Skip to main content

Relevance and Goal-Focusing in Text Processing

Abstract

This article reviews the role of relevance in text processing. It argues that relevance instructions provided by instructors and texts help readers identify text segments that are germane to a reading goal. A taxonomy of relevance instructions is presented and four basic types of relevance manipulations are considered (i.e., targeted segments, elaborative interrogation, perspective, and purpose). This article also describes a four-stage goal-focusing model to explain how relevance affects attention allocation and text understanding. Directions for future research and educational implications are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (1996). The role of importance and interest in the processing of text. Educational Psychology Review, 8(1), 89–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Is working memory still working? European Psychologist, 7(2), 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boudreau, R. L., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., & Specht, J. (1999). Evaluating the efficacy of elaborative strategies for remembering expository text. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45(2), 170–183.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2004). Does the influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students’ topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 324–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cirilo, R. K., & Foss, D. J. (1980). Text structure and reading time for sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19(1), 96–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cote, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25(1), 1–53.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Di Vesta, F. J., & Di Cintio, M. J. (1997). Interactive effects of working memory span and text context on reading comprehension and retrieval. Learning & Individual Differences, 9(3), 215–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Duchastel, P. C., & Brown, P. F. (1974). Incidental and relevant learning with instructional objectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 481–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Duell, O. K. (1974). Effect of type of objective, level of test questions, and the judged importance of tested materials upon posttest performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 225–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Engle, R. W. (2002). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211–245.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Frase, L. T., & Kreitzberg, V. S. (1975). Effect of topical and indirect learning directions on prose recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 320–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gagne, E. D., & Rothkopf, E. Z. (1975). Text organization and learning goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 445–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Goetz, E. T., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Radin, D. I. (1983). Reading in perspective: What real cops and pretend burglars look for in a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 500– 510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Graesser, A. C., & Bertus, E. L. (1998). The construction of causal inferences while reading expository texts on science and technology. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(3), 247–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guthrie, J. T. (1988). Locating information in documents: Examination of a cognitive model. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 178–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Guthrie, J. T., & Mosenthal, P. (1987). Literacy as multidimensional: Locating information and reading comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 22, 279–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyoenae, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2002). Perspective effects on online text processing. Discourse Processes, 33(2), 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyoenae, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2003). How prior knowledge, WMC, and relevance of information affect eye fixations in expository text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 447–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kaplan, R. (1974). Effects of learning prose with part versus whole presentations of instructional objectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 787–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaplan, R., & Rothkopf, E. Z. (1974). Instructional objectives as directions to learners: Effect of passage length and amount of objective-relevant content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 448– 456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  24. Kirsch, I. S., & Guthrie, J. T. (1984). Prose comprehension and text search as a function of reading volume. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 331–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lapan, R., & Reynolds, R. E. (1994). The selective attention strategy as a time-dependent phenomenon. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 379–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lehman, S., & Schraw, G. (2002). Effects of coherence and relevance on shallow and deep text processing. Journal of Educational Psychology 94(4), 738–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 778–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lorch, E. P., Lorch, R. F. Jr., Gretter, M. L., & Horn, D. G. (1987a). On-line processing of topic structure by children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 43, 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College students’ conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lorch, R. F.Jr., Lorch, E. P., & Matthews, P. D. (1985). On-line processing of the topic structure of a text. Discourse Processes, 10, 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lorch, R. F. Jr., Lorch, E. P., & Mogan, A. M. (1987b). Task effects and individual differences in on-line processing of the topic structure of a text. Discourse Processes, 10, 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lorch, R. F.Jr., & van den Broek, P. (1997). Understanding reading comprehension: Current and future contributions of cognitive science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 213–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 615–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Kambe, G. (2005). The effect of relevance instructions on reading time and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 88–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Myers, J., & Brien, E. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131–157.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 488–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ozgungor, S., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Interactions among elaborative interrogation, knowledge, and interest in the process of constructing knowledge from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 437–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Peeck, J. (1970). Effect of prequestions on delayed retention of prose material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 241–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rawson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (2002). How does background information improve memory for text content? Memory & Cognition, 30, 768–778.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Reynolds, R. E. (1992). Selective attention and prose learning: Theoretical and empirical research. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 345–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Reynolds, R. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1982). Influence of questions on the allocation of attention during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(5), 623–632.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Reynolds, R. E., Standiford, S. N., & Anderson, R. C. (1979). Distribution of reading time when questions are asked about a restricted category of text information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 183–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Reynolds, R. E., Trathen, W., Sawyer, M. L., & Shepard, C. R. (1993). Causal and epiphenomenal use of the selective attention strategy in prose comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(2), 258–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rickards, J. P., & Di Vesta, F. J. (1974). Type and frequency of questions in processing textual material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 354–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rothkopf, E. Z., & Billington, M. J. (1974). Indirect review and priming through questions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 669–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Rothkopf, E. Z., & Billington, M. J. (1975a). Two-factor model of the effect of goal-descriptive directions on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 692–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rothkopf, E. Z., & Billington, M. J. (1975b). Relevance and similarity of text elements to descriptions of learning goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 745–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rothkopf, E. Z., & Billington, M. J. (1979). Goal-guided learning from text: Inferring a descriptive process model from inspection times and eye movements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 310–327.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rothkopf, E. Z., & Kaplan, R. (1972). Exploration of the effect of density and specificity of instructional objectives on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 295–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Rothkopf, E. Z., & Koether, M. E. (1978). Instructional effects of discrepancies in content and organization between study goals and information sources. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 67–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. (1994). The effect of reader purpose on interest and recall. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Schraw, G., Wade, S. E., & Kardash, C. A. (1993). Interactive effects of text-based and task-based importance on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 652–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Seifert, T. L. (1993). Effects of elaborative interrogation with prose passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 642–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Seifert, T. L. (1994). Enhancing memory for main ideas using elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 360–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Shavelson, R. J., Berliner, D. C., Ravitch, M. M., & Loeding, D. (1974). Effects of position and type of question on learning from prose material: Interaction of treatments with individual differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language, Special issue: Pragmatics and cognitive science, 17, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Swenson, I., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1974). Adjunct questions and the comprehension of prose by children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 212–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. van den Broek, P. Lorch, R. F. Jr., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1081–1087.

    Google Scholar 

  64. van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of readers’ standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 353–374). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  65. van den Broek, P., Tzeng, Y., Risden, K., Trabasso, T., & Basche, P. (2001). Inferential questioning: Effects on comprehension of narrative texts as a function of grade and timing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 521–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wade, S. E., Trathen, W., & Schraw, G. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(2), 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Khan, M. (1994). Isolating variables that impact on or detract from the effectiveness of elaboration strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 279–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Willoughby, T., Wood, E., Desmarais, S., Sims, S., & Kalra, M. (1997). Mechanisms that facilitate the effectiveness of elaboration strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 682–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Wood, E., Pressley, M., & Winne, P. (1990). Elaborative interrogation effects on children’s learning of factual content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 741–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Zwaan, R. A., & Singer, M. (2003). Text comprehension. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 83–121). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew T. McCrudden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCrudden, M.T., Schraw, G. Relevance and Goal-Focusing in Text Processing. Educ Psychol Rev 19, 113–139 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Relevance instructions
  • Text learning
  • Goal-focusing
  • Reading
  • Relevance effect