Explaining difficult concepts to lay readers is an important discursive goal, and yet frequently the quality of explanatory writing is poor. One reason for this poor quality is that the discursive form itself is not well understood. Some studies have identified textual features of effective explanations; however, theoretical characterizations of explanatory discourse are either unnecessarily narrow or overly general. Consequently, this essay offers a new theory of explanatory discourse that is intended to guide analyses of and stimulate improvements in explanations designed for mass audiences. The theory defines explanatory discourse in terms of a particular goal; promoting understanding for lay readers of some phenomenon. This goal is distinguished from those of promoting awareness of new information, proving a claim, or encouraging agreement with a claim. The utility of the theory is demonstrated by showing how it (1) identifies those research literatures most relevant to improving the quality of written explanations, (2) organizes existing findings on explanatory effectiveness in a way that resolves controversies in the literature, and (3) suggests principles for pedagogy pertaining to explanatory writing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abrams, M. H.
(1971). A glossary of literary terms (3rd ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
2.
Anderson, C. W.
, & Smith, E. L. (1984). Children's preconceptions and content area textbooks. In G. Duffy, L. Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction (pp. 187-201). New York: Longman.
3.
Anderson, D. A.
, & Itule, B. D. (1984). Contemporary news reporting. New York: Random House.
4.
Andre, T.
(1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning?Review of Educational Research, 49, 280-318.
5.
Aristotle
. (1941/4th C., B.C.). The basic works of Aristotle (R. McKeon, Trans.). New York: Random House.
6.
Arnaudin, M. W.
, & Mintzes, J. J. (1985). Students' alternative conceptions of the human circulatory system: A cross-age study. Science Education, 69, 721-733.
7.
Ausubel, D. P.
(1960). The use of advanced organizers in learning and retention of meaningful material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267-272.
8.
Bagin, A. C.
(Ed.). (1986, March). Simply stated. Washington, DC: Office of Consumer Affairs, Department of Commerce.
9.
Bass, J. E.
, & Maddux, C. D. (1982). Scientific explanations and Piagetian operational levels. Journal of Research in Science Technology, 19, 533-541.
10.
Bell, D.
(1979). The social framework of the information society. In M. L. Dertauzas & J. Moses (Eds.), The computer age: A twenty-year view (pp. 169-211). Cambridge: MIT Press.
11.
Blecha, M. K.
, Gega, P. C., & Green, M. (1979). Exploring science: Green book (2nd ed.). River Forest, IL: Laidlaw.
12.
Blum, A.
(1981). Science magazines of youth in five countries: Different approaches. Science Education, 65, 65-70.
13.
Brewer, W. F.
(1980). Literary theory, rhetoric, and stylistics: Simplifications for psychology. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 221-243). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Britton, B. K.
, & Black, J. B. (Eds.). (1985). Understanding expository text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
Bromage, B. K.
, & Mayer, R. E. (1981). Relationship between what is remembered and creative problem-solving performance in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 451-461.
16.
Cho, H.
, & Kahle J. B. (1984). A study of the relationship between concept emphasis in high school biology textbooks and achievement levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 725-733.
17.
Cho, H.
, Kahle, J. B., & Nordland, F. H. (1985). An investigation of high school biology textbooks as sources of misconceptions and difficulties in genetics and some suggestions for teaching genetics. Science Education, 69, 707-719.
18.
Connors, R. J.
(1984). The rhetoric of explanation: Explanatory rhetoric from Aristotle to 1850. Written Communication, 1, 189-210.
19.
Connors, R. J.
(1985). The rhetoric of explanation: Explanatory rhetoric from 1850 to the present. Written Communication, 2, 49-72.
20.
Cook, L. K.
, & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Reading strategies for meaningful learning from prose. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Educational applications (pp. 87-131). New York: Springer-Verlag.
21.
Crismore, A.
(1983, April). Metadiscourse: What is it and how it is used in school and non-school social science texts (Tech. Rep. No. 273). Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
22.
Davison, A.
(1984). Readability formulas and comprehension. In G. Duffy, L. Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction (pp. 128-143). New York: Longman.
23.
Dinnel, D.
, & Glover, J. A. (1985). Advance organizers: Encoding manipulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 514-521.
24.
Driver, R.
, & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students' conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60.
25.
Duffy, T. M.
(1985). Readability formulas: What's the use? In T. M. Duffy & R. Waller (Eds.), Designing usable texts (pp. 113-143). New York: Academic Press.
26.
Duffy, T. M.
, & Kabance, P. (1982). Testing a readable writing approach to text revision. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 733-748.
27.
Fahnestock, J.
(1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3, 275-296.
28.
Gastel, B.
(1983). Presenting science to the public. Philadelphia: ISI Press.
29.
Gardner, P. J.
(1983). The identification of specific difficulties with logical connectives in science among secondary school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 223-299.
30.
Gentner, D.
, & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.). (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
Gilbert, J. K.
, & Watts, M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
32.
Glynn, S. M.
, & DiVesta, F. J. (1979). Control of prose processing via instructional and typographical cues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 595-603.
33.
Graesser, A. C.
(1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.
34.
Halloran, S. M.
, & Bradford, A. N. (1984). Figures of speech in the rhetoric of science and technology. In R. J. Connors, L. S. Ede, & A. A. Lunsford (Eds.), Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
35.
Hartley, J.
(1978). Designing instructional text. London: Kegan Paul.
36.
Hempel, C. G.
(1942). The function of general laws in history. Journal of Philosophy, 39, 35-48.
37.
Hewson, M. G.
, & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students' prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 731-743.
38.
Hewson, P. W.
, & Hewson, M. G. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1-13.
39.
Hillocks, G.
