Novice rules for assessing importance in scientific texts

Dee-Lucas, Diana; Larkin, Jill H.

doi:10.1016/0749-596x(88)90056-3

Cited by 35 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As regard to the first main purpose, domain's deep principles of experts [45][46][47] are crucial to process new situations. Therefore, in the present study, effects of prior knowledge were considered as effects of general domain principles.…”

Section: Purposes and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploratory Study of Relations Between Prior Knowledge, Comprehension, Disorientation and On-Line Processes in Hypertext

Amadieu¹,

Tricot²

2009

TOERGJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An exploratory experiment was carried out in order to question the relationships between prior knowledge, comprehension performance, on-line processes and disorientation in a non-linear document (hypertext). 14 participants read a non-linear document about a virus' infectiousness process which imposed to learners to construct themselves their reading orders and also a structure of the document. Correlational analyses were conducted to test the relations between the variables. Results indicated that the prior knowledge was positively correlated with the learning performance, the coherence of the reading orders, and negatively with the time spent to construct a document structure. Correlations between the prior knowledge and the disorientation indicated a marginal negative relation. The results stressed also significant correlations between the on-line processes and the comprehension performance. Interestingly, the observed correlations between the on-line processes and the disorientation suggested that the disorientation was function of difficulties to construct the document structure rather than difficulties to construct a reading order. The present study highlighted how prior knowledge constitutes resources to process non-linear documents and what type of on-line processes are related to disorientation.

show abstract

Section: Purposes and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploratory Study of Relations Between Prior Knowledge, Comprehension, Disorientation and On-Line Processes in Hypertext

Amadieu¹,

Tricot²

2009

TOERGJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

“…This schema is in the form of rules that specify what types of information are important in these texts. Only beginninglevel students appear to possess these information-type rules; they are not found with naive subjects (i.e., those without domain-related training) or experts (Dee-Lucas & Larkin, 1988). Thus these rules are the result of limited domain-related training.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This indicates that novices do not distinguish between the important and unimportant content within these type categories. As noted earlier, novices (but not experts) judge definitions as more important than facts, even when the content of the two sentence types is held constant in experimental texts (Dee-Lucas & Larkin, 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These rules are domain specific in that naive subjects (i.e., subjects without domain train--ing) do not possess these rules. Dee-Lucas and Larkin (1988) demonstrated this rule use in a series of experiments in which they manipulated the category membership of information without altering its substantive content and had subjects varying in expertise judge its importance. They found that naive subjects judged the same content as equal in importance regardless of its sentence-category membership.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Attentional strategies for studying scientific texts

Dee-Lucas

Larkin

1988

Memory & Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Content-area novices develop rules as to what types of information (e.g., definitions, facts, equations) are important in texts (Dee-Lucas & Larkin, 1988).The study reported here indicates that these rules influence text learning. Experts and novices read and recalled science texts. Reading times and recall for different types of content were compared for the two groups. Results indicate that novices' importance rules function as part of novices' control schema during reading, influencing their attentional processes and the resulting representation formed for the text. This was evident in qualitative differences between experts and novices in their attentional patterns and text recall. The study also found that the number of passage readings and the passage topic have a greater influence on the reading times of experts, but both groups adjust processing time according to the hierarchical level of the passage content. The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for novices learning from texts.

show abstract

The reading–science learning–writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises

Holliday

Yore

Alvermann³

1994

J Res Sci Teach

173

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article establishes a broad framework from which to interpret and evaluate the reading–science learning–writing connection. The presentation of breakthroughs, barriers, and promises is intended to outline the established links between, to identify current bottlenecks in thinking about, and to highlight productive inquiries into, print‐based languages and scientific understanding. The ideas presented come from various disciplines connected to science education. The ideas are meant to be informative, provocative, integrative, supportive, and without hidden agenda.

show abstract

Novice rules for assessing importance in scientific texts

Cited by 35 publications

References 7 publications

Exploratory Study of Relations Between Prior Knowledge, Comprehension, Disorientation and On-Line Processes in Hypertext

Exploratory Study of Relations Between Prior Knowledge, Comprehension, Disorientation and On-Line Processes in Hypertext

Attentional strategies for studying scientific texts

The reading–science learning–writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About