This study examined the degree to which 3 types of tasks affect the selection of main points in instructional texts. 133 10th graders participated. Each participant studied 3 instructional texts, and each text was preceded by 1 task. In the linguistic task, students had to underline text elements considered important by the author of the text. In the educational task, students had to underline text elements considered important by a portrayed teacher. And in the interest task, text fragments considered interesting by the student were to be underlined. On average, the type of task did affect the number and kind of selected text fragments, but the variation between the students was large. In the educational task, students selected the text fragments that corresponded to the task, but many of the author's main points were also selected. In the interest task, all kinds of text fragments were selected instead of only the fragments used to arouse interest. In all, the study provides more insight into 3 ways of identifying main points. These insights should be integrated into instructional programs on selecting main points.
References
1.
AfflerbachP.P. (1986). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' importance assignment processes. In NilesJ.LalikR. (Eds.), Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers, and researchers. Thirty-fifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 30–40). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
2.
AfflerbachP.P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 31–46.
3.
AlexanderP.A.JettonT.L.KulikowichJ.M.WoehlerC.A. (1994). Contrasting instructional and structural importance: The seductive effect of teacher questions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 19–47.
4.
ArmbrusterB.B.AndersonT.H.OstertagJ. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text?Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 331–346.
5.
BeishuizenJ.StoutjesdijkE.Van PuttenK. (1994). Studying textbooks: Effects of learning styles, study task, and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 4, 151–174.
6.
BlanchardJ.MikkelsonV. (1987). Underlining performance outcomes in expository text. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 197–201.
7.
BoerP.Lagerwaard-FijtenF.SteenhuisU.P.Van der ZeeA.P. (1992). Biologie overal [Biology everywhere]. Culemborg, The Netherlands: Educaboek.
8.
BrownA.L.DayJ.D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14.
9.
CookL.K.MayerR.E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 448–456.
10.
DoleJ.A.DuffyG.G.RoehlerL.R.PearsonP.D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239–264.
11.
ElenJ. (1992). Toward prescriptions in instructional design: A theoretical and empirical approach.Leuven, Belgium: K.U. Leuven Centrum voor Instructie-psychologie en - technologie.
12.
EntkenM.VoetenM.J.MBergmansA.AarnoutseC.A.J. (1994). Teaching structures of expository texts through educational software. In De JongF.P.C.M.Van Hout-WoltersB.H.A.M. (Eds.), Process-Oriented Instruction and Learning from Text (pp. 37–49). Amsterdam: vu University Press.
13.
GarnerR. (1987). Strategies for reading and studying expository text. Educational Psychologist, 22, 299–312.
14.
GarnerR.GillinghamM.G. (1991). Topic knowledge, cognitive interest, and text recall: A microanalysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 310–320.
15.
GirdenE.R. (1992). anova: Repeated measures (Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, series no. 07-084). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
GlynnS.M.MuthK.D.BrittonB.K. (1990). Thinking out loud about concepts in science text: How instructional objectives work. In MandlH.de CorteE.BennetS. N.FriedrichH.F. (Eds.), Learning and instruction: Vol. 2.2. European research in an international context (pp. 215–223). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
17.
GoetzE.T.SchallertD.L.ReynoldsR.E.RadinD.I. (1983). Reading in perspective: What real cops and pretend burglars look for in a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 500–510.
18.
HamakerC. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 212–242.
19.
HareV.CRabinowitzM.SchiebleK.M. (1989). Text effects on main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 72–88.
20.
HidiS. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.
21.
HouëtH. (1992). Prisma Grammatica Nederlands [Prisma Dutch grammar]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Spectrum.
22.
JohnsA.M. (1985). Summary protocols of “unprepared” and “adept” university students: Replications and distortions of the original. Language Learning, 35, 495–517.
23.
JohnstonP.AfflerbachP. (1985). The process of constructing main ideas from text. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 207–232.
24.
KlauerK.J. (1984). Intentional and incidental learning with instructional texts: A metaanalysis for 1970–1980. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 323–339.
25.
