College students' conditional knowledge about reading.

Abstract

Strategic reading requires not only a repertoire of processing strategies but also knowledge about the conditions under which a given strategy is relevant. This study examined college students' conditional knowledge about reading. Subjects sorted descriptions of reading situations according to how they believe they read in each situation. Cluster analyses of the resulting distance matrixes identified 10 distinct categories of reading situations. Ratings of the cognitive demands of the reading situations supported the interpretations of the sorting data and suggested how reading patterns vary across different texts and task demands. The 10 distinct reading categories constitute a first approximation to a typology of reading situations that may serve as a framework for organizing research on reading strategies.

The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts

“…We had not expected this, because selfmonitoringis a strategy frequently used by good comprehenders, particularly in study situations (Lorch et al, 1993;Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Closer inspection of the monitoring responses revealed, however, that the range of responses in this category was quite broad.…”

“…College students read a text for the purpose of preparing for an essay examination or for the purpose of entertainment. We selected these two purposes because students perceive reading for entertainment and reading for study as very distinctreading "modes," and furthermore, there is reasonable agreement within each condition about what constitutes an appropriate approach to reading (Lorch et al, 1995;Lorch et al, 1993). Thus, the two tasks should contrast sharply in the standards of coherence they lead readers to adopt.…”

The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading.

“…To do so, we contrasted reading for entertainment and reading for study. These two purposes reflect the most frequent distinction that readers make in their introspections about their own reading behaviors (Lorch et al, 1993) and thus are likely to evoke differences in inferential behaviors. If readers are sensitive to the purposes with which they read and are able to modulate their comprehension activities accordingly, we would expect to find differences in the inferences that are generated.…”

“…Furthermore, readers claim to modify their reading strategies according to reading purpose. For example, Lorch, Lorch, and Klusewitz (1993) asked readers what different kinds of reading tasks they experienced and how they perceived the processing demands for the different types of reading tasks. The participants broadly distinguished two categories of reading tasks: reading for school (study) purposes and reading for stimulation (entertainment purposes).…”

Motivated comprehension regulation: Vigilant versus eager metacognitive control

“…The influence of motivation on comprehension regulation in the context of students' achievement goals has been considered in several previous studies. For example, students report being more likely to use deep processing strategies, such as self-testing and rereading, when they have the goal of studying for an exam relative to when they are reading for enjoyment (Lorch, Pugzles Lorch, & Klusewitz, 1993). Similarly, students who pursue their studies with the aim of mastering new skills (a mastery goal) report being more likely to use deep processing strategies than students who pursue their studies with the aim of demonstrating their abilities (a performance goal) (Ames & Archer, 1988;Nolen, 1988).…”