Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 249–312 | Cite as

Feeding the information eaters: Suggestions for integrating pure and applied research on language comprehension

  • Patricia Wright
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the current relation between pure and applied research on the comprehension of written information. It finds few points of contact. The suggestion is put forward that greater interaction could be mutually profitable. An information flow among researchers is proposed that starts with applied solutions to practical problems, continues through pure explanations of why these solutions are successful, and so enables the refinement of the original applied solutions. Because such an information flow begins with applied solutions, some of the problems of systematizing the findings of applied research are discussed. There can never be an applied theory of communication that specifies precisely how to design written information. Therefore a proposal is put forward for applying “quality-control” procedures to the preparation of documents. Such procedures indicate that several different kinds of research are necessary for determining the content, optimising the format and evaluating the effectiveness of written communications. The desirability of interactions among those who carry out these different kinds of research is discussed. Finally, the criteria for evaluating research in general are considered. The categorisation of particular studies as either useful or useless is found to be inappropriate.

Keywords

Applied Research Practical Problem Information Flow Language Comprehension Applied Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aaronson, D. and Scarborough, H. S. (1976). “Performance theories for sentence coding: some quantitative evidence” Journal of Experimental Psychology 2: 56–70.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, D. A. (1975). “Critical Notice: the state of cognitive psychology”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 27: 141–152.Google Scholar
  3. Alluisi, E. A. and Morgan, B. B. (1976). “Engineering psychology and human performance”, Annual Review of Psychology 27: 305–330.Google Scholar
  4. Anisfield, M. and Klenbort, I. (1973). “On the functions of structural paraphrase: The view from the passive voice”, Psychological Bulletin 79: 117–126.Google Scholar
  5. Baddeley, A. D. (1977). “Applied cognitive and cognitive applied psychology: the case of face recognition.” Paper presented at Uppsala Conference on Memory, June 1977.Google Scholar
  6. Barnard, P. J., Morton, J., Long, J. B. and Ottley, E. A. (1977). “Planning menus for displays: some effects of their structure and content on user performance,” pp. 130–133 in Displays for Man Machine Systems. Institute of Electrical Engineers Conference Publication No. 150.Google Scholar
  7. Barnard, P., Wright, P. and Wilcox, P. (1979). “Effects of response instructions and question style on the ease of completing forms,” Journal of Occupational Psychology (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  8. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An Experimental and Social Study. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Black, D. (1977). “On the importance of interaction,” New Scientist, 77 1084, p. 12.Google Scholar
  10. Blumenthal, A. L. (1966). “Observations with self-embedded sentences,” Psychonomic Science 6: 453–454.Google Scholar
  11. Bobrow, D. G. and Norman, D. A. (1975). “Some Principles of Memory Schemata.” Ch. 5, pp. 131–150, in Bobrow, D. G. and Collins, A. M. (Eds.) Representation and Understanding. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bower, G. H. (1976). “Experiments on story understanding and recall,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 28: 511–534.Google Scholar
  13. Bradshaw, J. L. (1975). “Three interrelated problems in reading: a review,” Memory and Cognition 3: 123–134.Google Scholar
  14. Bransford, J. D. and Johnson, M. K. (1973). “Considerations of some problems of comprehension.” In W. Chase (Ed.) Visual Information Processing. New York. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Broadbent, D. E. (1965). “Perceptual Defence and the Engineering Psychologist,” Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 18: 1–15.Google Scholar
  16. Broadbent, D. E. (1971). “Relation between theory and application in psychology.” Proceedings of the XIX International Congress of Psychology, pp. 27–36.Google Scholar
  17. Broadbent, D. E. (1977). “Language and Ergonomics,” Applied Ergonomics 8: 15–18.Google Scholar
  18. Burnhill, P., Hartley, J. and Young, M. (1976). Tables in text, Applied Ergonomics 7: 13–18.Google Scholar
  19. Carpenter, P. A. and Just, M. A. (1975). “Sentence comprehension: a psycholinguistic processing model of verification,” Psychological Review 82: 45–73.Google Scholar
