In three experiments, the demand that text processing imposes on learners' cognitive capacity was measured with a secondary-task technique. In all experiments, the meaning of the textual materials was held constant while several structural (surface) variables were manipulated. Experiment 1 showed that text versions with simplified vocabulary and syntax (but equivalent content) required less cognitive capacity to process than standard versions. Experiment 2 revealed that the reduction in use of cognitive capacity observed in Experiment 1 was due primarily to syntactic factors. Finally, Experiment 3 demonstrated that texts containing signals about idea importance and idea relations required less cognitive capacity to process than texts with approximately the same propositional content, but no such signals. In each experiment, measures of total inspection time and content recall were also secured. In general, the findings of all three experiments indicated that aspects of the surface structure of text made demands on the reader's cognitive processing capacity.Appreciation is due for stimulating and helpful discussion of these results to

No abstract

No abstract

It is well established that the provision of instructional objectives before reading a text increases the learning of objective-relevant material in the text. The purpose of the present study was to identify some of the mechanisms by which objectives affect learning. College students studied text under three conditions: with specific objectives, with a general objective, and with no objectives. The objective-relevant material was located either high or low in the content structure of the text. The dependent measures were secondary task reaction time—a measure of cognitive capacity use—reading time, and free recall for objective-relevant material. The results indicated that with specific objectives, the secondary-task reaction times while reading objective-relevant material were longer, reading times were longer, and recall was greater than with either a general objective or with no objectives. Reading times were significantly correlated with recall, but secondary task reaction times were not. In addition, more information was recalled when the objective-relevant material was located high in the text structure. The interpretation of these results is that, with specific objectives, students devote more cognitive capacity to objective-relevant material, spend more time reading it, and recall more of it than when they do not have specific objectives.