c a l l f o r n a r r a t i v e prose i s n e a r l y t w i c e t h a t f o r e x p o s i t o r y orose. S t u d i e s w i t h s c i e n t i f i c t e x t s u s u a l l y r e s u l t i n a v e r y poor l e v e l o f understanding, and an a b i l i t y t o make i n f e r ences t h a t i s n o b e t t e r t h a n c o n t r o l groups. Graesser (1981) has p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h i s e f f e c t i s u n l i k e l y t o be due t o t h e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e passages, i n terms o f l i n g u i s t i c o r r h e t o r i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . The d i f f e r e n c e i s much more l i k e l y t o be due t o problems a t a deeper l e v e l o f understandi n g ; and i s p r o b a b l y a consequence o f t h e s t u d i e s b e i n g c o n t r o l l e d l a b o r a t o r y experiments, as a g a i n s t t h e s t u d e n t s ' normal e x p e r i e n c e o f s e l f induced r e a d i n g . I t i s s e l f - e v i d e n t t h a t e q u a l l y complex m a t e r i a l can be s u c c e s s f u l l y mastered when t h e s t u d e n t s a r e s t u d y i n g f o r course c r e d i t s . One o f t h e main d i f f e r e n c e s between n a r r a t i v e and e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s i s t h a t t h e l a t t e r a r e fundamentally n o n - s e q u e n t i a l . Events, p a r t i c i p a n t s and

498


s e t t i n g s a r e n o t t h e main concern, a l t h o u g h t h e y may be used t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e dominant e x p l a n a t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n . The argument s t r u c t u r e and present a t i o n o f such e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s t h e r e f o r e becomes c e n t r a l t o any t e x t a n a l y s i s . A p o s s i b l e consequence i s a more dominant r o l e f o r t h e r e a d e r i n n o n - s e q u e n t i a l t e x t s , which would r e s u l t i n a g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y i n e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d i e s ( a p o i n t t h a t w i l l be developed l a t e r i n terms o f f i e l d studies). I n summary then, i t i s n o t obvious how s o l v i n g a22 t h e problems concerned w i t h t h e comprehension o f one t e x t t y p e , and i n p a r t i c u l a r n a r r a t i v e t e x t , would s o l v e many o f t h e problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e o t h e r (and perhaps more i m p o r t a n t ) t e x t t y p e s . However, t h e problems o f l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s a w a i t i n g anyone who m i g h t w i s h t o work w i t h t h e h i g h e r o r d e r t e x t t y p e s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y i f t h e y a r e of any l e n g t h , a r e q u i t e complex. The way t h a t t e x t s presuppose o t h e r t e x t s , has been shown by t h e t e x t l i n g u i s t s t o be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e way t h a t sentences presuppose o t h e r sentences. Even w i t h i n t e x t s t h e i n t e r t e x t u a l i t y o f summaries, c o n c l u s i o n s and o v e r views has t o be t a k e n i n t o account. There a r e no ' o f f t h e s h e l f ' a n a l y t i c methods f o r problems a t t h i s l e v e l o f t e x t c o m p l e x i t y , a l t h o u g h s e v e r a l t e x t 1i n g u i s t s now i n c l u d e subheadings, summaries and o t h e r such access devices ( W a l l e r , 1980) as p a r t o f t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e o f text. One i d e a which may be a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s c o n t e x t i s Grimes' (1975) t h e o r y o f overlays. A l t h o u g h t h i s was o r i g i n a l l y developed t o cope w i t h t h e more complex s t o r y s t r u c t u r e s o f languages o t h e r t h a n E n g l i s h , i t may be used t o examine t h e development o f t o p i c s i n l o n g e d u c a t i o n a l t e x t s . The a u t h o r i s c u r r e n t l y a t t e m p t i n g t o a p p l y i t t o t h e a n a l y s i s o f Open U n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e m a t e r i a l , w h i c h t y p i c a l l y may c o n s i s t o f 30 u n i t s each f i f t y pages i n l e n g t h . When w o r k i n g w i t h such m a t e r i a l , i t i s o b v i o u s l y d i f f i c u l t t o make d e t a i l e d l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s e s o f t h e whole t e x t and i n many cases t h e s e would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e anyway. In t h e a r e a o f l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , computer a n a l y s i s a t t h e s t a t i s t i c a l l e v e l has been used f o r some t i m e t o i d e n t i f y a s p e c t s o f s t y l e . I f t h e t e x t i s a v a i l a b l e i n a s u i t a b l e form. i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a ' g u i d e d ' computer a n a l y s i s w i l l b e u s e f u l . Several r e s e a r c h e r s have r e c e n t l y made use o f computers t o a n a l y s e t h e development o f t h e l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i v e s w i t h i n t e x t s , and i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t o make s t a t i s t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n s o f t h e use o f a s s e r t i v e and e v a l u a t i v e e x p r e s s i o n s by a u t h o r s i n r e l a t i o n t o i m p o r t a n t themes w i t h i n t h e t e x t .

Process measures o f r e a d i n g

A c e n t r a l argument o f t h i s paper i s t h a t process measures o f t h e r e a d e r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e t e x t may be u s e f u l i n t e x t p r o c e s s i n g r e s e a r c h . The f o c u s o f such r e s e a r c h i s a concern w i t h how r e a d e r s r e a c t t o complex t e x t s t r u c t u r e s and i s n o t s i m p l y t o do w i t h knowledge outcomes; such as m i g h t be measured by p r e - and p o s t - t e s t i n g . Records o f eye movement p a t t e r n s have appeared t o o f f e r an a t t r a c t i v e measure o f i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n . T h i s s e c t i o n i s i n t e n d e d t o o u t l i n e an a n a l y s i s o f why i t has been SO d i f f i c u l t t o l e a r n about language processes by r e c o r d i n g eye movements, and t o p u t forward a p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n t o t h e s t u d y o f l e n g t h y t e x t s b y means of a m a c r o - l e v e l r e a d i n g r e c o r d e r .

ARGUMENT IN TEXT AND THE READING PROCESS

499

T h e main c r i t i c i s m s of eye movement methodologies a r e outlined here only i n summary form, b u t a r e d e a l t with a t g r e a t e r length i n a p a r a l l e l paper (Whal l e y , 1981 ) : 0 0 0 0

0 0

We d o n ' t know what part of the t e x t i s a c t u a l l y being ' s e e n ' during a

f i x a t i o n , i f any (Shebilske, 1981). The basic nature of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between eye movements and cognitive processes i s not understood. Researchers have inadequately s p e c i f i e d aspects o f t e x t t h a t might be relevant t o the way readers control t h e i r eye movements. The 'discovery problem'; the data i s not rich enough t o discover new aspects of the comprehension problem (Graesser, 1981). Inferences, expectations and t a c i t knowledge a r e d e a l t with inadequately. The technology a v a i l a b l e leads t o the generation of s e l f - s e l e c t i n g stimulus material.

The e s s e n t i a l problem f o r t h e reader i s not t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of information b u t i t s meaningful manipulation. The 'discovery problem' noted by Graesser i s t h e r e f o r e t h e most important methodological issue. Like many o t h e r researchers, Graesser considers t h a t the simple response measures such a s reading times and eye movement data cannot provide t h e criticaZ data required t o t e s t models of complex processes, such a s comprehension, t h a t a r e not already well understood. The argument of t h i s paper, however, i s t h a t behavioural records of reading protocols can play a useful r o l e i n reading research, provided t h a t eye movements a r e seen a s being only the most a c c e s s i b l e sub-skill i n a very complex process. In which c a s e , i t is only possible t o make sense of such process records ( o r f o r them t o be of any real use) within t h e coherent framework o f a thorough a n a l y s i s of t h e t e x t , t h e r e a d e r ' s understanding of i t , and t h e i n t e n t i o n s b e h i n d t h e r e a d e r ' s study. The question of t h e b e s t method f o r acquiring y o c e s s Peasures of reading i s s t i l l open. The technical ingenuity of t h e eye movement monitoring techniques has t o be balanced against t h e often unacceptable c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t they place on t e x t and reader. However, the a l t e r n a t i v e process measures t h a t researchers have attempted t o use i n their place such as simple measures of reading time, protocol a n a l y s i s of ' t h i n k aloud' data o r r e l a t i v e i n t e r f e r e n c e with some secondary task a s a measure o f a t t e n t i o n , a r e themselves not without problems. These a r e matters f o r t h e individual r e s e a r c h e r ' s judgement, and we will move on t o some concrete examples of attemots t o study text usage u n d e r r e a l i s t i c study conditions.

