Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 345–391 | Cite as

Selective attention and prose learning: Theoretical and empirical research

  • Ralph E. Reynolds
Article

Abstract

Results from traditional selective attention research suggest the selective attention strategy is not an adequate general explanation for why readers tend to learn and recall important text information better than less important text information. Selected research is reviewed in which conceptual, analytical, and methodological problems with this traditional research are discussed. Results from recent research are reported that support the notion that any understanding of how the selective attention strategy works must take into account differences in readers' metacognitive ability and differences in the complexity of the iteration of the strategy that they employ. The discussion centers on the development of a modified (in terms of measures of attention) and fluid version of the selective attention strategy that seems to succeed as a general explanation for the “importance” effect.

Key words

selective attention importance salience prose learning causal regression analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, R. C. (1982). Allocation of attention during reading. In Flammer, A., and Kintsch, W. (Eds.),Discourse processing, North Holland Publishing Company, New York, pp. 292–305Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. C., and Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 17: 1–12.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., and Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse.Am. Educat. Res. J. 14: 367–382.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, R. C., Shirey, L. L., Wilson, P. T., and Fielding, L. G. (1984).Interestingness of Children's Reading Material (Technical Report No. 323). University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
  5. Asher, S. (1980). Topic interest and children's reading comprehension. In Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C., and Brewer, W. F. (Eds.),Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, Earlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  6. Britton, B. K., Piha, A., Davis, J., and Wehausen, E. (1978). Reading and cognitive capacity usage: Adjunct question effects.Mem. Cognit. 6: 266–273.Google Scholar
  7. Britton, B. K., Meyer, B. J. F., Simpson, R., Holdredge, T. S., and Curry, C. (1979). Effects of the organization of text memory: Tests of two implications of the selective attention hypothesis.J. Exp. Psychol. Human Learn. Mem. 5: 496–506.Google Scholar
  8. Britton, B. K., Meyer, B. J. F., Hodge, M. H., and Glynn, S. M. (1980a). Effects of the organization of text on memory: Tests of retrieval and response criterion hypotheses.J. Exp. Psychol. 6: 620–629.Google Scholar
  9. Britton B. K., Ziegler, R., and Westbrook, R. D. (1980b). Use of cognitive capacity in reading easy and difficult text: Two tests of an allocation of attention hypothesis.J. Read. Behav. 12: 23–30.Google Scholar
  10. Carroll, M., and Kirshner, K. (1982). Context and repetition effects in lexical decision and recognition memory.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 21: 55–69.Google Scholar
  11. Cirilo, R. K., and Foss, D. J. (1980). Text structure and reading time for sentences.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 19: 96–109.Google Scholar
  12. Driver, R., Guesne, E., and Tiberghiem, A. (eds.) (1985).Children's Ideas in Science, Open University Press, Philadelphia, Pennslyvannia.Google Scholar
  13. Franks, J. J., Plybon, C. J., and Auble, P. M. (1982). Units of episodic memory in perceptual recognition.Mem. Cognit. 10: 62–68.Google Scholar
  14. Frase, L. T. (1970). Boundary conditions for mathemagenic behaviors.Rev. Educat. Res. 40: 337–347.Google Scholar
  15. Garner, R, Gillingham, M. G., and White, J. (1989). Effects of seductive details on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children.Cognit. Instruct. 6: 41–57.Google Scholar
  16. Goetz, E. T., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., and Radin, D. I. (1983). Reading in perspective: What real cops and pretend burglars look for in a story.J. Educat. Psychol. 75: 500–510.Google Scholar
  17. Gottman, J. M. (1981).Time Series Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  18. Hidi, S., Baird, W., and Hilyard, A. (1982). That's important but is it interesting: Two factors in text processing, In Flammer, A., and Kintsch, W. (Eds.),Discourse Processing, North Holland, New York, pp. 63–75.Google Scholar
  19. Jacoby, L. L. (1983a). Perceptual enhancement: Persistent effects of an experience.J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn., Mem., Cognit., 9: 21–38.Google Scholar
  20. Jacoby, L. L. (1983b). Remembering the data: Analyzing interactive processes in reading.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 22: 485–508.Google Scholar
  21. Jacoby, L. L., and Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning.J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 3: 306–340.Google Scholar
  22. Kahneman, D. (1973).Attention and Effort, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  23. Kintsch, W. (1974).The Representation of Meaning in Memory, Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Kintsch, W., and Keenan, J. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences,Cognit. Psychol. 5: 257–274.Google Scholar
  25. Kintsch, W., and van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production,Psychol. Rev. 85: 363–394.Google Scholar
  26. Lapan, R., and Reynolds, R. E. (1992).The Selective Attention Strategy as a Time-Dependent Phenomenon. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  27. Mandler, J. G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgement of previous occurrence.Psychol. Rev. 85: 252–271.Google Scholar
  28. Ortony, A., Reynolds, R. E., and Arter, J. L. (1978a). Metaphor: Theoretical and empirical research.Psychol. Bull. 85(5): 919–943.Google Scholar
  29. Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., and Antos, S. J. (1978b). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 17: 465–477.Google Scholar
