DETALLES SEDUCTORES RELEVANTES E IRRELEVANTES EN UN TEXTO EXPOSITIVO: EFECTOS SOBRE LA COMPRENSIÓN Y EL RECUERDO EN LECTORES CON BAJO CONOCIMIENTO PREVIO

Gastón Saux; Natalia Irrazabal; Debora I. Burin

doi:10.22235/cp.v8i1.1043

Authors

Gastón Saux Universidad Católica Argentina
Natalia Irrazabal CONICET
Debora I. Burin Universidad de Buenos Aires

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v8i1.1043

Keywords:

expository text comprehension, seductive detail, causal relevance

Abstract

The effect of including seductive details on the recall and comprehension of an expository structured, scientific text was examined. 94 students with low prior knowledge on the subject read a text in one of following three conditions: without seductive details, with an irrelevant seductive detail (no causal relation with the rest of the message), or with a relevant seductive detail (with an explicit causal relation with the rest of the message). Causal relevance and the level of interest associated to the detail were analyzed prior to experimental activity. Results indicated that the Irrelevant Seductive Detail condition showed the poorest recall and the highest error rate in a sentence verification task. Relevant Seductive Detail condition, on the other hand, showed the best recall for text contents. These results are interpreted considering their potential applications in educational fields.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Braash, J., Goldman, S. & Wiley, J (2003). Effects of working memory capacity on learning from ilustrated texty. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 344-355.

Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of “seductive details” on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 41-57.

Gilabert, R., Martinez, G., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2005). Some good texts are always better: Text revision to foster inferences of readers with high and low prior background knowledge. Learning and Instruction 15, 45-68.

Goetz, E., & Sadoski, M. (1995). The perils of seduction: Distracting details or incomprehensible abstractions? Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 518-519.

Graesser, A. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Graesser, A., McNamara, D. & Louwerse, M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherent relations in narrative and expository text. En A. Sweet & C. Snow (Eds.) Rethinking reading comprehension (pp 82-98). New York: Guilford Publications.

Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92-102.

Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R.E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414-434.

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.

IBM (2009) Statistical Package for Social Science (18) [Software de computación]. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

Irrazabal, N. & Molinari, C. (2005). Técnicas experimentales en la investigación de la comprensión del lenguaje. Revista Lat. de Psicología, 37, 581-594.

Ivanov, I. (2010). Predictors of recall and reading time for seductive and nonseductive text segments. (Tesis de maestría no publicada), University of Nevada, USA.Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics, 9, 87-98.

Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 569-587.

León, J.A. & Peñalba, G. (2002). Understanding causality and temporal sequence in scientific discourse. En J. Otero, J. A. León & A. Graesser (Comps.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp 155-178). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Levie, W. H. y Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Journal of Educational Communication and Technology, 30, 195-232.

Mayer, R., Griffith, E., Jurkowitz, I., & Rothman, D. (2008) Increased interestingness of extraneous details in a multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 329-339.

McNamara, D., de Vega, M. & O’Reilly, T. (2007). Comprehension skill, inference making, and the role of knowledge. En F. Schmalhofer & C.A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 233-253). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.

Meyer, B. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. En B.K. Britton & J. Black (Eds.), Analyzing and understanding expository text, (pp. 269-304). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mikk, H., & Kukemelk, H. (2010). The relationship of text features to the level of interest in science texts. Trames, 14, 54-70.

Padilla, C., Douglas, S. & López, E. (2007). Yo expongo. Taller de prácticas de comprensión y producción de textos expositivos. Córdoba: Comunicarte.

Park, S., & Lim, J. (2007). Promoting positive emotion in multimedia learning using visual illustrations. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(2), 141-162.

Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 5–10.

Perales, F. J. & Jiménez, J. (2002). Las ilustraciones en la enseñanza-aprendizaje de las ciencias. Análisis de libros de texto. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 20(3), 369-386.

Peshkam, A., Mensink, M. C., Putnam, A. L., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Warning readers to avoid irrelevant information: When being vague might be valuable. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 219-231.

Rey, G. D. (2011). Seductive details in multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20, 283-314.

Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review, 7, 216-237.

Rowland-Bryant, E., Skinner, C. H., Davis-Richards, K., Saudargas, R., & Robinson, D. H. (2008). An investigation of placement and type of seductive details: The primacy effect of seductive details on text recall. Research in the Schools, 15, 80-90.

Sanders, T.J.M. & Mulder, G. (2012). Causal relations and levels of discourse representation. Discourse Processes, 49(6), 501-522.

Sánchez, C.A., Wiley, J. (2006). The influences of text and reader characteristics of learning from refutations science texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 561-568.

Schraw, G. (1998). Processing and recall differences among seductive details. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 3–12.

Skolnick-Weisberg, D., Keil, F., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470-477.

Towler, A. (2009). Effects of trainer expressiveness, seductive details, and trainee goal orientation on training outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20, 65-84.

van den Broek, P. , Young, M., Tzeng, Y. & Linderholm, T. (1998). The landscape model of reading. En H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71-98). Mahwah, New.Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Vidal-Abarca, E., Reyes, H., Gilabert, R., Calpe, J., Soria, E. & Graesser, A. (2002). ETAT: Expository Text Analysis Tool. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 34, 93-107.

Wiley, J., Ash, I.K., Sanchez, C.A. & Jaeger, A.J. (2011). Clarifying readers’ goals for learning from expository science texts. En M. McCrudden, J. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 353-374). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

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