An ' e f f e c t i v e ' eye movement recorder After i n i t i a l attempts t o use t h e a v a i l a b l e techniques f o r recording eye movements, most t e x t researchers conclude t h a t too much is l o s t i n order t o obtain a precision o f record t h a t i s often more t r o u b l e than i t i s worth. Research i s often now concerned with t h e time spent on ideas and themes within the t e x t , and in terms of analysing t h e sequence i n which ideas a r e read, r a t h e r than concentrating on processing a t t h e word level (Thomas, 1977; Shebilske, 1981). Given t h a t t h e concern of the research i s focused a t a higher level such a s 'meaning u n i t s ' , o r hierarchical versus heterarchical argument s t r u c t u r e , t h e n t h e r e i s no longer any need f o r precise measurement, with a l l t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s t h a t i t imposes on the form Of t e x t presentation and reading task. Experiments a r e often conducted using micro-level recording devices and t h e data i s then averaged u p t o

500


t h e macro-level a n a l y s i s made of t h e t e x t . Of course t h i s means t h a t fewer experimental r e s t r i c t i o n s a r e overcome than i s possible. However, several recording systems e x i s t t h a t have been s p e c i f i c a l l y designed t o operate a t t h e level of macro-level reading. Some employ a 'window' arrangement permitting only a few l i n e s of a continuous t e x t t o be viewed. This i s e i t h e r organized mechanically, a s with the old nrogrammed learning machines, or on a computer screen using control buttons t o s c r o l l forwards and backwards ( e . g . A l e s s i , 1979). Another method i s t o employ a half-silvered mirror, and monitor the r e a d e r ' s eyes with a TV system ( e . g . Schumacher, 1981). This has t h e advantage o f permitting t h e use o f conventional t e x t material containing diagrams, t a b l e s , e t c . , b u t n e c e s s i t a t e s a r a t h e r laborious analysis of video tape d a t a . Figure 1. An 'effective' eye movement recorder

1

Data logger

The a u t h o r ' s simple i f r a t h e r inelegant contribution t o eye movement recording methodology i s shown in f i g u r e one. I t was preferred t o t r a d e off a dim l i g h t i n g regime f o r t h e a b i l i t y t o work with proper book-like t e x t s . E s s e n t i a l l y t h e reading record i s obtained by tracking t h e movements of the ' t o r c h ' about t h e page, which makes automated a n a l y s i s f a i r l y simple. The beam of l i g h t i s arranged t o b r i g h t l y illuminate t h r e e l i n e s of t e x t and y e t permit s u f f i c i e n t ' p e r i p h e r a l ' vision f o r the reader not t o become d i s o r i e n t a t e d . In p r a c t i c e , hand-eye coordination develops r a p i d l y and readers move t h e torch smoothly; keeping the c e n t r e of the beam on t h e l i n e c u r r e n t l y being read. Comparison s t u d i e s with a conventional eye movement

ARGUMENT I N TEXT AN0 THE READING PROCESS

501

r e c o r d i n g camera i n d i c a t e d t h a t r e a d e r s were n o t b e i n g c o n s t r a i n e d i n terms o f sentence and paragraph l e v e l r e g r e s s i o n s , i n t h e way t h a t t h e y a r e w i t h ' r o l l i n g t e x t ' systems. O f course t h e d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t o f diagrams b e i n g ' o v e r t h e page' f r o m t h e i r p o i n t o f r e f e r e n c e i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t found w i t h o r d i n a r y t e x t s (Whalley, 1975). Reading a s t r u c t u r e d e x e r c i s e T h i s t r i a l s t u d y was i n t e n d e d t o e v a l u a t e one component o f an Open U n i v e r s i t y s c i e n c e f o u n d a t i o n course. I t t o o k t h e f o r m o f a s i x page s t r u c t u r e d e x e r c i s e c o n t a i n i n g t e x t , q u e s t i o n s , diagrams, c h a r t s and d a t a t a b l e s . The ' s t r u c t u r e d ' aspect o f t h e d e s i g n i n v o l v e d t h e s t u d e n t s f o r m i n g and t e s t i n g hypotheses c o n c e r n i n g t h e e v o l u t i o n o f t h e species; g i v e n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t Darwin had a t h i s d i s p o s a l about t h e Galapagos I s l a n d s and t h e i r v a r i o u s p o p u l a t i o n s o f f i n c h e s . The t e x t was i n t e n d e d t o encourage a s c i e n t i f i c mode o f t h o u g h t and i t was envisaged t h a t s t u d e n t s would f i n d i t an i n t e r e s t i n g a c t i v i t y . However, many s t u d e n t s on t h e course found i t a r a t h e r d i s c o n c e r t i n g e x p e r i e n c e , and t r i a l s w i t h f i v e s t u d e n t s who were used t o s t u d y i n g Open U n i v e r s i t y course m a t e r i a l suggested a t l e a s t one reason f o r t h i s . Table 3. Proportion of time spent on relevant information when answering questions in a structured exercise Question no.

1

2

3*

4

5**

'Hit-rate' %

30

33

10

45

78

*Main source of information in the answer to the previous question **Main source of information in a data table

A 'deoendency' a n a l y s i s was made o f t h e t e x t i n terms o f where t h e most i m o o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n needed t o answer each q u e s t i o n c o u l d be found. From t h i s a n a l y s i s a ' h i t - r a t e ' o f t h e t i m e spent on r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each q u e s t i o n and i s shown i n t a b l e t h r e e . From t h e i r o r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s , t h e s t u d e n t s appeared t o have w e l l formed views c o n c e r n i n g t h e s u p e r f i c i a l i t y o f i n s e r t e d Q u e s t i o n s . Much of t h e d i f f i c u l t y t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s were e x p e r i e n c i n g was b r o u g h t on by them n o t Daying adequate a t t e n t i o n t o t h e answers, and moving on b e f o r e t h e y had r e a l l y understood t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s . A s a consequence t h e y had g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y i n l o c a t i n g t h e a p p r o o r i a t e i n f o r m a t i o n t o answer t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n . (The i m p o r t a n t t o p i c o f when and how t h e r e a d e r m i g h t ilse i n f e r r e d knowledge t o avoid h a v i n g t o r e - r e a d p o r t i o n s of t h e t e x t i n v o l v e s t a o p i n g t h e s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s and u n d e r s t a n d i n g , and i s n o t d e a l t w i t h here. ) These problems m i g h t have been avoided by t h e use o f a p p r o p r i a t e s t u d y i n s t r u c t i o n s o r even by b e t t e r t y p o g r a p h i c s i g n a l l i n g o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h e answers. However, i t must be mentioned t h a t t h e r e were o t h e r deeper problems w i t h t h e t e x t concerned w i t h c o n c e p t u a l development, and t h i s must have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e s t u d e n t s ' c o n f u s i o n . A l t h o u g h t h e o r i g i n a l i n t e n t i o n o f t h i s t r i a l had been o n l y t o e v a l u a t e t h e s t r u c t u r a l a s p e c t s of t h e t e x t , t h e r e i s always t h e danger i n t e x t p r o c e s s i n g r e s e a r c h o f ' s i g n i f i c a n t ' r e s u l t s b e i n g t h e consequence o f a s u p e r f i c i a l t e x t a n a l y s i s .

