Processing and memory of central versus peripheral information as a function of reading goals: evidence from eye-movements

Reading and Writing

Volumn 28, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 1071-1097

  Yeari, Menahem ^a,b   van den Broek, Paul ^b   Oudega, Marja ^b  

^a BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Centrality; Close ended questions; Eye tracking; Online processing; Open ended questions; Reading goals; Reading time; Text memory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940453061     PISSN: 09224777     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-015-9561-4     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1991). Effects of centrality on retrieval of text-based concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,17, 932.
2. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Study process questionnaire manual. Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.
3. Birkmire, D. P. (1985). Text processing: The influence of text structure, background knowledge, and purpose. Reading Research Quarterly,20, 314–326.
4. Blanchard, H. E., & Iran-Nejad, A. (1987). Comprehension processes and eye movement patterns in the reading of surprise-ending stories. Discourse Processes,10, 127–138.
5. Bower, G. H. (1976). Experiments on story understanding and recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,28, 511–534.
6. Britton, B. K., Meyer, B. J. F., Hodge, M. H., & Glynn, S. M. (1980). Effects of the organization of text on memory: Tests of retrieval and response criterion hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,6, 620–629.
7. Britton, B. K., Meyer, B. J. E., Simpson, R., Holdredge, T. S., & Curry, C. (1979). Effects of the organization of text on memory: Tests of two implications of a selective attention hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory,5, 496–506.
8. Britton, B. K., Muth, K. D., & Glynn, S. M. (1986). Effects of text organization on memory: Test of a cognitive effort hypothesis with limited exposure time. Discourse Processes,9, 475–487.
9. Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development,48, 1–8.
10. Cirilo, R. K., & Foss, D. J. (1980). Text structure and reading time for sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,19, 96–109.
11. Clark, H. H. (1977). Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 411–420). London: Cambridge University Press.
12. Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341–372). Oxford: Elsevier.
13. Craik, E. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,11, 671–684.
14. Foos, P. W., & Clark, M. C. (1983). Learning from text: Effects of input order and expected test. Human Learning,2, 177–185.
15. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology,14, 178–210.
16. Goetz, E. T., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Radin, D. I. (1983). Reading in perspective: What real cops and pretend burglars look for in a story. Journal of Educational Psychology,75, 500–510.
17. Gomulicki, B. R. (1956). Recall as an abstractive process. Acta Psychologica,12, 77–94.
18. Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F, Jr, & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology,94, 44.
19. Hyönä, J., & Niemi, P. (1990). Eye movements in repeated reading of a text. Acta Psychologies,73, 259–280.
20. Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2005). Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking and recall. Discourse Processes,40, 239–257.
21. Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2008). Perspective-driven text comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology,22, 319–334.
22. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., & Keenan, J. (2002). Perspective effects on on-line text processing. Discourse Processes,33, 159–173.
23. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2003). How prior knowledge, working memory capacity, and relevance of information affect eye-fixations in expository text. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,29, 447–457.
24. Keenan, J. M., & Brown, P. (1984). Children’s reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in a text. Child Development,55, 1556–1569.
25. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction–integration model. Psychological Review,95, 163–182.
26. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Kintsch, W., Kozminsky, E., Streby, W. J., McKoon, G., & Keenan, J. M. (1975). Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,14, 196–214.
28. Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology,94, 778–784.
29. Linderholm, T., & Zhao, Q. (2008). The impact of strategy instruction and timing of estimates on low and high working-memory capacity readers’ absolute monitoring accuracy. Learning and Individual Differences,18, 135–143.
30. Lorch, R. F, Jr, & Lorch, E. P. (1986). On-line processing of summary and importance signals in reading. Discourse Processes,9, 489–496.
31. Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College students’ conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,85, 239.
32. Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Mogan, A. M. (1987). Task effects and individual differences in on-line processing of the topic structure of a text. Discourse Processes,101, 63–80.
33. Mandler, J. M. A. (1978). Code in the node: The use of a story schema in retrieval. Discourse Processes,1, 14–35.
34. Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. J. Hounsell, & N. J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 36–55). Edinburgh: Academic Press.
35. McConkie, G. W., Rayner, K., & Wilson, S. J. (1973). Experimental manipulation of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology,65, 1–8.
36. McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review,19, 113–139.
37. Meyer, B. J. E. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
38. Meyer, B. J., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly,16, 72–103.
39. Miller, A. C., & Keenan, J. M. (2009). How word reading skill impacts text memory: The centrality deficit and how domain knowledge can compensate. Annals of Dyslexia,59, 99–113.
40. Mills, C. B., Diehl, V. A., Birkmire, D. P., & Mou, L. C. (1995). Reading procedural texts: Effects of purpose for reading and predictions of reading comprehension models. Discourse Processes,20, 79–107.
41. Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P., & Barron-Ruiz, A. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,91, 488–496.
42. Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Kurby, C. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Comparing comprehension measured by multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,67, 215–227.
43. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin,124, 372–422.
44. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,62, 1457–1506.
45. Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J. (2006). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading,10, 241–255.
46. Rayner, K., Garrod, S., & Perfetti, C. A. (1992). Discourse influences during parsing are delayed. Cognition,45, 109–139.
47. Rayner, K., & Sereno, S. C. (1994). Regressive eye movements and sentence parsing: On the use of regression contingent analyses. Memory & Cognition,22, 281–285.
48. Ross, M. E., Green, S. B., Salisbury-Glennon, J. D., & Tollefson, N. (2006). College students’ study strategies as a function of testing: An investigation into metacognitive self-regulation. Innovative Higher Education,30, 361–375.
49. Schoeller, B. A. (2005). The effects of reading goals on learning in a computer mediated environment. Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline,2, 405–422.
50. Schraw, G., Wade, S. E., & Kardash, C. A. (1993). Interactive effects of text-based and task-based importance on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology,85, 652–661.
51. Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education,35, 453–472.
52. Shebilske, W. L., & Fisher, D. F. (1983). Eye movements and context effects during reading of extended discourse. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes (pp. 153–179). New York: Academic Press.
53. Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. Freedle (Ed.), New Direcrions in discourse processing II. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
54. Tang, K. C. C. (1992). Perceptions of task demand, strategy attributions and student learning. Research and Development in Higher Education,15, 474–481.
55. Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2011). Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy. British Journal of Educational Psychology,81, 264–273.
56. Thomas, P. R., & Bain, J. D. (1984). Contextual dependence of learning approaches: The effects of assessments. Human Learning,3, 227–240.
57. Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology,9, 77–110.
58. Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L. L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language,24, 595–611.
59. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language,33, 285–318.
60. van den Broek, P. (1988). The effects of causal relations and hierarchical position on the importance of story statements. Journal of Memory and Language,27, 1–22.
61. van den Broek, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., Kendeou, P., Carlson, S., & White, M. J. (2011). When a reader meets a text: The role of standards of coherence in reading comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 123–140). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
62. van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F, Jr, Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition,29, 1081–1087.
63. van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes,39, 299–316.
64. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
65. Vauras, M., Hyönä, J., & Niemi, P. (1992). Comprehending coherent and incoherent texts: Evidence from eye movement patterns and recall performance. Journal of Research in Reading,15, 39–54.
66. Watkins, D. (1983). Depth of processing and the quality of learning outcomes. Instructional Science,12, 49–58.