A natural inquiry into the national enquirer: Self‐induced versus task‐induced reading comprehension∗

Graesser, Arthur C.; Higginbotham, Michael W.; Robertson, Scott P.; Smith, William Ray

doi:10.1080/01638537809544445

Cited by 19 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The "narrative bias" effect investigated by Graesser, Higgenbothan, Robertson, and Smith (1978) suggests another explanation why the narrative chapter did not lead to superior student performance on the achievement posttest. These researchers found that students retained more narrative-type information (e.g., actions by characters) than static information (e.g., names, definitions) but only under a free-choice reading condition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Effects of Expository and Narrative Prose on Student Achievement and Attitudes Toward Textbooks

Cunningham¹,

Gall²

1990

The Journal of Experimental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Effects of Expository and Narrative Prose on Student Achievement and Attitudes Toward Textbooks

Cunningham¹,

Gall²

1990

The Journal of Experimental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Altering texts by incorporating elaborations of main themes or inducing readers to resolve incomplete problems increased ratings of interest but not recall. Graesser, Higginbotham, Robertson, and Smith (1978) found that students recalled more active (comparable to narrative) than static (comparable to expository) information for material read voluntarily, but these differences disappeared when students were instructed to read text purposefully.…”

Section: Expository and Narrative Textsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Interest and metacognitive word knowledge.

Tobias¹

1995

Journal of Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It was hypothesized that students' metacognition would be enhanced on content that aroused situational interest or that was related to students' topic interests. A metacognitive evaluation procedure was used in which students estimated their word knowledge, which was then determined objectively by a multiple-choice vocabulary test. Students could then update their vocabulary knowledge by reading a passage dealing with heart disease in which all of the previously encountered words were defined explicitly or implicitly. With differences in prior knowledge controlled, nursing students, for whom the content was related to topic interests, made more accurate metacognitive judgments than did freshmen. None of the other main effects or interactions was significant. The implications of the findings for research on interest, its relationship to prior knowledge, and the assessment of metacognition are discussed.

show abstract

“…Graesser et al reported that memory for causal sequences embedded in an article was better than memory for "static" facts. The present study differed from that of Graesser et al (1978) in that it was designed to comment on a broader range of issues concerning reading in the natural setting.…”

Section: Goals Of the Present Studymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In one study of natural reading, Graesser, Higgenbotham, Robertson, and Smith (1978) left copies of the National Enquirer in a subject waiting room and gave memory tests to those subjects who read critical stories while they awaited the experimenter. Graesser et al reported that memory for causal sequences embedded in an article was better than memory for "static" facts.…”

Section: Goals Of the Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing memory for natural and laboratory reading.

Singer¹

1982

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many findings concerning reading comprehension during the past decade have been based on the study of reading in the laboratory. Laboratory reading, however, may involve shallower processing or entail different goals than natural reading. To determine whether laboratory reading is a satisfactory approximation of natural reading, college students were assigned to natural or laboratory reading conditions depending on whether they had read a particular newspaper article or not. The laboratory readers viewed the article on television screens. Tests of free recall, recognition, and interestingness were administered immediately (to laboratory readers only), 1 day, 2 wk., or 6 wk. after reading.The free recall analyses used the principles of text analysis, scoring, and evaluation of Kintsch and van Dijk (1978). Natural and laboratory readers were highly similar in the proportion of macro-and micropropositions they recalled, in the ratio of reproductive to reconstructive recall, and in the memory parameters provided by Kintsch and van Dijk's (1978) coherence graph model. In recognition, natural and laboratory readers showed similar profiles of performance, although laboratory readers scored higher. It is proposed that this advantage resulted from the laboratory readers' particular concern with the superficial details of the message. Finally, natural readers rated the article more interesting than laboratory readers did.It is important that the analyses revealed, for both laboratory and natural readers, familiar effects including (a) better memory for macro-than micropropositions, (b) decreasing performance with test delay, and (c) increasingly reconstructive recall with increased delay. These effects coupled with the similarity of the natural and laboratory readers, provide reassurance that it is reasonable to treat laboratory reading as an approximation of natural reading.

show abstract

A natural inquiry into the national enquirer: Self‐induced versus task‐induced reading comprehension∗

Cited by 19 publications

References 10 publications

The Effects of Expository and Narrative Prose on Student Achievement and Attitudes Toward Textbooks

The Effects of Expository and Narrative Prose on Student Achievement and Attitudes Toward Textbooks

Interest and metacognitive word knowledge.

Comparing memory for natural and laboratory reading.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About