502


O t h e r r e l a t e d s t u d i e s have been r e p o r t e d examining t h e way i n which s t u d e n t s r e a c t t o c o n v e n t i o n a l i n - t e x t q u e s t i o n s ( A l e s s i , 1979). Schumacher's (1981 ) s t u d y r e v e a l e d t h a t a l t h o u g h s u b j e c t s who r e c e i v e d q u e s t i o n s went back i n t o t h e t e x t t o check r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n , t h i s more a c t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n d i d n o t r e s u l t i n a b e t t e r t e s t performance. Such a r e s u l t c o u l d be p r e d i c t e d f r o m M a r t o n ' s (1976) work concerned w i t h t h e d e l i t e r i o u s e f f e c t s o f t h e n a r r o w f o c u s i n g o f a t t e n t i o n produced by conv e n t i o n a l i n s e r t e d Questions. P r o p o s i t i o n a l d e p t h and r e a d i n g r a t e I n t h i s t r i a l , two o f M e y e r ' s (1975) t e x t s were used. These d e a l t w i t h n u c l e a r power as an energy r e s o u r c e , and were a b o u t one page i n l e n g t h . The main t e x t m a n i p u l a t i o n i s t o have t h e same b l o c k o f t e x t embedded h i g h o r l o w i n t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . It was assumed t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n between p r o p o s i t i o n a l d e p t h and r e a d i n g r a t e found a t t h e sentence l e v e l would be c o n f i r m e d , and t h a t i t would be p o s s i b l e t o g e n e r a l i s e t h e patterns o f reading r a t e s t o o t h e r t e x t s .

However no r e l a t i o n was f o u n d between r e a d i n g r a t e and p r o p o s i t i o n a l d e p t h and t h e r e was a l s o none w i t h t h e s u r f a c e r e a d a b i l i t y measures e i t h e r . A l t h o u g h t h e expected d i f f e r e n c e i n r e c a l l scores between t h e two t e x t s was found, i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e p r o t o c o l s i n terms o f i n t r u s i o n s , r e v e a l e d s e v e r a l problems. A f t e r t h e i r r e c a l l o f t h e t e x t , some s t u d e n t s were r e q u e s t e d t o make a s u b j e c t i v e a n a l y s i s i n terms o f what they c o n s i d e r e d t o be 'main themes', ' s i d e themes' and ' e m b e l l i s h m e n t s ' w i t h i n t h e t e x t s . T h i s ' f l o w c h a r t i n g ' t e c h n i q u e i s d e s c r i b e d by Thomas (1976). Others were asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e i m p o r t a n t elements o f t h e t e x t t h a t would be r e c a l l e d by o t h e r r e a d e r s , as i n Johnson's (1974) s t u d i e s . A l t h o u g h t h e r e was broad agreement w i t h t h e ' l e v e l s ' o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , i t was i m m e d i a t e l y a p p a r e n t t h a t some s t u d e n t s had t a k e n a v e r y s t r o n g e n g i n e e r i n g i s s u e s p e r s p e c t i v e , w h i l s t o t h e r s had seen e c o l o g i c a l i s s u e s as b e i n g most i m p o r t a n t . Such problems o f i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a r e t a k e n up i n t h e n e x t section. Table 4. Average reading rates for the Meyer Texts Main text

Target paragraph

Meyer's results*

Fast breeder (high)

212

249

106

Future energy (low)

317

370

140

*Note

These are derived rates calculated from total reading times. The other data represents the subjects' 'first read' through the texts and does not include regressions and rereading.

The p a t t e r n o f r e a d i n g r e c o r d s d i d n o t appear t o have any s i g n i f i c a n c e u n t i l an a n a l y s i s i n terms o f how a u t h o r s s i g n a l t h e i r argument s t r u c t u r e was made. As w e l l as t h e l e g i t i m a t e d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e r e apoeared t o be an e x t r a c o n f o u n d i n g f a c t o r i n t h a t one o f t h e t e x t s was a o p a r e n t l y f a r more i n t e r e s t i n g t o r e a d . The t e x t w i t h t h e t a r g e t paragraph embedded h i g h i n t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e c o n t a i n e d t w i c e as many a s s e r t i v e and e v a l u a t i v e e x p r e s s i o n s and t h i s appeared t o dominate t h e

I u

0 u'i

-

3

0

10 0

.

.

0

*

0

m

M 0

0 O

m

N

0 M

IN TEXT AND THE READING PROCESS

N 0

0

ARGUMENT

0 M N

m

0 0

-

0 M

0 0

3

503


504

s t u d e n t s ' reading r a t e and t h e i r pattern of re-reading p a r t s of t h e t e x t s . Pronounced changes in reading r a t e were found a f t e r the few phrases in these t e x t s s i g n a l l i n g argument s t r u c t u r e e.g. 'while a t t h e same t i m e ' , ' a s f o r t h e ' e t c . , as shown in f i g u r e two. Such expressions have a focusing function and tend t o occur in topic sentences of paragraphs. They e s t a b l i s h a c e n t r e of i n t e r e s t f o r t h e reader and signal the s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s amongst t h e sentences. Table four indicates the average reading r a t e s o f t h e f i v e s u b j e c t s i n each group. Although t h e t a r g e t paragraph i s read more slowly i n the ' h i g h ' t e x t , t h a t t e x t i s i t s e l f read more c a r e f u l l y a s a whole. However i t should be noted t h a t these r e s u l t s do not d i r e c t l y i n v a l i d a t e Meyer's finding of b e t t e r r e c a l l f o r material high in the propositional s t r u c t u r e , a s equiva l e n t r e c a l l scores were reported f o r a d i f f e r e n t s e t of t e x t s where t h e ' h i g h ' text was read more quickly than the 'low' text; they just i n d i c a t e t h e imoortance of a thorough a n a l y s i s of t h e t e x t .

A study protocol recorder

Open University t e x t s a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y written f o r d i s t a n c e teaching. In order t o be a b l e t o monitor t h e developmental t e s t i n g o f these t e x t s in students' homes, t h e 'page' element of t h e torch recorder was f u r t h e r developed as a separate device. Figure t h r e e i n d i c a t e s t h e form of this version, which a l s o incorporates the f a c i l i t y t o monitor key depressions on a micro-processor k i t o r computer keyboard. Figure 3. The study protocol recorder

W

....

I

1 ... a . .... ....................... ............ ............

Micro kit Parallel text

Main text

ARGUMENT XN TEXT AND THE READING PROCESS

505

The d a t a l o g g e r has a n i n t e r n a l c l o c k f o r d a t e and t i m e and can s t o r e s e v e r a l weeks w o r t h o f data. A f o l d i n g v e r s i o n has now been developed t h a t p l u g s i n t o an ' A p p l e ' microcomputer, and makes i t p o s s i b l e t o s t u d y t h e use o f i n t e r r e l a t e d t e x t s such as r e v i s i o n o r s t a t i s t i c a l u n i t s . T e x t s n o t b e i n g r e a d may be shelved o u t o f t h e way. D e t a i l s o f an e v a l u a t i o n s t u d y made w i t h t h i s r e c o r d e r o f t h e use o f a l g o r i t h m s i n a one day m i c r o comouter course a r e d e s c r i b e d e l sewhere (Whal 1ey, 1981 ) . The r e a d e r ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e t e x t Ifi t i s accepted t h a t process measures o f r e a d i n g o n l y make sense i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e r e a d e r s ' i n t e n t i o n s , t h e n we must c o n f r o n t t h e problem o f e l i c i t i n g t h e s e i n t e n t i o n s and t h e changes i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t r e s u l t from t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the t e x t . F r e e r e c a l l and m u l t i p l e c h o i c e q u e s t i o n i n g t a s k s have dominated t h e prose l e a r n i n g e x p e r i m e n t a l methodology, w i t h s e v e r a l u n f o r t u n a t e consequences. They have imposed an a d d i t i o n a l b i a s towards e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n w i t h s i m p l e d e s c r i p t i v e and n a r r a t i v e t e x t s , and encouraged t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f f a i r l y a r t i f i c i a l s t u d y s t y l e s upon s u b j e c t s . "Read t h r o u g h once s l o w l y " , i s t h e l a s t t h i n g t h a t s t u d e n t s on s t u d y s k i l l s courses would be a d v i s e d t o do, and y e t i t i s s t i l l p r o b a b l y t h e most common i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n t o s u b j e c t s . The a l t e r n a t i v e o f a l l o w i n g a f r e e s t u d y s t y l e l e a d s t o enormous v a r i a b i l i t y between s u b j e c t s , and w i t h o u t some process measure makes r e a d i n g t i m e s u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e . T h i s r e l a t e s back t o t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n . I f a t e x t m a n i p u l a t i o n i s made which m i g h t be expected t o b r i n g about changes i n r e a d i n g s t r a t e g y , t h e n any s i m p l e temporal measure i s a l m o s t c e r t a i n t o be t o o confounded t o be u s e f u l . A r e c o r d o f t h e sequence i n w h i c h t e x t e l ements a r e read, combined w i t h some measure o f t h e reader's p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e t e x t s t r u c t u r e i s necessary.