, Kahn, E. A., & Johannessen, L. R. (1983). Teaching defining strategies as a mode of inquiry: Some effects on student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 275-284.
40.
Hind, C.
, & Alvermann, D. W. (1986). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulties with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29, 440-446.
41.
Jakobson, R.
(1967). Linguistics and poetics. In S. Chatman & S. R. Levin (Eds.), Essays on the language of literature (pp. 299-322). Boston: Hougton Mifflin. (Reprinted from T. Sebeok, Ed., 1960, Style in language. Cambridge: MIT Press)
42.
Jerome, F.
(1983). A symposium: Science in the media. SIPIscope, 10, 1-24. New York: Scientists' Institute for Public Information.
43.
Kantor, R. N.
, Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1983). How inconsiderate are children's textbooks?Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15, 61-72.
44.
Kelly, G. A.
(1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: W. W. Norton.
45.
Klare, G. R.
(1976). Judging readability. Instructional Science, 5, 55-61.
46.
Kinneavy, J. L.
(1971). A theory of discourse. New York: W. W. Norton.
47.
Kroll, B. M.
(1986). Explaining how to play a game. Written Communication, 3, 195-218.
48.
La Rosa, C.
, Mayer, M., Patrizi, P., & Vincenti-Missoni, M. (1984). Commonsense knowledge in optics: Preliminary results of an investigation into the properties of light. European Journal of Science Education, 6, 387-397.
49.
Loman, N. L.
, & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 402-412.
50.
Marrou, H. I.
(1956). A history of education in antiquity (G. Lamb, Trans.). New York: Sheed & Ward.
51.
Martin, J. R.
(1970). Explaining, understanding, and teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
52.
Mayer, R. E.
(1977). The sequencing of instruction and the concept of assimilation-to-schema. Instructional Science, 6, 369-388.
53.
Mayer, R. E.
(1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning?Review of Educational Research, 49, 371-383.
54.
Mayer, R. E.
(1983). What have we learned about increasing the meaningfulness of science prose?Science Education, 67, 223-237.
55.
Mayer, R. E.
(1985). Structural analysis of science prose: Can we increase problemsolving performance? In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 65-87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56.
Mayer, R. E.
, & Bromage, B. K. (1980). Different recall protocols for technical texts due to advance organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology72, 209-225.
57.
Mayer, R. E.
, Dyck, J. L., & Cook, L. K. (1984). Techniques that help readers build mental models from scientific text: Definitions, pretraining and signaling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1089-1105.
58.
McCloskey, M.
(1983, April). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, pp. 122-130.
59.
Merrill, M. D.
, & Tennyson, R. D. (1977). Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
60.
Meyer, B. J. F.
(1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
61.
Meyer, B. J. F.
(1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, problems. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 11-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
62.
Miller, J. D.
(1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112, 29-48.
63.
Myers, J. L.
, Hansen, R. S., Robson, R. C., & McCann, J. (1983). The role of explanation in learning elementary probability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 374-381.
64.
Nunn, C. Z.
(1979). Readership and coverage of science and technology in newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 27-30.
65.
Nussbaum, J.
, & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict, and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11, 183-200.
66.
Park, O.
, & Tennyson, R. D. (1986). Computer-based response-sensitive design strategies for selecting presentation form and sequence of examples in learning of coordinate concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 153-158.
67.
Piaget, J.
(1929). The child's conception of the world. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
68.
Piaget, J.
(1964). Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176-186.
69.
Prosser, M.
(1983). Relationship between the cognitive abilities of a group of tertiary physics students and the cognitive requirements of their textbook. Science Education, 67, 75-83.
70.
Richardson, J. B.
(1984). The changing role of periodicals in scientific-technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communications, 14, 1-12.
71.
Ruggiero, S.
, Don Minzoni, S. M., Cartelli, A., Alighieri, S. M. D., Dupre, F., & Vincenti-Missoni, M. (1985). Weight, gravity, and air pressure. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 181-194.
72.
Russell, C.
(1986, June 2). America's scientific illiterates: Survey finds basic concepts misunderstood. Washington Post, pp. 1, 8.
73.
Shapiro, M. A.
(1986). Analogies, visualization, and mental processing of science stories. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 9, pp. 339-355). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
74.
Shuy, R. W.
, & Larkin, D. L. (1978). Linguistic considerations in the simplification/clarification of insurance policy language. Discourse Processes, 1, 305-321.
75.
Simons, P. R. J.
(1984). Instructing with analogies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 513-527.
76.
Smith, J. P.
(1981). The popularization of science in the People's Republic of China. Science Education, 65, 71-77.
77.
Sticht T.
(1985). Understanding readers and their uses of texts. In T. M. Duffy & R. Waller (Eds.), Designing usable texts (pp. 315-340). New York: Academic Press.
78.
Strube, P.
, & Lynch, P. P. (1984). Some influences on the modern science text: Alternative science writing. European Journal of Science Education, 6, 321-338.
79.
Tennyson, R. D.
(1973). Effect of negative instances in concept acquisition using a verbal-learning task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 247-260.
80.
Tennyson, R. D.
, Park. O., & Christensen, D. (1985). Adaptive control of learning time and content sequence in concept learning using computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 481-491.
81.
Tennyson, R. D.
, Woolley, F. R., & Merrill, M. D. (1972). Exemplar and nonexemplar variables which produce correct concept classification of behavior and specified classification errors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 144-152.
82.
van Dijk, T. A.
, & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
83.
Why the stomach doesn't digest itself. (1983, March). Science Digest, p. 95.
84.
Wright, P.
(1978). Feeding the information eaters: Suggestions for integrating pure and applied research on language comprehension. Instructional Science, 7, 249-312.
