Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study

Contemporary Educational Psychology

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 229-241

  McCrudden, Matthew T ^a   Magliano, Joseph P ^b   Schraw, Gregory ^c  

^a VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

^b NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

Goal focusing; Mixed methods; Relevance instructions; Text processing

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956344877     PISSN: 0361476X     EISSN: 10902384     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.12.001     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Alexander P.A. The path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading. Journal of Literacy Research 1997, 37:413-436.
2. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives 2001, Addison Wesley Longman, New York. L. Anderson, D. Krathwohl (Eds.).
3. Azevedo R., Guthrie J.T., Seibert D. The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students' conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2004, 30:87-111.
4. Bråten I., Samuelstuen M.S. Does the influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students' topic knowledge?. Journal of Educational Psychology 2004, 96:324-336.
5. Burton C., Daneman M. Compensating for a limited working memory capacity during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Reading Psychology 2007, 28:163-186.
6. Cain K., Oakhill J.V. Inference making and its relation to comprehension failure. Reading and Writing 1999, 11:489-503.
7. Cataldo M.G., Oakhill J.V. Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on ability to locate information in a text. Journal of Educational Psychology 2000, 92:791-799.
8. Cerdán R., Vidal-Abarca E. The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology 2008, 100:209-222.
9. Chulef A.S., Read S.J., Walsh D.A. A hierarchical taxonomy of human goals. Motivation and Emotion 2001, 25:191-232.
10. Coté N., Goldman S.R. Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children's think-aloud protocols. The construction of mental representations during reading 1999, 169-193. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. H. van Oostendorp, S.R. Goldman (Eds.).
11. Creswell J.W., Plano Clark V.L. Designing and conducting mixed methods research 2007, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
12. Cunningham A.E., Stanovich K.E. Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology 1997, 33:934-945.
13. Eggen P.D., Kauchak D. Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms 2010, Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 8th ed.
14. Ekstrom R.B., French J.W., Harman H.H., Derman D. Kit of factor referenced tests 1976, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
15. Fox E. The role of reader characteristics in processing and learning from informational text. Review of Educational Research 2009, 79:197-261.
16. Gernsbacher M.A. Language comprehension as structure building 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
17. Goetz E.T., Schallert D.L., Reynolds R.E., Radin D.I. Reading in perspective: What real cops and pretend burglars look for in a story. Journal of Educational Psychology 1983, 75:500-510.
18. Graesser A.C., Singer M., Trabasso T. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 1994, 101:371-395.
19. Guthrie J.T., Wigfield A., Barbosa P., Perencevich K.C., Taboada A., Davis M.H., et al. Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 2004, 96:403-423.
20. Hyönä J., Lorch R.F., Kaakinen J.K. Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology 2002, 94:44-55.
21. Igo L.B., Bruning R.B., McCrudden M.T. Exploring differences in students' copy and paste decision-making and processing: A mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology 2005, 97:103-116.
22. Igo L.B., Bruning R.H., Riccomini P.J. Should middle school studentswith learning problems copy and paste notes from the Internet? Mixed methods evidence of study barriers. Research on Middle Level Education Online 2009, 33:1-10.
23. Igo L.B., Kiewra K.A., Bruning R.B. Individual differences and intervention flaws: A sequential explanatory study of college students' copy-and-paste note taking. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2008, 2:149-168.
24. Kaakinen J.K., Hyönä J. Perspective effects in repeated reading: An eye movement study. Memory & Cognition 2007, 35:1323-1336.
25. Kaakinen J.K., Hyönä J., Keenan J.M. Perspective effects on online text processing. Discourse Processes 2002, 33:159-173.
26. Kardash C.M., Noel L.K. How organizational signals, need for cognition, and verbal ability affect text recall and recognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2000, 25:317-331.
27. Kintsch W. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review 1988, 95:163-182.
28. Kintsch W. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition 1998, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
29. Kirsch I., de Jong J., Lafontaine D., McQueen J., Mendelovits J., Monseur C. Reading for change: Performance and engagement across countries. Results from PISA 2000 2002, OECD, Paris.
30. Kirschner P.A., Sweller J., Clark R.E. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 2006, 41:75-86.
31. Kulikowich, J. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2010). Intentionality to learn in an academic domain: The roles of goals and plans in knowledge acquisition. Educational Psychologist, submitted for publication.
