The effects of interaction with the device described by procedural text on recall, true/false, and task performance

Abstract

In two experiments, subjects interacted to different extents with relevant devices while reading two complex multistep procedural texts and were then tested with task performance time, true/false, and recall measures, Whilereading, subjects performed the task (read and do), saw the experimenter perform the task (read and see experimenter do), imagined doing the task (read and imagine), looked at the device while reading (read and see), or only read (read only), Van Dijk and Kintsch's (1983) text representation theory led to the prediction that exposure to the task device (in the read-and-do, read-and-see, and read-and-see-experimenter-do conditions) would lead to the development of a stronger situation model and therefore faster task performance, whereas the read-only and read-andsee conditions would lead to a better textbase, and therefore better performance on the true/false and recall tasks. Paivio's (1991) dual coding theory led to the opposite prediction for recalL The results supported the text representation theory with task performance and recalL The read-and-see condition produced consistently good performance on the true/false measure. Amount of text study time contributed to recall performance, These findings support the notion that information available while reading leads to differential development of representations in memory, which, in turn, causes differences in performance on various measures, How do readers' interactions with the device described by a procedural text affect memory and comprehension of the text and the ability to perform the task described by a text? To answer this question, in two experiments we had readers interact with procedural texts to different extents and in different ways. For example, they performed the task while reading, only looked at the device described by the text while reading, or only read the text.Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) proposed that as a reader reads, propositional and situational representations are formed in long-term memory. The propositional representation (or textbase) holds the text's meaning, and the situational model represents the situation described by the text. Van Dijk and Kintsch have proposed that these representations can be developed differentially while reading and that the extent to which they are developed leads to differences in performance on various measures, For Experiment I was supported in part by a grant from the u.s. Army Human Engineering Laboratory (Contract DAAAI5-87-KOOO-4) to American Institutes for Research. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Corliss Cartier, Jill Crockett, Teresa Lachman-Jones, Sharon Metro, Lien-chong Mou, Deborah Quick, and Stacey Swain in running the subjects and/or scoring the data. We also thank Danielle McNamara, Ruth Maki, and Peter Dixon for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Requests for reprints may be addressed to Virginia A. Diehl, Psychology Department, Western Illinois University, Macomb, lL 61455. example, the development of a propositional represe...

Repetition and dual coding in procedural multimedia presentations

“…These findings complement existing research demonstrating the effectiveness of the multimedia format in conveying both procedural (Brunyé et al, 2006;Diehl & Mills, 1995;Glenberg & Langston, 1992;Marcus et al, 1996;Stone & Glock, 1981;Zacks & Tversky, 2003; but see Novick & Morse, 2000) and declarative information (e.g. First, these results demonstrate that multimedia facilitates memory for procedural sequences, as well as performance on assembly tasks that rely on such memory.…”

Multimedia Presentations

“…First, these results demonstrate that multimedia facilitates memory for procedural sequences, as well as performance on assembly tasks that rely on such memory. These findings complement existing research demonstrating the effectiveness of the multimedia format in conveying both procedural (Brunyé et al, 2006;Diehl & Mills, 1995;Glenberg & Langston, 1992;Marcus et al, 1996;Stone & Glock, 1981;Zacks & Tversky, 2003; but see Novick & Morse, 2000) and declarative information (e.g. Levie & Lentz, 1982;Mayer, 1989;Mayer, 1997;Mayer, 2001;Mayer, Steinhoff, et al, 1995;Mayer & Gallini, 1990;Peeck, 1994;Sweller, 1999).…”

The Relationships Between Need for Cognition, Boredom Proneness, Task Engagement, and Test Performance

“…In an earlier study, Diehl and Mills (1995) used a number of conditions to test van Dijk and Kintsch's (1983) text representation theory. This theory suggests that, when reading, the reader develops both propositional and situational mental representations.…”

“…To simply remember the ideas contained in that sentence does not necessarily imply that the individual genuinely understands the instruction and will be able to carry it out. Diehl and Mills's (1995, Study 2) task engagement conditions included Read Only (only reading the procedural text), Read & Watch (reading and watching the experimenter do the task), and Read & Do (reading and doing the task themselves). As predicted, participants in both the Read & Do and Read & Watch conditions did well on the task performance measure because they were both forced to be engaged with doing the task.…”