  20. Carver, P. (1970). “A critical review of mathemagenic behaviour and the effects of questions upon the retention of prose materials.” Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association Miami Beach, September 1970.Google Scholar
  21. Chapanis, A. (1965). “Words, words, words,” Human Factors 7: 1–17.Google Scholar
  22. Chapanis, A. (1967). “The relevance of laboratory studies to practical situations” Ergonomics 10: 557–577.Google Scholar
  23. Chapanis, A. (1971). “Prelude to 2001: explorations in human communication,” American Psychologist 26: 946–961.Google Scholar
  24. Chapanis, A., Garner, W. R. and Morgan, C. T. (1949). Applied Experimental Psychology: Human Factors in Engineering Design. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Clark, H. H. (1969). “Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning,” Psychological Review 76: 387–404.Google Scholar
  26. Clark, H. H. (1972). “Difficulties people have in answering the question ‘Where is it?’” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 265–277.Google Scholar
  27. Clark, H. H. (1973). “The language-as-a-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12: 335–359.Google Scholar
  28. Clark, H. H. and Chase, W. G. (1972). “On the process of comparing sentences against pictures,” Cognitive Psychology 3: 472–517.Google Scholar
  29. Clark, H. H. and Clark, E. V. (1968). “Semantic distinctions and memory for complex sentences,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 20: 129–138.Google Scholar
  30. Clark, H. H. and Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Coe, B. (1977). A guide to the rules of squash. Published for the North West Middlesex Squash League, by the Royal College of Art.Google Scholar
  32. Craik, F. I. M. and Lockhart, R. S. (1972). “Levels of processing: a framework for memory research,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 671–684.Google Scholar
  33. Davies, G. and Proctor, J. (1976). “The recall of concrete and abstract sentences as a function of interpolated task,” British Journal of Psychology 67: 63–72.Google Scholar
  34. Dawes, R. M. (1964). “Cognitive distortion,” Psychological Reports 14: 443–459.Google Scholar
  35. De Cecco, J. P. (1964). Educational Technology, New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.Google Scholar
  36. Dooling, D. J. and Lachman, R. (1971). “Effects of comprehension on the retention of prose,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 88: 216–222.Google Scholar
  37. Dresher, B. E. and Hornstein, N. (1976). “On some supposed contributions of artificial intelligence to the scientific study of language,” Cognition 4: 321–398.Google Scholar
  38. Fillenbaum, S. (1970). “On the use of memorial techniques to assess syntactic structures,” Psychological Bulletin 73: 231–237.Google Scholar
  39. Fleishman, E. A. (1972). “On the relation between abilities, learning and human performance,” American Psychologist 27: 1017–1032.Google Scholar
  40. Foster, J. (1977). “The use of visual cues in text.” Paper presented at the Conference on Processing of Visible Language, at Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  41. Frase, L. T. (1968a). “Effects of semantic incompatibility upon deductive reasoning,” Psychonomic Science 12: 64.Google Scholar
  42. Frase, L. T. (1968b). “Questions as aids to reading: some research and theory,” American Educational Research Journal 5: 319–332.Google Scholar
  43. Frase, L. T. (1975). “Prose Processing,” pp. 1–47 in G. Bower (Ed.) Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 9). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Frase, L. T. (1976). “Reading performance and document design.” Presented at the Society for Applied Learning Technology meeting. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  45. Freedle, R. O. and Carroll, J. B. (1972). “Language Comprehension and the Acquisition of Knowledge,” Ch. 14 in J. B. Carroll and R. O. Freedle (Eds.) Language Comprehension and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Winston and Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Gagné, R. M. and Rothkopf, E. Z. (1975). “Text organization and learning goals,” Journal of Educational Psychology 67: 445–450.Google Scholar
  47. Gagné, R. M. (1965). The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  48. Garner, W. R. (1972). “The acquisition and application of knowledge: a symbiotic relation,” American Psychologist 27: 941–946.Google Scholar
  49. Gilliland, J. (1972). Readability. University of London Press.Google Scholar
  50. Glaser, R. and Resnick, L. B. (1972). “Instructional Psychology,” Annual Review of Psychology 23: 181–276.Google Scholar
  51. Glucksberg, S., Trabasso, T. and Wald, J. (1973). “Linguistic structures and mental operation,” Cognitive Psychology 5: 338–370.Google Scholar