A more i m p o r t a n t b i a s t h e y encourage though i s against any c o n c e p t i o n o f t a p p i n g t h e r e a d e r ' s i n t e r p r e t i v e knowledge. T h i s i n v o l v e s c a t e g o r i z i n g , c l a s s i f y i n g , p r e d i c t i n g and making i n f e r e n c e s ; a c t i v i t i e s which a r e a l l t o o o f t e n regarded as i n t r u s i o n e f f e c t s and i g n o r e d because t h e y a r e so d i f f i c u l t t o e v a l u a t e . The dangers i n h e r e n t i n m i s s i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e sum o f t h e t e x t and what t h e r e a d e r b r i n g s t o i t , were apparent i n t h e t r i a l s t u d y w i t h t h e Meyer t e x t s d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r . I f a s u b - s e t o f r e a d e r s a r e t a k i n g a much more r e f l e c t i v e a t t i t u d e towards t h e t e x t (e.g. commenting on t h e a u t h o r ' s s t y l e ) t h e n i t may t o t a l l y confound s i m p l e r e c a l l scores. T h i s i s a l l p a r t o f t h e g e n e r a l problem t h a t any s t u d y i n v o l v i n g l a r g e amounts o f t e x t w i l l have t o c o n f r o n t , namely t h a t psychology does n o t have a r e a l l y c o h e r e n t framework f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e growth of knowledge. N o t i o n s o f reconstruction and tuning o f frames a r e f l o a t e d , b u t i t i s u s u a l l y o n l y t h e s i m p l e s t a s s o c i a t i v e knowledge t h a t i s t e s t e d f o r . T h e o r i e s a r e r e q u i r e d t h a t can cope w i t h t h e accommodation o f new and p o s s i b l y c o n f l i c t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . I t c o u l d be contended t h a t i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e i d e a l w o r l d o f prose l e a r n i n g s t u d i e s , most knowledge d e r i v e d from t e x t i n v o l v e s t h e a s s i m i l a t i o n o f i n c o n s i s t e n t and i n c o m p l e t e i n f o r m a t i o n . However t h e r e a r e some h o p e f u l s i g n s i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e o f a t t e m p t s t o use m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g (Bisanz, 1978) and r e l a t e d c l u s t e r i n g t e c h n i q u e s ( P o l l a r d - G o t t , 1979) t o e l i c i t t h e r e a d e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f concept r e l a t i o n s and t e x t s t r u c t u r e . I t i s p o s s i b l e u s i n g these methodologies t o b r i n g o u t t h e development o f t h e r e a d e r s ' i d e a s as t h e y p r o g r e s s t h r o u g h a course,


506

and t o show how o r i g i n a l l y n a i v e ideas o r m i s c o n c e p t i o n s can be changed. A r e c e n t s t u d y by t h e a u t h o r used s c a l i n g t e c h n i q u e s t o t r y and e l u c i d a t e r e a d e r s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e arguments p u t f o r w a r d by d i f f e r e n t a u t h o r s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e same t o p i c . The i d e a was t h a t w i t h i n t h e framework o f a f a i r l y s t a b l e p a t t e r n o f concept r e l a t i o n s i t s h o u l d be p o s s i b l e t o e x p l o r e t h e e f f e c t s o f t e x t m a n i p u l a t i o n s such as argument and emphasis. The t e x t s i n t h i s s t u d y were concerned w i t h t h e e d u c a t i o n a l r o l e o f ' p l a y ' i n t h e j u n i o r school and depending on t h e r e l a t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e r e a d e r and t h e t e x t i t was p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n 'movements' on t h e v a r i o u s dimensions as t h e r e a d e r s accepted o r r e j e c t e d d i f f e r e n t v i e w p o i n t s , as i n f i g u r e f o u r . Figure 4. Changes in the perception of play in an educational context.

WORK

0

4

4

a

::/?a

*

I

'/

Another r e l a t e d i s s u e now b e i n g r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e t e x t p r o c e s s i n g l i t e r a t u r e i s t h a t o f 'meta-comprehension' , t h e r e a d e r s ' s u b j e c t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s Of t h e i r own comprehension. These i d e a s have been c o n s i d e r e d f o r some t i m e i n t h e 7,zctrr,ir,g-to-lecwL l i t e r a t u r e (Thomas, 1977), b u t i s a n o t h e r s i g n of r e s e a r c h i n t o t e x t o r o c e s s i n g moving away f r o m s i m p l e n o t i o n s o f t o t a l r e c a l l ; which o f course i s o f t e n n o t what t h e r e a d e r r e q u i r e s o f a t e x t . I n many i n s t a n c e s i t i s o n l y necessary t o 'know' t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e d i s c o u r s e a t a v e r y g e n e r a l l e v e l , i t may w e l l be more i m p o r t a n t t o know how i t r e l a t e s t o o t h e r t e x t s i n terms o f t o p i c s and arguments; perhaps f o r l a t e r study. To sum up then, e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s i n d i c a t i n g no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n terms o f p r o p o s i t i o n s r e c a l l e d o r m u l t i p l e c h o i c e scores may o f t e n u n d e r v a l u e r e a l improvements i n t e x t d e s i g n which can be s u c c e s s f u l l y b r o u g h t o u t by more s e n s i t i v e s u b j e c t i v e measures o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g o r adjudged t e x t c o m p l e x i t y .