  30. Pichert, J. W., and Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story.J. Educat. Psychol. 69: 309–315.Google Scholar
  31. Posner, M. L., and Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of attention.Psychol. Rev. 78: 391–408.Google Scholar
  32. Reif, F. (1987). Instructional design, cognition, and technology: Applications to the teaching of scientific concepts.J. Res. Sci. Teach. 24: 309–324.Google Scholar
  33. Reynolds, R. E. (1979).The Effect of Attention on Learning and Recall of Important Text Elements. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign.Google Scholar
  34. Reynolds, R. E. (1980, April).Cognitive Capacity Usage in Prose Learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  35. Reynolds, R. E. (1992).Metaphors in Text: Implications for Theories of Prose Learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  36. Reynolds, R. E., and Anderson, R. C. (1982). Influence of questions on the allocation of attention during reading.J. Educat. Psychol. 74: 623–632.Google Scholar
  37. Reynolds, R. E., and Bliss, S. (1992).Selective Attention and Objectives: A Study of Sixth-Grade Readers. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  38. Reynolds, R. E., and Schwartz, R. M. (1983). The relation of metaphoric processing to comprehension and memory.J. Educat. Psychol., 75(3): 450–459.Google Scholar
  39. Reynolds, R. E., and Shirey, L. L. (1988). The role of attention in studying and learning. In Goetz, E. T., Weinstein, C. E., and Alexander, P. (Eds.),Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction and Evaluation, Academic Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 77–100.Google Scholar
  40. Reynolds, R. E., and Wade, S. E. (1986). Thinking about thinking about thinking: Reflections on metacognition.Harvard Educat. Rev. 56: 307–317.Google Scholar
  41. Reynolds, R. E., Standiford, S. N., and Anderson, R. C. (1979). Distribution of reading time when questions are asked about a restricted category of text information.J. Educat. Psychol. 71: 183–190.Google Scholar
  42. Reynolds, R. E., Taylor, M. A., Steffensen, M. S., Shirey, L. L., and Anderson, R. C. (1982). Cultural schemata and reading comprehension.Read. Res. Quart. 17: 353–366.Google Scholar
  43. Reynolds, R. E., Goetz, E. T., and Kreek, C. (1984, April).Metafocusing: The Role of Metacognitive Awareness in the Focusing of Attention. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  44. Reynolds, R. E., Wade, S. E., Trathen, W., and Lapan, R. (1989). The selective Attention strategy and prose learning. In C. McCormack, G. Miller, and M. Pressley (Eds.),Cognitive Strategy Research: From Basic Research to Educational Applications, Springer-Verlag, pp. 159–190.Google Scholar
  45. Reynolds, R. E., Shepard, C., Lapan, R., Kreek, C., and Goetz, E. T. (1990). Differences in the use of selective attention by more successful and less successful tenth-grade readers,J. Educat. Psychol. 82(4): 749–759.Google Scholar
  46. Reynolds, R. E., Brown, K., Trathen, W., and Niederhauser, D. (1992a).Successful and Less Successful Readers' Commitment to a Strategy. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  47. Reynolds, R. E., Niederhauser, D., Gardner, M., and Hill, C. (1992b).The Influence on Prose Comprehension of Including Metaphors in Text: A Processing Approach. Manuscript to be submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  48. Reynolds, R. E., Schraw, G., and Trathen, W. (1992c).Metaphors and Idioms: Differences in Attention and Strategy. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  49. Reynolds, R. E., Trathen, W., Sawyer, M., and Shepard, C. R. (1992d).Causal and Epiphenomenal use of the Selective Attentive Strategy in Prose Comprehension. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  50. Reynolds, R. E., Wade, S. E., and Sorensen, M. (1992e).Straight Words/Crooked Meanings: Understanding Metaphors. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  51. Reynolds, R. E., Wade, S. E., Trathen, W., and Lapan, R. (1992f).Components of Effective Strategy Use in Prose Learning Situations: Adaptability, Efficiency, and Sophistication. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  52. Rothkopf, E. Z. (1966). Learning of written instructive materials: An exploration of the control of inspection behavior by test-like events.Am. Educat. Res. J. 3: 241–249.Google Scholar
  53. Rothkopf, E. Z., and Billington, M. J. (1979). Goal-guided learning from text: Inferring a descriptive processing model from inspection times and eye movements.J. Educat. Psychol. 71: 310–327.Google Scholar
  54. Rumelhart, D. (1976).Toward an Interactive Model of Reading (Tech Rep. No. 56), University of California, Center for Human Information Processing, San Diego.Google Scholar
  55. Schneider, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemory-memory behavior relationship: An integrative review. In Forest-Pressley, D. L., MacKinnon, G. E., and Waller, T. G. (Eds.),Metacognition, Cognition, and Human Performance: Vol. 1 Theoretical Perspectives, Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, pp. 57–109.Google Scholar
  56. Shepard, C. R. (1989). Conceptual and Perceptual Text Processing Strategies: Differences between Good and Poor Readers. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Utah, Salt lake City.Google Scholar
  57. Shirey, L. L., and Reynolds, R. E. (1988). The effect of interest on attention and learning.J. Educat. Psychol. 80(No. 2): 159–166.Google Scholar
  58. Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward and interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency.Read. Res. Quart. 16: 32–71.Google Scholar
  59. van Dijk, T. E., and Kintsch, W. (1983).Strategies of Discourse Comprehension, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  60. Wade, S. E., Schraw, G., Buxton, W. M., and Hayes, M. T. (1991).Seduction of the Strategic Reader: Effects of Interest on Strategies and Recall. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  61. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988). Merriam-Webster, Springfield, Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralph E. Reynolds
    • 1
  1. 1.University of UtahSalt Lake City

Personalised recommendations