32. Lehman S., Schraw G. Effects of coherence and relevance on shallow and deep text processing. Journal of Educational Psychology 2002, 94:738-750.
33. Linderholm T., van den Broek P. The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology 2002, 94:778-784.
34. Lorch R.F., Lorch E.P., Klusewitz M.A. College students' conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 1993, 85:239-252.
35. Lorch R.F., van den Broek P. Understanding reading comprehension: Current and future contributions of cognitive science. Contemporary Educational Psychology 1997, 22:213-246.
36. Magliano J.P., Trabasso T., Graesser A.C. Strategic processes during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 1999, 91:615-629.
37. Maxwell J.A. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach 1996, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
38. McCrudden M.T., Schraw G. Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review 2007, 19:113-139.
39. McCrudden M.T., Schraw G., Kambe G. The effect of relevance instructions on reading time and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 2005, 97:88-102.
40. McNamara D.S., Magliano J.P. Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. The psychology of learning and motivation 2009, vol. 51:297-384. Elsevier Science, New York, NY, US.
41. Miles M.B., Huberman A.M. Qualitative data analysis 1994, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
42. Moreland J.L., Dansereau D.F., Chmielewski T.L. Recall of descriptive information: The roles of presentation format, annotation strategy, and individual differences. Contemporary Educational Psychology 1997, 22:521-533.
43. Myers J., O'Brien E. Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes 1998, 26:131-157.
44. Narvaez D., van den Broek P., Ruiz A.B. The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 1999, 91:488-496.
45. Perfetti C.A. Reading ability 1985, Oxford University Press, New York.
46. Perfetti C.A., Landi N., Oakhill J.V. The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. The science of reading: Handbook of reading research 2005, Blackwell, Oxford. M.J. Snowling, C. Hume (Eds.).
47. Rapp D.N., Kendeou P. Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition 2007, 35:2019-2032.
48. Reynolds R.E. Selective attention and prose learning: Theoretical and empirical research. Educational Psychology Review 1992, 4:345-391.
49. Reynolds R.E., Shepard C., Lapan R., Kreek C., Goetz E.T. Difference in the use of selective attention by more successful and less successful tenth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology 1990, 82:749-759.
50. Rouet J.-F. The skills of document use 2006, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
51. Rouet J.-F., Vidal-Abarca E., Bert-Erboul A., Millogo V. Effects of information search tasks on the comprehension of instructional text. Discourse Processes 2001, 31:163-186.
52. Schraw G., Wade S.E., Kardash C.A. Interactive effects of text-based and task-based importance on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology 1993, 85:652-661.
53. Shank G.D. Qualitative research: A personal skills approach 2006, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 2nd ed.
54. Skaggs L.P., Rocklin T.R., Dansereau R.H., Hall R.H., O'Donnell A.M., Lambiotte J.G., et al. Dyadic learning of technical material: Individual differences, social interaction, and recall. Contemporary Educational Psychology 1990, 15:47-63.
55. Sperber D., Wilson D. Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language 2002, 17:3-23. [Special issue: Pragmatics and cognitive science].
56. Taboada A., Guthrie J.T. Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research 2006, 38:1-35.
57. Tashakkori A., Teddlie C. Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches 1998, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
58. Teddlie C., Kirby P., Stringfield S. Effective versus ineffective schools: Observable differences in the classroom. American Journal of Education 1989, 97:221-236.
59. Teddlie C., Yu F. Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2007, 1:77-100.
60. van den Broek P., Lorch R.F., Linderholm T., Gustafson M. The effects of readers' goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition 2001, 29:1081-1087.
61. van den Broek P., Rapp D.N., Kendeou P. Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes 2005, 39:299-316.
62. van den Broek P., Risden K., Husebye-Hartmann E. The role of readers' standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during. Sources of coherence in reading 1995, 353-374. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ. R.F. Lorch, E.J. O'Brien (Eds.).
63. van den Broek P., Virtue S., Everson M.G., Tzeng Y., Sung Y. Comprehension and memory of science texts: Inferential processes and the construction of a mental representation. The psychology of science text comprehension 2002, 131-154. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. J. Otero, J.A. Leon, A.C. Graesser (Eds.).
64. Walczyk J.J., Wei M., Grifith-Ross D.A., Goubert S.E., Cooper A.L., Zha P. Development of the interplay between automatic processes and cognitive resources in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 2007, 99:867-887.
65. Wiley J., Goldman S.R., Graesser A.C., Sanchez C.A., Ash I.K., Hemmerick J. Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Association Journal 2009, 46:1060-1106.
66. Wolfe M.B.W., Goldman S.R. Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction 2005, 23:467-502.
67. Zwann R.A., Radvansky G.A. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 1998, 123:162-185.