ARGUMENT IN TEXT AND THE READING PROCESS

507

Conclusion The most appropriate conclusion t o t h i s paper is a consideration of laborat o r y versus f i e l d experimentation in t e x t processing s t u d i e s . Although models of reading a r e generally moving towards the view of the adaptive f l e x i b l e reader, i n the vast majority of s t u d i e s , t e x t s a r e read in taskinduced s i t u a t i o n s where t h e readers a r e e x t r i n s i c a l l y motivated t o read. This must of course be a f a c t o r i n t h e lower scores obtained f o r t h e l e s s i n t r i n s i c a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g expository t e x t s . Studies have shown t h a t f i e l d t r i a l s of newspaper reading i n d i c a t e a much g r e a t e r s e l e c t i v i t y than i s generally found i n experimental s e t t i n g s (Graesser, 1981). Several researchers have t r i e d t o c r e a t e more r e a l i s t i c laboratory reading s i t u a t i o n s by requiring students t o come i n and read t h e i r own-course t e x t s . The study mentioned previously by Schumacher (1981) i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g in t h i s context, a s i t involved students coming i n t o t h e laboratory t o read texts t h a t they were studying f o r course c r e d i t s . T h i s o f course would ensure a more uniformly r e a l i s t i c task perception and motivation. However, t h i s form o f experimentation i s d i f f i c u l t t o s e t u p , and i s s t i l l unlikely t o t a p t h e more r e f l e c t i v e study a c t i v i t i e s of t h e f l e x i b l e reader, e.g. t h e s e l e c t i v e use of complementary t e x t s . Comprehensive t e x t research should involve a s few compromises a s possible in t h e choice o f t e x t and t h e r e a d e r ' s study a c t i v i t i e s . A r e a l i s t i c s e l f induced reading environment will almost c e r t a i n l y involve some element of f i e l d t r i a l ; tapping i n t o an extended period of study a s adequately a s possible. This should be seen as complementing t h e more sophisticated manipulations t h a t may be made i n t h e laboratory. References Alessi, S.M. e t a l . An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of lookbacks during studying. Discourse Processes, 1979, 2 , 197-21 2. Bisanz, G . L . e t a l . On t h e representation of prose: new dimensions. ~JownaZ of VerbaZ Learning and VerbaZ Behavior, 1978, 1 7 , 337-357. Clements, P . The e f f e c t s of staging on r e c a l l from prose. PhD D i s s e r t a t i o n , Cornell University, 1975. de Beaugrande, R . Text, d i s e o w s e , and process: Toward a muZtidiscipZinary science of t e x t s . London: Longman, 1980. Graesser, A . C . Prose comprehension beyond t h e word. New York: SpringerVerlag, 1981. Grimes, J.E. The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton, 1975. Johnson, R . E . Learners' predictions of t h e r e c a l l a b i l i t y of prose. JmrnaZ of Reading Behaviour, 1974, 6 ( 1 ) , 41 -52. Kintsch, W & van Dijk, T.A. Towards a model of t e x t comprehension and production. PsychoZogicaZ Review, 1978, 8 5 ( 5 ) , 363-394. Marton, F . On non-verbatim learning 11. The erosion e f f e c t of a taskinduced learning algorithm. Scandinavian JournaZ of Psychology, 1976, 17, 41-48. Meyer, B.J.F. The organization of prose and i t s e f f e c t s on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975. Pollard-Gott, L . e t a l . Subjective s t o r y s t r u c t u r e . Discourse Processes, 1979, 2, 251-281. Rieger, C. GRIND-1: First r e p o r t on t h e magic grinder s t o r y comprehension project. Discoslrse Processes, 1978, 1 , 267-303.

508


Schumacher, G.M. & Young, 0. The e f f e c t s o f i n s e r t e d q u e s t i o n s on s t u d y i n g processes i n normal t e x t b o o k m a t e r i a l s . American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, 1981. S h e b i l s k e , W.L. & F i s h e r , D.F. Eye movements d u r i n g t h e r e a d i n g o f extended d i s c o u r s e . Conference o f t h e European Group f o r Eye Movement Research, Bern, 1981. Thomas, L.F. & A u g s t e i n , E.S. H a r r i - . L e a r n i n g t o l e a r n : t h e personal c o n s t r u c t s and exchange o f meaning. I n Howe, M. (Ed.), Adult Learning. New York: Wiley, 1977. van D i j k , T.A. Relevance assignment i n d i s c o u r s e comprehension. Discourse Processes, 1979, 2, 113-126. W a l l e r , R.H.W. Graphic a s p e c t s o f complex t e x t s : Typography as macrop u n c t u a t i o n . I n K o l e r s , P.A. e t a1 (Eds.) Processing of VisibZe Language 2. New York: Plenum Press, 1980. Whalley, P.C. Macro l e v e l r e c o r d i n g o f r e a d i n g behaviour. Conference o f t h e European Group f o r Eye Movement Research, Bern, 1981. Whalley, P.C. A p a r t i a l i n d e x o f t e x t c o m p l e x i t y i n v o l v i n g t h e l e x i c a l a n a l y s i s o f r h e t o r i c a l c o n n e c t i v e s . JownaZ of t h e Association of Literary and Linguistic Computing, ( i n p r e s s ) . Whalley, P.C. & Fleming, R.W. An experiment w i t h a s i m p l e r e c o r d e r o f r e a d i n g b e h a v i o u r . Programmed Learning and EducationaZ TechnoZogy, 1975, 12(2), 120-123.

DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Hammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) @North-HollandPubiis~ingCompany, I982

SELF-REGULATED VERSUS TEACHER-PROVIDED SEQUENCING OF INFORMATION I N LEARKING FROM TEXT HANS G.L.C.

Lodewijks

Department o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l Psychology Tilburg University T i 1b u r g The Netherlands Three experiments a r e discussed i n which d . i f f e r e n t i a 1 e f f e c t s o f s e l f - r e g u l a t e d and t e a c h e r - p r o v i d e d s u b j e c t m a t t e r sequences were examined. I n a l l experiments secondary school c h i l d r e n t o o k an i n t r o d u c t o r y course i n p h y s i c s , which was presented t o them i n w r i t t e n f o r m a t . I n g e n e r a l , data r e v e a l e d t h a t s u b j e c t s performed b e t t e r on achievement t e s t s ( p o s t - and r e t e n t i o n t e s t s ) under s e l f - r e g u l a t e d c o n d i t i o n s , than under t e a c h e r p r o v i d e d ones. Furthermore, s u b j e c t s under s e l f - r e g u l a t e d cond i t i o n s were b e t t e r a b l e t o c o n s t r u c t an i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the subject matter. I n addition, several disordinal a p t i t u d e - t r e a t m e n t i n t e r a c t i o n s were d e t e c t e d f o r i n d u c t i v e and d e d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y , f i e l d independence and a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y . Learners s c o r i n g h i g h on these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had an advantage under c o n d i t i o n s o f self-sequenc i n g and were h e l d back under t e a c h e r - p r o v i d e d sequences. The o p p o s i t e , however, was t r u e f o r l e a r n e r s judged as l o w on these aptitudes. INTRODUCTION D u r i n g ' t h e l a s t two decades a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f r e s e a r c h has been done on t e x t l e a r n i n g (e.g., McConkie, 1977). A f t e r abandoning nonsense s y l l a b l e and p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g t a s k s i n t h e r e s e a r c h l a b o r a t o r i e s , researchers s t a r t e d t o study more meaningful l e a r n i n g tasks and found t e x t s t o be f e a s i b l e m a t e r i a l f o r experimental research. I n these t w e n t y years, we have gained reasonable i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e more fundamental t e x t p r o c e s s i n g a c t i v i t i e s o f readers. Neverthel e s s , t h e r e i s s t i l l much t o be learned, p r i m a r i l y because most r e s e a r c h done on t e x t l e a r n i n g has been r e s t r i c t e d t o o n l y s h o r t passages o f t e x t . As a r e s u l t of t h i s we know p r a c t i c a l l y n o t h i n g about t h e processes which t a k e p l a c e i n l e a r n i n g mare comprehensive t e x t s . How, f o r i n s t a n c e , do l e a r n e r s b u i l d u p knowledge s t r u c t u r e s about more s u b s t a n t i a l s u b j e c t m a t t e r domains w h i l e r e a d i n g about them? Answering q u e s t i o n s l i k e t h i s one r e q u i r e l o n g e r range s t u d i e s and t h e use o f more comprehensive w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s than those used up t i l l now. We d i d s e v e r a l s t u d i e s i n which p u p i l s had t o a c q u i r e a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f knowledge f r o m t e x t s w i t h r e g a r d t o some school r e l e v a n t s u b j e c t m a t t e r domain. I n t h i s r e s e a r c h we d e a l t m a i n l y w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e o r d e r i n which t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s presented i n f l u e n c e s t h e r e a d e r ' s p r o c e s s i n g and s t o r i n g o f t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . We attempted t o f i n d o u t what k i n d o f p r e s e n t a t i o n o r d e r (sequence) i s o p t i m a l i n l e a r n i n g f r o m w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s . However, we were a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n e x p l o r i n g more b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n - , o r t e x t - p r o c e s s i n g a c t i v i t i e s of l e a r n e r s .

