Is it the medium or the message?: Structuring complex news to enhance engagement and situational understanding by nonexperts

Communication Research

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 285-309

  Yaros, Ronald A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b Lab for the Communicating Complexity Online (LCCO)

Author keywords

Health and technology; Interest; News comprehension; News discourse; Science communication; Situational understanding

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745604554     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650206289154     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Anderson, C. W. (1999). Incription and science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 973-974.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco: Freeman.
3. Bower, G. H., & Cohen, P. R. (1982). Emotional influences in memory and thinking: Data and theory. In M. S. C. S. T. Fiske (Ed.), Affect and cognition (pp. 291-331). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Britton, B. K., & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329-404.
5. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
6. Dunwoody, S. (1992). Comparative strategies for making the complex clear. In B. V. Lewenstein (Ed.), When science meets the public (pp. 101-102). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
7. Dunwoody, S. (2001). Studying users of the why files. Science Communication, 22, 274-282.
8. Einsiedel, E. F. (1992). Framing science and technology in the Canadian press. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 89-101.
9. Ettema, J. S., Brown, J. W., & Luepker, R. V. (1983). Knowledge gap effects in a health information campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 516-527.
10. Eveland, W. P., Cortese, J., Park, H., & Dunwoody, S. (2002, November). How Web site organization influences free recall, factual knowledge, and knowledge structure. Paper presented at the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
11. Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from Web versus print. Communication Research, 28, 48-78.
12. Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2002). An investigation of elaboration and selective scanning as mediators of learning from the Web versus print. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46 (1). 34-53.
13. Foust, J. C. (2005). Online journalism. Scottsdale, AZ: Halcomb Hathaway.
14. Genova, B. K. L., & Greenberg, B. S. (1979). Interests in news and the knowledge gap. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 79-91.
15. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1983). Memory for the orientation of pictures in nonverbal stories: Parallels and insights into language processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
16. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1993). Less skilled readers have less efficient suppression mechanisms. Psychological Science, 4, 294-298.
18. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1996). The structure building framework: What it is, what it might also be and why. In B. K. B. A. C. Graesser (Ed.), Models of text understanding (pp. 289-311). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. E. (1991a). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 245-262.
20. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. E. (1991b). The role of suppression in sentence comprehension. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Comprehending word and sentence (pp. 97-128). Amsterdam: North Holland.
21. Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430-445.
22. Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness-a neglected variable in discourse processing. Cognitive Science, 10, 179-194.
23. Hidi, S., & McLaren, J. (1990). The effect of topic and theme interestingness on the production of school expositions. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, N. Bennett, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Learning and instruction: European research in an international context (Vol. 2.2, pp. 295-308). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
24. Kaplan, R. L. (2002). Politics and the American press. The rise of objectivity 1865-1920. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
26. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
27. Knobloch, S., Patzig, G., Mende, A.-M., & Hastall, M. (2004). Affective news: Effects of discourse structure in narratives on suspense, curiosity, and enjoyment while reading news and novels. Communication Research, 31, 259-287.
28. Krapp, A. (1988, September). Interest, learning and academic achievement. Paper presented at the Third European Conference of Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Madrid, Spain.
29. Kwak, N. (1999). Revisiting the knowledge gap hypothesis: Education, motivation, and media use. Communication Research, 26, 385-413.
30. Lang, A., Newhagen, J., & Reeves, B. (1996). Negative video as structure: Emotion, attention, capacity and memory. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 460-477.
31. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32. Long, L. (1991). An analysis of the organizational structure and explanatory content of newspaper science stories (science writing). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
33. Long, L. (1995). Scientific explanation in U.S. newspaper science stories. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 119-130.
34. Long, M. A., Steinke, J., Kalter, J., Schwaab, A., Savagian, A., Jaffer, N., et al. (1991, August). Explanation in newspaper science section news articles. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston.
35. Mayer, R. E. (1985a). How to analyze science prose. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 305-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. Mayer, R. E. (1985b). Structural analysis of science prose: Can we increase problem-solving performance? In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 65-87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. McLeod, J. M., Kosicki, G. M., & Pan, Z. (1991). On understanding and misunderstanding media effects. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (pp. 235-266). New York: Edward Arnold.
38. McLeod, J. M., & Reeves, B. (1980). On the nature of mass media effects. In S. B. Withey & R. P. Ables (Eds.), Television and social behavior. Beyond violence and children (pp. 17-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
40. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55 (1). 51-62.
41. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kitsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14 (1). 1-43.
42. Miller, J. D. (1986). Reaching the attentive and interested publics for science. In S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news (pp. 55-69). New York: Free Press.
43. Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 273-294.
44. Mindich, D. T. Z. (1998). Just the facts. How "objectivity" came to define American journalism. New York: University Press.
45. National Science Board. (2000). Science and engineering indicators - 2000. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
46. National Science Board. (2004). Science and engineering indicators - 2004. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
47. Nist, S. L., & Simpson, M. L. (2000). College studying. In P. P. M. L. Kamil, D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 645-666). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48. Norris, S. P., & Philips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
49. Norris, S. P. P. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 947-967.
50. O'Brien, E., & Myers, J. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom-up. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. Ohlsson, S. (2002). Generating and understanding qualitative explanations. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 91-128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52. Pardo, R., & Calvo, F. (2004). The cognitive dimension of public perceptions of science: Methodological issues. Public Understanding of Science, 13 (3). 203-237.
53. Pellechia, M. G. (1997). Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US papers. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 49-68.
54. Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55. Roller, C. M. (1990). The interaction between knowledge and structure variables in the processing of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 78-89.
56. Shortland, M. (1988). Advocating science: Literacy and public understanding. Impact of Science on Society, 38, 305-316.
57. Stamm, K. R., Clark, F., & Reynolds-Eblacas, P. (2000). Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: The case of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 219-237.
58. Stovall, J. G. (2002). Writing for the mass media. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
59. Sutman, F. X. (1996). Scientific literacy, a functional definition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 459-460.
60. van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Discourse analysis: Its development and application to the structure of news. Journal of Communication, 33 (2). 20-43.
61. van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Structures of news in the press. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse and communication: New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication (Vol. 10, pp. 69-93). New York: Walter de Gruter.
62. van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
63. Viswanath, K., Kahn, E., Finnegan, J. R., Hertog, J., & Potter, J. (1993). Motivation and the "knowledge gap": Effects of a campaign to reduce diet-related cancer risk. Communication Research, 20, 546-563.
64. Voss, J. F., & Silfies, L. N. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 45-68.
65. Wellington, J. (1991). Newspaper science, schools science: Friends or enemies? International Journal of Science Education, 13, 363-372.
66. Woodward, A. (1993). Introduction: Learning from textbooks. In A. W. B. K. Britton & M. Binkley (Eds.), Learning from textbooks (pp. vii - x). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67. Zimmerman, C., Bisanz, G. K., Bisanz, J., Klein, J. S., & Klein, P. (2001). Science at the supermarket: A comparison of what appears in the popular press, experts' advice to readers, and what students want to know. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 37-58.