  52. Goldman-Eisler, F. and Cohen, M. (1970). “Is N, P, and PN difficulty a valid criterion of transformational operations?” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 9: 161–166.Google Scholar
  53. Gowans, J. L. (1978). “Practical advances in medical research-investment in basic science essential,” MRC News 1: 4–5.Google Scholar
  54. Hartley, J. and Burnhill, P. (1977a). “Fifty guidelines for improving instructional text,” Instructional Science 14: 65–73.Google Scholar
  55. Hartley, J. and Burnhill, P. (1977b). “Space revisited: or the BPS does it again,” Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 30: 253–256.Google Scholar
  56. Hartley, J., and Davies, I. K. (1976). “Preinstructional strategies: The role of pretests, behavioral objectives, overviews and advance organisers,” Review of Educational Research 46: 239–265.Google Scholar
  57. Hartley, J. and Davies, I. (1978). “Notetaking,” Programmed Learning (in press).Google Scholar
  58. HMSO (1975). Forms Control. A Management Services Handbook, published for the Civil Service Department.Google Scholar
  59. Hunt, E., Lunneborg, C. and Lewis, J. (1975). “What does it mean to be high verbal?” Cognitive Psychology 7: 194–227.Google Scholar
  60. Jenkins, J. (1976). “Editing Distance Teaching Texts: a handbook for those involved in preparing printed course materials.” IEC Broadsheets on Distance Learning No. 9: International Extension College.Google Scholar
  61. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1974). “Experimental Psycholinguistics,” Annual Review of Psychology 25: 135–160.Google Scholar
  62. Johnson-Laird, P. N. and Stevenson, R. (1970). “Memory for syntax,” Nature 227: 412–413.Google Scholar
  63. Jones, S. (1968). Design of Instruction. Training Information Paper 1, Department of Employment and Productivity, London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  64. Jones, S. (1970). “Visual and verbal processes in problem solving,” Cognitive Psychology 1: 201–214.Google Scholar
  65. Kahneman, D. and Wright, P. (1971).“Changes of pupil size and rehearsal strategies in a short-term memory task,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 23: 187–196.Google Scholar
  66. Kao, H. S. R. (1976). “On educational ergonomics,” Ergonomics 19: 667–681.Google Scholar
  67. Klahr, D. (1976). Cognition and Instruction. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Klare, G., Mabry, J. E. and Gustafson, L. M. (1955). “Relationships of patierning (underlining) to immediate retention and to acceptability of technical material,” Journal of Applied Psychology 39: 40–42.Google Scholar
  69. Klee, H. and Eysenck, M. W. (1973). “Comprehension of abstract and concrete sentences,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12: 522–529.Google Scholar
  70. Kolers, P. (1975). “Specificity of operations in sentence recognition,” Cognitive Psychology 7: 289–306.Google Scholar
  71. Kolers, P., Wrolstad, M. and Bauma, H. (1978). “Processing of Visible Language.” Proceedings of Conference held in Eindhoven, September 1977.Google Scholar
  72. Kosslyn, S. M. and Pomerantz, J. R. (1977). “Imagery, propositions and the form of internal representations,” Cognitive Psychology 9: 52–76.Google Scholar
  73. Kulhavy, R. W. (1972). “Effects of embedding orienting stimuli in a prose passage,” Psychonomic Science 28: 213–214.Google Scholar
  74. Larkin, J. H. and Reif, F. (1976). “Analysis and teaching of a general skill for studying scientific text,” Journal of Educational Psychology 68: 431–440.Google Scholar
  75. Leapman, J. (1978). “Leapman in America,” The Times, 13 March 1978.Google Scholar
  76. Levelt, W. J. M. (1970). “A sealing approach to the study of syntactic relations.” In G. B. Flores d'Arcais and W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.) Advances in Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  77. Levelt, W. J. M. (1974). Formal Grammars in Linguistics and Psycholinguistics. (Vol. 3) Psycholinguistic Applications. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  78. Lewis, B. N., Horabin, I. S. and Gane, C. P. (1967) Flow Charts, Logical Trees and Algorithms for Rules and Regulations. CAS Occasional Papers No. 2. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  79. Macdonald-Ross, M. (1978). “Graphics in Texts,” In L.S. Shulman (Ed.) Review of Research in Education (Vol. 5) Itasca, Ill: Peacock.Google Scholar
  80. Macdonald-Ross, M. (in press) “Language in Texts: a review of research relevant to the design of curricular materials.” In L. J. Shulman (Ed.) Review of Research in Education, volume 6. Itasca, Ill: Peacock.Google Scholar