I n i n s t r u c t i o n a l psychology, a g r e a t d i v e r s i t y o f t e x t s t r u c t u r e s has been d i s t i n g u i s h e d . Some o f t h e s e a r e used i n e x p e r i m e n t a l research, o t h e r s have o n l y been syggested i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . Though t e r m i n o l o g y appears n o t v e r y c o n s i s t e n t , among t h e most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned types o f s t r u c t u r e s one w i l l f i n d t h e f o l l o w i n g :

509

5 10


l o g i c a l , h i e r a r c h i c a l , random, a n a l y t i c a l , s y n t h e t i c , inductive, deductive, cumulative, concentric, temporal and thematical (Klauer, 1974; Tennyson, 1972; Lodewi jks, 1981). I n a d d i t i o n , more aeneral approaches t o sequencing verbal material a r e r e l a t e d t o Ausubel's notion of "assimilation t o schema" and Berlyne's "cognitive c o n f l i c t " view. Examples of these l a t t e r approaches may be found in Mayer (1977) and Groeben (1972). More r e c e n t l y , Posner & S t r i k e (1976) presented an i n t e g r a t i v e model f o r deriving text-sequencing principles.

I t appears t h a t , in s p i t e of t h e importance attached t o the problem of sequencing learning m a t e r i a l s , r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e empirical research has been done with respect t o t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l effectiveness of possible sequences. One possible reason f o r t h i s may simply be a question of conviction such as t h e following from Gagn6 i n 1973: "Naturally, many subjects have t h e i r own 'sequence', implied by the content i t s e l f . ...Most o t h e r subjects t h a t a r e held together by a complex of verbal knowledge obviously contain l o g i cal r e ? a t i o n s , a s well a s superordinate and subordinate categories of conc e p t s . Whether t h e stimulus materials a r e displayed i n a conventional t e x t book or in the form o f programmed i n s t r u c t i o n , one can do l i t t l e b e t t e r than follow e i t h e r common sense o r Skinner's (1958, p . 974) prescription t h a t the content be arranged ' i n a plausible development o r d e r ' . If in f a c t such an order i s not followed, there i s an absence of evidence t h a t t h i s will make much difference. ...The sequencing of events within a s i n g l e exercise o r lesson i s a d i f f e r e n t problem. ...I f designed f o r the lear. ning and retention of verbaZ information, the evidence again suggests t h a t the sequence of presentation has no s t r o n g e f f e c t " . (Gagn6, 1973, p . 26-27) I n carrying o u t some e a r l i e r experiments on t h i s t o p i c (Lodewijks, 1978) we a l s o found r a t h e r small differences in what pupils learned under d i f f e rent sequencing conditions. With respect t o these r e s u l t s Gagn6's general conclusions seem q u i t e c o r r e c t . B u t , we a l s o found t h a t learning outcomes were c o n s i s t e n t l y higher under sequencing conditions in which pupils could mentally rearrange t h e order of presentation. If pupils had t h e opportunity t o take notes, t o make summaries and such, t h e i r performance was b e t t e r . In so doing, pupils disrupted the preplanned order of t h e materials and followed, mentally, a d i f f e r e n t route. These r e s u l t s directed our a t t e n t i o n t o the question of what l e a r n e r s will do i f they a r e allowed t o plan the sequence of presentation on t h e i r own. To study t h i s we performed several experiments in which we compared the effectiveness of s e l f - r e gulated sequencing modes with pre planned, teacher-provided ones.

SEQUENCES IN WRITTEN MATERIALS We s t a r t e d our research with t h e development of an introductory course on basic e l e c t r i c i t y concepts. This course consisted o f 16 or (depending on t h e p a r t i c u l a r experiment) 18 u n i t s . Each u n i t represented one of the concepts covered by t h e course. These concepts a r e l i s t e d in Table 1 . The course was presented t o secondary school c h i l d r e n , ranging in age from 13 t o 15 years. All i n s t r u c t i o n was given in written format. A t o t a l of approximately seven hours was necessary t o learn t h e subject content in these u n i t s . Presentation order of the u n i t s was varied in s i x d i f f e r e n t ways. F i r s t we asked a group of experts (physics teachers) t o construct a sequence which was, according t o t h e i r experience and opinion, most appropriate f o r teaching the concepts. Inter-expert r e l i a b i l i t y was h i g h (with d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s o f experts Kendall ' s c o z f f i c i e n t o f concordance W varied from 0.83

SELF-REGULATED VERSUS TEACHER-PROVIDED SEQUENCING

511

t o 0.92; ps.001) and t h u s we c o u l d d e s i g n a g e n e r a l sequence which we c a l l e d t h e comwzai seqkence. Furthermore, we analyzed t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s and searched f o r l o g i c a l - p r e r e q u i s i t e r e l a t i o n s . A l o g i c a l - p r e r e q u i s i t e r e l a t i o n was, f o l l o w i n g Posner & S t r i k e ' s (1976) d e s c r i p t i o n , d e f i n e d as a r e l a t i o n between two s u b j e c t m a t t e r elements, one o f which must be known t o t h e l e a r n e r b e f o r e t h e o t h e r can be understood. Sequences i n which t h e s e p r e r e q u i s i t e r e l a t i o n s were t a k e n i n t o account were c a l l e d h i e r a r e h i m 2 sequences and formed t h e second t y p e o f sequencing.

ampere atom coulomb electricity electro-motor-power electron conductance molecule ohm

potential tension siemens s p e c i f i c conductance specific resistance t e n s i o n source strength o f current volt resistance

Table 1 Overview o f course concepts A l s o based on c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s o f t h e l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s , we c o n s t r u c t e d a t h i r d k i n d o f sequence, t h e s o - c a l l e d r e f e r e n t i a l sequences. These sequences were based on a model i n i t i a l l y proposed by Flammer (1974) and l a t e r f o r m a l i z e d by Flammer, Biichel & Gutmann (1976). I n t h e l a t t e r a r t i c l e f o r mulas a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r p r e d i c t i n g which s u b j e c t m a t t e r element a p u p i l w i l l choose under c o n d i t i o n s of s e l f - s e q u e n c i n g . F o r e v e r y element of t h e t o - b e - l e a r n e d u n i t s a s o - c a l l e d " D r i n g l i c h k e i t s - " ( i n E n g l i s h : urgency-) i n d e x can be computed. The v a l u e o f t h i s i n d e x depends on t h e number o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r elements a l e a r n e r has a l r e a d y mastered. F o r example, g i v e n t h r e e u n i t s (A,B,C) and t h r e e r e l a t i o n s between t h e s e u n i t s (AB, AC and B C ) , and assuming f u r t h e r m o r e t h a t a l e a r n e r has a l r e a d y mastered t h e elements B and C ( a s d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e I ) , t h e n t h e urgency t o choose t o l e a r n n e x t t h e r e l a t i o n BC must be g r e a t e r t h a n t o l e a r n element A, o r t h e r e l a t i o n s AB o r AC. The reason f o r t h i s i s , t h a t i n t h e case o f BC, two o f t h e a d j a c e n t p a r t s o f t h e m i n i - c o n t e n t - s t r u c t u r e B < Bc > C a r e a l r e a d y known t o t h e l e a r n e r . I n t h e case o f t h e o t h e r two r e l a t i o n s o n l y one, and i n t h e case o f element A no p a r t o f t h e c o n t e n t s t r u c t u r e is known.