LonkaK.Lindblom-YlänneS.MauryS. (1994). The effect of study strategies on learning from text. Learning and Instruction, 4, 253–270.
26.
LorchR.F.LorchE.P. (1986). On-line processing of summary and importance signals in reading. Discourse Processes, 9, 489–496.
27.
MaxwellS.E.DelaneyH.D. (1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
28.
MayerR.E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 405–412.
29.
MeyerB.J.F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In BrittonB.K.BlackJ.B. (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 11–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
PichertJ.W.AndersonR.C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309–315.
31.
ReynoldsR.E.ShireyL.L. (1988). The role of attention in studying and learning. In GoetzE. T.WeinsteinC. E.AlexanderP.A. (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 77–100). Washington, DC: Academic Press.
32.
RichgelsD.J.McGeeL.M.LomaxR.G.SheardC. (1987). Awareness of four text structures: Effects on recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 177–196.
33.
SchallertD.L.AlexanderP.A.GoetzE.T. (1988). Implicit instruction of strategies for learning from text. In GoetzE. T.WeinsteinC. E.AlexanderP.A. (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 193–214). Washington, DC: Academic Press.
34.
ScheirsJ.G.M. (1992). A priori and a posteriori tests on repeated measurements. Educational Psychology, 12, 63–72.
35.
SchellingsG.L.M.Van Hout-WoltersB.H.A.M. (1993, August/September). Motives mentioned by students for identifying main points in an instructional text. Paper presented at the Fifth Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (earli), Aix-en-Provence, France.
36.
SchellingsG.L.M.Van Hout-WoltersB.H.A.M. (1994). Selection of main points in texts by students: Three methods compared. In De JongF.P.C.M.Van Hout-WoltersB.H.A.M. (Eds.), Process-oriented instruction and learning from text (pp. 113–125). Amsterdam: vu University Press.
37.
SchellingsG.L.M.Van Hout-WoltersB.H.A.M. (1995). Main points in an instructional text, as identified by students and by their teachers. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 742–756.
38.
SchrawG.DennisonR.S. (1994). The effect of reader purpose on interest and recall. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 1–19.
39.
SchrawG.WadeS.E.KardashC.A.M. (1993). Interactive effects of text-based and task-based importance on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 652–661.
40.
StevensR.J. (1988). Effects of strategy training on the identification of the main idea of expository passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 21–26.
41.
TabachnickB.G.FidellL.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
42.
Van DijkT.A.KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension.New York: Academic Press.
43.
Van Hout-WoltersB.H.A.M. (1986). Markeren van kerngedeelten in studieteksten: Een proces-produkt benadering [Cueing key phrases in instructional texts: A process-product approach]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
44.
Van Hout-WoltersB.H.A.M. (1990a). Selecting and cueing key phrases in instructional texts. In MandlH.de CorteE.BennetS. N.FriedrichH.F. (Eds.), Learning and instruction: Vol. 2.2. European research in an international context (pp. 181–198). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
45.
Van Hout-WoltersB.H.A.M. (1990b, November). Teachers' selection of key phrases in instructional texts. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, fl.
46.
Van Hout-WoltersB.H.A.M. (1992). Cognitieve strategieën als onderwijsdoel [Cognitive strategies as instructional objective]. Inaugural address spoken at the University of Amsterdam. Groningen, The Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhof.
47.
WadeS.E.AdamsR.B. (1990). Effects of importance and interest on recall of biographical text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 331–353.
48.
WadeS.ESchrawG.BuxtonW.M.HayesM.T. (1993). Seduction of the strategic reader: Effects of interest on strategies and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 93–114.
49.
WillemsJ. (1981). Schriftelijk studiemateriaal voor de Open Universiteit: Een literatuurstudie. [Instructional texts for the Open University: A review]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen: iowo-rapport.
50.
WilliamsJ.P. (1986). Research and instructional development on main idea skills. In BaumannJ.F. (Ed.), Teaching main idea comprehension (pp. 73–95). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
51.
WinerB.J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design.New York: McGraw-Hill.