  81. Macdonald-Ross, M. and Smith, E. B. (1974). Bibliography for textual communication. Monograph No. 3, The Open University, Institute of Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  82. Macdonald-Ross, M. and Waller, R. (1975). Open University texts: criticisms and alternatives. Open University Institute of Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  83. Mandler, J. M. and Johnson, N. S. (1977). “Remembrance of things parsed: story structure and recall,” Cognitive Psychology 9: 111–151.Google Scholar
  84. Massaro, D. (1975). Experimental Psychology and Information Processing. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  85. Medawar, P. B. (1967). The Art of the Soluble. Harmondsworth, Mddx: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  86. Miller, G. M. (1962). “Some psychological studies of grammar,” American psychologist 17: 748–762.Google Scholar
  87. Miller, G. A. (1972). “Reflections on the Conference,” pp. 373–382 in J. F. Kananagh and I. G. Mattingley (Eds.) Language by Ear and by Eye. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  88. Mistler-Lachman, J. L. (1974). “Depth of Comprehension and sentence memory,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13: 98–106.Google Scholar
  89. Monte, C. F. (1975). Psychology's Scientific Endeavour. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  90. Morton, J. (1966). “A two-hour reading course,” Nature 211: 323–324.Google Scholar
  91. Norman, D. A. and Bobrow, D. G. (1975). “On data-limited and resource-limited processes,” Cognitive Psychology 7: 44–64.Google Scholar
  92. Olson, D. R. (1975). “The languages of experience: on natural language and formal education,” Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 28: 363–373.Google Scholar
  93. Palermo, D. S. (1973). “More about less: a study of comprehension,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12: 211–221.Google Scholar
  94. Peterson, J. C. (1931). “The value of guidance in reading for information,” Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 34: 291–296. Reprinted in Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book, A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, (Eds.) (1960) Washington, D.C.: National Educational Association.Google Scholar
  95. Pool, I. de S., Schramm, W., Maccoby, N. and Parker, E. B. (1973). Handbook of Communication. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  96. Poulton, E. C. (1968) “Rate of comprehension of an existing teleprinter output and of possible alternatives,” Journal of Applied Psychology 52: 16–21.Google Scholar
  97. Poulton, E. C. (1970). Environment and Human Efficiency. New York: Charles Thomas.Google Scholar
  98. Poulton, E. C. (1973). “Unwanted range effects from using within-subject experimental designs,” Psychological Bulletin 80: 113–121.Google Scholar
  99. Poulton, E. C. (1975). “Range effects in experiments on people,” American Journal of Psychology 88: 3–32.Google Scholar
  100. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973). “What the mind's eye tells the mind's brain: a critique of mental imagery,” Psychological Bulletin 80: 1–24.Google Scholar
  101. Quinton, G. and Fellows, B. (1975). “Perceptual strategies in the solving of three-term series problems,” British Journal of Psychology 66: 69–78.Google Scholar
  102. Robinson, F. (1961). Effective Study. Harper and Row. New York.Google Scholar
  103. Rothkopf, E. Z. (1965). “Some theoretical and experimental approaches to problems in written instruction,” In J. Krumboltz, (Ed.) Learning and the Educational Process. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  104. Rothkopf, E. Z. (1972). “Structural text features and the control of processes in learning from written materials”, ch. 12, pp. 315–335 in J. B. Carroll and R. O. Freedle (Eds.) Language Comprehension and the Acquisition of Knowledge, Washington D.C.: Winston and Sons.Google Scholar
  105. Rothkopf, E. Z. (1976). “Writing to teach and reading to learn: a perspective on the psychology of written instruction”. Seventy Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1, 91–129.Google Scholar
  106. Rothkopf, E. Z. and Billington, M. J. (1975). “A two-faster model of the effect of goal-descriptive directions on learning from text”, Journal of Educational Psychology 67: 692–704.Google Scholar
  107. Rothkopf, E. Z. and Coatny, R. P. (1974). “Effects of readability of context passages on subsequent inspection rates”, Journal of Applied Psychology 59: 679–682.Google Scholar
  108. Sachs, J. S. (1967). “Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse”, Perception and Psychophysics 2: 437–442.Google Scholar
  109. Samuels, S. J. and Dahl, P. R. (1975). “Establishing appropriate purpose for reading and its effect on flexibility of reading rate”, Journal of Educational Psychology 67: 38–43.Google Scholar
  110. Shaffer, H. (1976). “Intention and Performance”, Psychological Review 83: 375–393.Google Scholar
  111. Sherman, M. (1976). “Adjectival negation and the comprehension of multiply negated sentences”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15: 143–157.Google Scholar