Figure 1 Hypothetical content s t r u c t u r e , c o n s i s t i n g o f three elements (e.g. c o n c e p t s ) and t h r e e r e l a t i o n s between t h e s e elements. Elements known t o t h e l e a r n e r a r e i t a l i c i z e d ; d o t t e d l i n e s i n d i c a t e unknown r e l a t i o n s . T h i s model has i n o u r o p i n i o n a c e r t a i n amount o f v a l i d i t y . T h e r e f o r e , we

51 2


s t a r t e d t o develop sequences i n which l e a r n e r s c o u l d go t h e i r own way t h r o u g h t h e m a t e r i a l s , w i t h t h e r e s t r i c t i o n t h a t t h e y c o u l d choose o n l y between t h o s e elements which had t h e h i g h e s t u r g e n c y - i n d i c e s a t t h e moment o f choice. F o r v a r i o u s reasons, t h e f o r m u l a s which Flammer e t a l . (1976) p r o posed had t o be m o d i f i e d , b u t we were a b l e t o p r e s e r v e t h e key n o t i o n s o f t h e i r p r o p o s a l . Elsewhere, ( L o d e w i j k s , i n p r e p a r a t i o n ) , we d i s c u s s t h i s t o p i c i n more d e t a i l . I n a d d i t i o n , we had t o change Flammer e t a l . ' s " D r i n g l i c h k e i t s - m o d e 1 " i n some r e s p e c t s and developed what we c a l l e d t h e CUEING-model ( L o d e w i j k s , 1981). I n t h e CUEING-model r e l a t i o n s a r e d e f i n e d i n terms o f t h e r e f e r e n c e s between t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r concepts. Urgency i n d i c e s a r e a f u n c t i o n o f t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s . According t o t h e model, a sequence i s c o n s i dered o p t i m a l i f t h e subsequent s t e p s i n t h a t sequence f o l l o w t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e i n t e r - c o n c e p t r e f e r e n c e s (e.g.,the v a l u e o f t h e urgency i n d i c e s ) . The c o n s t r u c t i o n o f sequences i n which these c o n d i t i o n s a r e t a k e n i n t o account is, however,quite a problem. To s o l v e t h i s problem we reasoned as f o l l o w s : Learners, when r e a d i n g a p a r t i c u l a r t e x t , w i l l encounter references t o o t h e r concepts which t h e y do n o t kncw y e t . E n c o u n t e r i n g t h e s e yet-unknown concepts may mean t h a t t h e l e a r n e r has d e t e c t e d Gaps i n h i s / h e r knowledge o f t h e subject matter. I n order t o g e t a c l o s e r understanding o f the s u b j e c t m a t t e r , t h e b e s t t h i n q a l e a r n e r can do now i s t o proceed t o stud.y m a t e r i a l s which r e l a t e t o t h e - d e t e c t e d gaps i n t h a t knowledge. T h a t means t h a t he/she can b e s t s e l e c t t h o s e p a r t s o f t h e l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s which fill these gaps. By way o f i l l u s t r a t i o n , i n F i g u r e 2 a p a r t o f t h e r e f e r e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r i s d i s p l a y e d . T h i s f i g u r e can be r e a d as f o l l o w s : I n r e a d i n g about t h e concept e l e c t r i c a l current t h e r e w i l be m e n t i o n o f concepts such as electron, molecuZe and atom. I f a l e a r n e r h n o t y e t s t u d i e d t h e s e t h r e e concepts, t h e b e s t t h i n q he/she can do i s t o s e l e c t one o f t h e s e concepts t o proceed w i t h i n s t u d y i n g t h e l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s . Suppose t h e t e x t about t h e concept m o l e c u l e has been s e l e c t e d , t h e n a f t e r l e a r n i n g t h i s u n i t t h e n e x t c h o i c e t o be made must be atom, because t h e r e i s m e n t i o n o f t h a t concept i n t h e t e x t on molecule. To c o n s t r u c t t h e s e k i n d s o f sequences an a n a l y s i s o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r was necessary. I n t h i s a n a l y s i s we searched f o r c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e s between t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r elements. The r e s u l t i n g r e f e r e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s was f e d i n t o a computer. Use o f a computer i n t h i s k i n d o f sequencing was necessary because sequencing depended on p r e v i o u s l y made i n d i v i d u a l choices by t h e l e a r n e r s . Thus, i n t h e r e f e r e n t i a l sequencing mode, t h e s u c c e s s i o n o f elements was i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e r e f e r e n c e s .

electrical current

molecule

atom

Figure 2 P a r t o f t h e r e f e r e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e subject matter. D i r e c t i o n o f arrows i n d i c a t e d i r e c t i o n o f r e f e r e n c e s . F i n a l l y , t h e l a s t t e a c h e r p r o v i d e d sequence was a random sequence. Here, t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r elements were arranged a n d . p r e s e n t e d i n a l p h a b e t i -


51 3

c a l order A l l o f t h e s e sequences we c a l l e d preplanned because t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e s u n d e r l y i n g them were developed i n advance. The communal and t h e r a n dom sequence had t o be s t u d i e d i n t h e o r d e r i n which t h e y were p r e s e n t e d t o t h e l e a r n e r s . Under t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f h i e r a r c h i c a l and r e f e r e n t i a l sequencing l e a r n e r s were a l l o w e d t o choose t h e u n i t t o b e g i n w i t h , b u t i n t h e i r subseq u e n t l e a r n i n g t h e i r freedom was l i m i t e d by t h e u n d e r l y i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n principles. We compared t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of these preplanned, t e a c h e r - p r o v i d e d sequences w i t h sequences which were developed by t h e l e a r n e r s themselves. Under c o n d i t i o n s o f seZf-sequencing, p u p i l s r e c e i v e d a " t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s " i n which t h e t o - b e - l e a r n e d concepts were p r e s e n t e d i n a l p h a b e t i c a l o r d e r . From t h i s i n d e x t h e y had t o choose t h e u n i t which t h e y wished t o b e g i n w i t h , and a f t e r t h e y completed s t u d y i n g t h i s u n i t t h e y chose t h e n e x t and so on. Thus, under t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s s u b j e c t s were a l l o w e d t o c o n s t r u c t t h e i r own p r e f e r r e d sequences. I n some experiments we, a d d i t i o n a l l y , gave some p u p i l s supplementary w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s . These i n s t r u c t i o n s s p e c i f i e d how t o t a k e maximal advantage o f s e l f - s e q u e n c i n g . I n t h i s c o n d i t i o n , p u p i l s r e c e i v e d a s t r u c t u r a l overview o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r , i n which c o - o r d i n a t e , s u p e r o r d i n a t e and subord i n a t e r e l a t i o n s between elements were i n d i c a t e d . Furthermore, t h e s e p u p i l s were a d v i s e d t o l o o k f o r t h o s e elements i n t h e t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s t h a t c o u l d c l a r i f y passages i n t h e t e x t which remained u n c l e a r . ( T a b l e 2 summar i z e s t h e sequences we used and t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r i c i p l e s u n d e r l y i n g them).

I

I

TEACHER-PROVIDED

CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLE

1. Communal 2. H i e r a r c h i c a l

. Expert ordering . Logical p r e r e q u i s i t e

3. R e f e r e n t i a l

.

4. Random

.

r e 1 a t i ons Inter-concept references Alphabetical

SELF-REGULATED

5. W i t h supplementary instructions 6. W i t h o u t supplementary instructions

Pupils preferences

Table 2 Types o f sequences and t h e u n d e r l y i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e s used i n t h e experiments

LEARNING OUTCOMES I n most of o u r experiments we assessed l e a r n i n g outcomes w i t h ( 1 ) a p o s t t e s t , ( 2 ) a r e t e n t i o n t e s t and ( 3 ) a r e l a t i o n s t e s t . W i t h t h e p o s t and r e t e n t i o n t e s t s we assessed t h e amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n s t u d e n t s r e t a i n e d f r o m s t u d y i n g . o n e


51 4

week and t h r e e weeks a f t e r completion of the course,respectively. The r e l a t i o n s test was used i n an attempt t o a s s e s s the q u a l i t y of the structuraz representation of t h e subject matter present in the l e a r n e r . A l e a r n e r who has a good overview of t h e s t r u c t u r a l properties of the subject matter can do a t l e a s t two things: ( a ) he/she can v a l i d l y discriminate between r e l a t i o n s which e x i s t and which do not e x i s t ; ( b ) he/she can i n f e r r e l a t i o n s between elements, which, though n o t e x p l i c i t l y described in the t e x t s , a r e a s e n s i b l e inference from the knowledge acquired. We used reproductive r e s ponses t o discriminate between e x i s t i n g and non-existinq r e l a t i o n s . I n c o n t r a s t , a productive response was an inferred r e l a t i o n betwee two subject matter elements which we deemed t o be s e n s i b l e . We expected a reproductive response t o be a n indication of the amount of int e r n a l i z a t i o n of the text-bound s t r u c t u r e and a productive response t o be a measure of the a c t i v e building u p o f the more general conceptual content s t r u c t u r e . Using the r e l a t i o n s t e s t we could c a l c u l a t e two scores: a so-ca1led REP ( r e p r 0 d u c t i v i t y ) s c o r e and a PROD ( p r 0 d u c t i v i t y ) s c o r e . The way these scores could be determined can best be i l l u s t r a t e d by Fiqure 3.

