Learning from texts: activation of information from previous texts during reading

Abstract

Learning often involves integration of information from multiple texts. The aim of the current study was to determine whether relevant information from previously read texts is spontaneously activated during reading, allowing for integration between texts (experiment 1 and 2), and whether this process is related to the representation of the texts (experiment 2). In both experiments, texts with inconsistent target sentences were preceded by texts that either did or did not contain explanations that resolved the inconsistencies. In experiment 1, the reading times of the target sentences introducing inconsistencies were faster if the preceding text contained an explanation for the inconsistency than if it did not. This result demonstrates that relevant information from a prior text is spontaneously activated when the target sentence is read. In experiment 2 free recall was used to gain insight into the representation after reading. The reading time results for experiment 2 replicated the reading time results for experiment 1. However, the effects on reading times did not translate to measurable differences in text representations after reading. This research extends our knowledge about the processes involved in multiple text comprehension: Prior text information is spontaneously activated during reading, thereby enabling integration between different texts.

Children’s integration of information across texts: reading processes and knowledge representations

“…These findings dovetail with those on adult readers that show that even experienced readers often fail to detect inconsistencies within a text unless they are prompted by specific reading goals or by textual cues that highlight the inconsistencies (e.g., Albrecht & Myers, 1995;Lea, Mulligan, & Walton, 2005). Integration across multiple texts is likely to be even be more challenging (Salmerón, Strømsø, Kammerer, Stadtler, & van den Broek, 2018), for example because the information is usually separated over a larger distance (Beker et al, 2016) or may be contradictory (Stadtler & Bromme, 2014); in addition, overlap between the texts may not be recognized (Kurby, Britt, & Magliano, 2005).…”

“…Thus, the only difference between the conditions is whether the first text provides an explanation for the second text or not, so any difference in the processing of the second text can only be attributed to activation of information (i.e., the explanation) from the first text. Previous research with adults has demonstrated that the inconsistent target sentence in the second text is processed faster in the condition with explanations than in the condition without explanations (Beker et al, 2016). This speed-up indicates activation of information from the first text during reading of the second text, leading to co-activation of information from both texts.…”

“…When reading multiple texts about the same topic, readers can also activate information from an earlier text when reading a later text (Beker, Jolles, Lorch, & van den Broek, 2016;Britt & Rouet, 2012;Perfetti, Rouet, & Britt, 1999), leading to co-activation of information from the two texts (Kendeou & O'Brien, 2014;Kintsch, 1988;van den Broek et al, 1996). As a result of this co-activation, a connection can be established between the elements of information from the two texts.…”

“…The aims of the current study were to determine: (1) whether upper elementary school children are able to resolve inconsistencies by integrating information across different text passages about the same topic, (2) whether they do so spontaneously, and (3) whether they incorporate intertextual connections (i.e., connections linking different text passages) into memory. In order to answer these questions, the Multiple-Text Integration Paradigm (M-TIP) was used (Beker et al, 2016). In this paradigm participants read multiple short text passages about different topics.…”

“…We created a child-friendly version of the multiple-text integration paradigm (M-TIP; Beker et al, 2016). Children read expository text 2 pairs, in which the second text contained an internal inconsistency, and the first text either contained or did not contain an explanation that could help resolve the inconsistency in the second text 3 (the Inconsistent-with-explanation and Inconsistent-without-explanation conditions, respectively).…”