  112. Smith, F. (1973). Psycholinguistics and Reading, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.Google Scholar
  113. Simon, H. (1970). “How big is a chunk?” Invited address to the Eastern Psychological Association, April 4, 1970.Google Scholar
  114. Skinner, B. F. (1950). “Are theories of learning necessary?” Psychology Review 57: 193–216.Google Scholar
  115. Spencer, H. (1969). The Visible Word. London: Thames Drawing Office Ltd.Google Scholar
  116. Spencer, H., Reynolds, L. and Coe, B. (1975). “Spatial and typographic coding in printed bibliographic materials”, Journal of Documentation 31: 59–70.Google Scholar
  117. Tannenhaus, M. K., Carroll, J. M. and Bever, T. G. (1976). “Sentence-picture verification models as theories of sentence comprehension: a critique of Carpenter and Just”, Psychological Review 83: 310–317.Google Scholar
  118. Tinker, M. A. (1963). Legibility of Print. Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  119. Thomas, L. F. (1965). “Search for optimal conditions of learning intellectually complex subject matter”, Third progress report, Brunel College, London.Google Scholar
  120. Thorndyke, P. W. (1975). “Cognitive structures in human story comprehension and memory”, Ph. D. Thesis, Psychology Department, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  121. Trabasso, T., Rollins, H. and Shaughnessy, E. (1971). “Storage and verification stages in processing concepts”, Cognitive Psychology 2: 239–289.Google Scholar
  122. Twyman, M. (1977). “A schema for the study of graphic language”. Paper given at the Conference on Processing of Visible Language, Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  123. Urquhart, A. H. (1977). “Comprehension—the Discourse Analysis View”. Paper given at the Seminar on Comprehension, British Association of Applied Linguistics, Edinburgh 28–30 September.Google Scholar
  124. Varela, J. A. (1977). “Social technology”, American Psychologist 32: 914–923.Google Scholar
  125. Washburne, J. N. (1929). “The use of questions in social science material”, Journal of Educational Psychology 20: 321–359.Google Scholar
  126. Wason, P. C. (1968). “The drafting of rules”, New Law Journal 118: 548–549.Google Scholar
  127. Whalley, P. C. and Fleming, R. W. (1975). “An experiment with a simple recorder of reading behavior”, Programmed Learning and Educational Technology 12: 120–123.Google Scholar
  128. Winograd, T. (1972). Understanding Natural Language, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  129. Winter, E. O. (1977). “A clause relational approach to English texts: a study of some predictive lexical items in written discourse”, Instructional Science 6: 1–92.Google Scholar
  130. Wood, D., Shotter, J. and Godden, D. (1974). “An investigation of the relationships between problem solving strategies, representation and memory”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 26: 252–257.Google Scholar
  131. Woods, P. J. (1974). “A taxonomy of instrumental conditioning”, American Psychologist 29: 584–594.Google Scholar
  132. Wright, P. (1975). “Forms of complaint”, New Behavior 2: 206–209.Google Scholar
  133. Wright, P. (1977). “Presenting technical information: a survey of research findings”, Instructional Science 6: 93–134.Google Scholar
  134. Wright, P. and Barnard, P. (1975). “Effects of “more than” and “less than” decisions on the use of numerical tables”, Journal of Applied Psychology 60: 606–611.Google Scholar
  135. Wright, P. and Barnard, P. (1978). “Asking multiple questions about several items: the design of matrix structures on application forms”, Applied Ergonomics 9: 7–14.Google Scholar
  136. Wright, P. and Glucksberg, S. (1976). “Choice of definite versus indefinite article as a function of sentence voice and reversability”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 28: 561–670.Google Scholar
  137. Wright, P. and Kahneman, K. (1971). “Evidence for alternative strategies of sentence retention”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 23: 197–213.Google Scholar
  138. Wright, P. and Reid, F. (1973). “Written information: some alternatives to prose for expressing the outcomes of complex contingencies”, Journal of Applied Psychology 57: 160–166.Google Scholar
  139. Wright, P. and Wilcox, P. (1977). “When two no's nearly make a yes: a study of conditional imperatives”. Paper presented at the Conference on Visible Language in Eindhoven, September 1977.Google Scholar
  140. Wright, P. and Wilcox, P. (1978). “Following instructions: an exploratory trisection of imperatives”, in W. J. M. Levelt and G. B. Flores d'Arcais (Eds.) Studies in the Perception of Language. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Wright
    • 1
  1. 1.Applied Psychology UnitMedical Research CouncilCambridgeEngland

Personalised recommendations