All possible r e l a t i o n s between N elements

Non-exi s t i ng

Existing relations

I I

Relations explicitly stated in

Re1 a t i ons not described i n the t e x t

1

1 I I

I

I

Reprohctive response

Produfctive response

i I

Fa1 s e response

Figure 3 Deduction of productivity and reproductivi t y scores from the r e l a t i o n s t e s t The r e l a t i o n s t e s t consisted of a l l possible r e l a t i o n s between the N (16 o r 18) subject matter concepts. Respondents had t o r a t e the degree of r e l a tednes of every p a i r using five-point s c a l e s . F i r s t we administered t h i s t e s t t o a g r o u p o f 10 physics teachers in order t o determine which of these p a i r s indicated e x i s t i n g and non-existing r e l a t i o n s . After having done t h i s , we analyzed the t e x t s t o find out which of the e x i s t i n g r e l a t i o n s were exp l i c i t l y described i n the texts and which were not. After completion of the course t h i s t e s t was administered t o the l e a r n e r s . The r a t i n g s O f t h e l e a r n e r s were scored as reproductive whenever t h e l e a r n e r i n d i cated a high degree of relatedness between terms of a r e l a t i o n e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d i n t h e course. The response was scored a s being productive


5 15

when r e l a t e d n e s s was r a t e d h i g h f o r a concept p a i r which i n d i c a t e d an e x i s t i n g r e l a t i o n , b u t n o t one t h a t was e x p l i c i t l y d e s c r i b e d i n t h e t e x t . A response was scored as f a l s e i f t h e l e a r n e r i n d i c a t e d a h i g h degree of r e l a t e d n e s s on a n o n - e x i s t i n g r e l a t i o n . F i n a l l y , t h e REP-score was c a l c u l a t e d as t h e percentage o f c o r r e c t r e p r o d u c t i v e responses minus a c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r f o r guessing. The PROD-score was determined a l o n g s i m i l a r l i n e s f o r t h e percentage of p r o d u c t i v e responses. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Experiment 1

I n t h e f i r s t experiment we compared t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f communal, random and s e l f - c o n s t r u c t e d sequences. I n t h e l a s t c o n d i t i o n l e a r n e r s r e c e i v e d no supplementary i n s t r u c t i o n s . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s experiment a r e summarized i n Table 3.

LEARNING OUTCOMES CONDITION

RETENTION TEST

REPTEST

PRODTEST

Communal sequence

M SD

14.96 3.90

31.52 16.62

22.04 17.07

Self-regulated sequences

M SD

20.57 3.45

46.22 16.50

42.04 11.86

Random sequence

M SD

14.41 3.39

24.73 11.83

19.18 16.95

Table 3 Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s i n Experiment 2 f o r scores on t h r e e l e a r n i n g outcome measures under t h r e e sequencing c o n d i t i o n s (FI=68).

S u r p r i s i n g l y , a t f i r s t g l a n c e we d i d n o t f i n d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e communal and t h e random sequence c o n d i t i o n s . ( I n a l l cases F - r a t i o ' s d i d n o t exceed t h e v a l u e o f . 8 0 ) . T h i s means t h a t p u p i l s l e a r n e d b o t h as w e l l and as much under sequence c o n d i t i o n s i n which t h e o r d e r o f p r e s e n t a t i o n was r a t h e r i l l o g i c a l as when c a r e f u l l y planned. These r e s u l t s can, i n o u r o p i n i o n , b e s t be i n t e r p r e t e d as an i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e importance o f a c t i v e s t r u c t u r i n g by t h e l e a r n e r s . A c t i v e s t r u c t u r i n g i s o b l i g a t o r y under random sequence c o n d i t i o n s i n o r d e r t o g e t an adequate o v e r v i e w and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s between t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r elements. By a c t i v e l y s t r u c t u r i n g t h e s e elements, p u p i l s can compensate f o r t h e handicap caused by t h e random sequence. Furthermore, we found i n t h i s experiment s t r o n g s u p e r i o r i t y f o r t h e s e l f r e g u l a t e d sequences. Table 4 summarizes t h e F - r a t i o ' s and t h e a s s o c i a t e d p r o b a b i l i t i e s found f o r r e t e n t i o n , r e p r o d u c t i v i t y , and p r o d u c t i v i t y t e s t scores i n a comparison o f t h e t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s .


51 6

I

CRITERION Reproductivity Productivity Retention

F 4.15 14.77 20.52

P

Advances in Psychology Volume 8 Discourse Processing

Advances in Psychology Volume 83 Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals

Advances in Immunology Volume 8

Advances in Parasitology, Volume 8

Advances in Computers, Volume 8

Advances in Agronomy, Volume 8

Advances in Genetics Volume 8

Advances in Psychology Volume 79 Text and Text Processing

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 8

Discourse Processing

Discourse Processing

Advances in Psychology Volume 40 Current Issues in Theoretical Psychology

Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, Volume 8

Advances in Heat Transfer, Volume 8

Advances in Chemical Engineering, Volume 8

Oligopoly, Volume 8 (Advances in Applied Microeconomics)

Advances in Chemistry Research, Volume 8

Advances in Cancer Research, Volume 8

Advances in Applied Microbiology, Volume 8

Advances in Carbohydrate Chemistry, Volume 8

Advances in Clinical Chemistry Volume 8

Advances in Chemical Engineering, Volume 8

Advances in Sociology Research. Volume 8

Advances in Applied Mechanics, Volume 8

Advances in Psychology Volume 20 Trends in Mathematical Psychology

Advances in Heterocyclic Chemistry, Volume 8

Advances in Ecological Research, Volume 8

Advances in Marine Biology, Volume 8

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 23

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 4

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 1

Advances in Psychology Volume 8 Discourse Processing

Advances in Psychology Volume 83 Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals

Advances in Immunology Volume 8

Advances in Parasitology, Volume 8

Advances in Computers, Volume 8

Advances in Agronomy, Volume 8

Advances in Genetics Volume 8

Advances in Psychology Volume 79 Text and Text Processing

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 8

Discourse Processing

Discourse Processing

Advances in Psychology Volume 40 Current Issues in Theoretical Psychology

Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, Volume 8

Advances in Heat Transfer, Volume 8

Advances in Chemical Engineering, Volume 8

Oligopoly, Volume 8 (Advances in Applied Microeconomics)

Advances in Chemistry Research, Volume 8

Advances in Cancer Research, Volume 8

Advances in Applied Microbiology, Volume 8

Advances in Carbohydrate Chemistry, Volume 8

Advances in Clinical Chemistry Volume 8

Advances in Chemical Engineering, Volume 8

Advances in Sociology Research. Volume 8

Advances in Applied Mechanics, Volume 8

Advances in Psychology Volume 20 Trends in Mathematical Psychology

Advances in Heterocyclic Chemistry, Volume 8

Advances in Ecological Research, Volume 8

Advances in Marine Biology, Volume 8

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 23

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 4

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 1

Recommend Documents