To better understand what variables affect reader understanding of business
writing, schema theory was compared to text-centered theory. Levels of readers'
knowledge represented schema theory while message coherence represented text-
centered theory. Newly developed instruments measured background knowledge
and reader understanding. Text reading material was also developed. The
research design consisted of a 2 x 2 factorial with business and nonbusiness
subjects. The primary conclusion is that background knowledge (schema theory)
affected a reader's ability to understand business communication. However,
coherence (text-centered theory) did not affect understanding. Because coherence
is only one textual quality, this study demonstrates the importance of additional
research on the variables that affect reader understanding.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, R.C. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge . Educational Researcher, 13, 5-10.
2.
Anderson, R.C. (1990). Inferences about word meanings. In A. C. Graesser & G. H. Bower (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 25 (pp. 1-16). New York: Academic Press.
3.
Baldwin, R.S., Peleg-Bruckner, A., & McClintock, A.H. (1985). Effects of topic interest and prior knowledge on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 497-504.
4.
Bamberg, B. (1983). What makes a text coherent? College Composition and Communication, 34, 417-4209.
5.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., Omanson, R.C., & Martha, T.P. (1984). Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 163-277.
6.
Beers, T. (1987). Schema-theoretic models of reading: Humanizing the machine. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 369-377.
7.
Borg, W.R., & Gall, M.D. (1989). Educational Research. New York : Longman.
8.
Carrell, P.L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 479-488.
9.
Courtis, J.K. (1986). An investigation into annual report readability and corporate risk-return relationships. Accounting and Business Research, 16(64), 285-294.
10.
Dick, W., & Hagerty, N. (1971). Topics in measurement: Reliability and validity . New York: McGraw-Hill.
11.
Far West Financial Corporation. (1986). Letter to shareholders. 1986 Annual Report, 2-3.
12.
Freebody, P., & Anderson, R.D. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension . Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 277-294.
13.
Gere, A.R. (1980). Written composition: Toward a theory of evaluation . College English, 42, 44-58.
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, 500-510.
15.
Goodin, G., & Perkins, K. (1982). Discourse analysis and the art of coherence. College English, 44(1), 57-63.
16.
Graesser, A.C., & Nakamura, G.V. (1982). The impact of a schema on comprehension and memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 16, (pp. 59-109). New York: Academic Press.
17.
Griffin, C.W. (1982). Theory of responding to student writing: The state of the art. College Composition and Communication, 33, 296-301.
18.
Gutwinski, W. (1976). Cohesion in literary texts. The Hague: Mouton.
19.
Hagge, J. (1989). The spurious paternity of business communication principles. The Journal of Business Communication, 26, 33-55.
20.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London : Longman.
21.
Himstreet, W.C., Baty, W.M., & Lehman, C.M. (1993). Business communications: Principles and methods (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
22.
Hoffman, R., & Kocar, M. (1989). Introducing objectivity in evaluating writing assignments. The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 52(3), 25-26.
23.
Jesinger, J.R. (1991). Test bank to accompany Gitman's principles of managerial finance (6th ed.). New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.
24.
Jones, J.J. (1988). A Longitudinal study of the readability of the chairman's narratives in the corporate reports of a UK company. Accounting and Business Research, 18, 297-305.
25.
Kieras, D.E. (1978). Good and bad structure in simple paragraphs: Effects on apparent theme, reading time, and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 13-28.
26.
Leonard, D.J., & Gilsdorf, J.W. (1990). Language in change: Academics' and executives' perceptions of usage errors. The Journal of Business Communication, 27, 137-158.
27.
Lesikar, R.V., Pettit, J.C., & Flatley, M.E. (1993). Basic Business Communication (6th ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
28.
Locker, K.O. (1992). Business and administrative communication (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
29.
Marr, M.B., & Gormley, K. (1982). Children's recall of familiar and unfamiliar text . Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 89-104.
30.
McCord, E.A. (1991). Meeting the reader's needs: Audience response through reader-focused testing. The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication,54(4), 39-54.
31.
McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., Sinatra, G.M., & Loxterman, J.A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 79-93.
32.
Meyers, G.D. (1988). Efficient, effective evaluation: Grading business communication assignments with the primary trait scoring method. The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication,51(2), 18-21.
33.
Mulcahy, K.F. (1993). Research on written composition: Implications for business communication. The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication,56(1), 22-25.
34.
Roen, D.N. (1984). Coherence in writing. English Journal, 73, 35-36.
35.
Smeltzer, L., & Leonard, D. (1994). Managerial communication: Strategies and application . Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
36.
Subramanian, R., Insley, R.G., & Blackwell, R.D. (1993). Performance and readability: A comparison of annual reports of profitable and unprofitable corporations . The Journal of Business Communication30(1), 49-61.
37.
Suchan, J., & Dulek, R. (1988). Toward a better understanding of reader analysis . The Journal of Business Communication, 25, 29-45.
38.
Van Maanen, J. (1983). Qualitative methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.
39.
Whitney, P. (1987). Psychological theories of elaborative inferences: Implications for schema-theoretic views of comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 299-310.
40.
Witte, S.P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204.
