An experiment (N = 301) manipulated two news stories about science and technology to investigate effects of text and link structures on interest and comprehension. A 2 (Text) × 2 (Link) factorial design included inverted pyramid stories versus a linear narrative. Dependent variables included self-reported interest plus situational understanding. In support of construction—integration theory, the highest interest and understanding scores occurred when the linear (narrative) text structure was read with linear links. Surprisingly, interest and understanding scores placed second for matched nonlinear text and nonlinear links. Mismatched text and links for either condition consistently resulted in poor understanding.
Bieber, M., Vitali, F., Ashman, H., Balasubramanian, V., & Oinaas-Kullonen, H. (1997). Fourth generation hypermedia: Some missing links for the World Wide Web. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 31-65.
2.
Bolter, J.D. ( 1991). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
3.
Chen, C., & Rada, R. ( 1996). Interacting with hypertext: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 125-156.
4.
Cook, A.E., Halleran, J.G., & O’Brien, E.J. (1998). What is readily available during reading? A memory-based text processing view. Discourse Processes, 26, 109-129.
5.
Dillon, A. ( 1996). Myths, misconceptions, and an alternative perspective on information usage and the electronic medium. In J. J. L. J. F. Rouet, A. Dillon, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 25-42). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
6.
Dunwoody, S. ( 1992). Comparative strategies for making the complex clear. In B. V. Lewenstein (Ed.), When science meets the public (pp. 101-102). Washington,DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
7.
Engebretsen, M. ( 2000). Hypernews and coherence. Journal of Digital Information, 1(7), 12-19.
8.
Ettema, J.S., Brown, J.W., & Luepker, R.V. ( 1983). Knowledge gap effects in a health information campaign . Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 516-527.
9.
Evans, G.A., & Durant, J.R. ( 1989). Understanding of science in Britain and the USA. In R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, & L. Brook (Eds.), British social attitudes: Special international report (6th ed., p. 105). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
10.
Eveland, W.P., Cortese, J., Park, H., & Dunwoody, S. ( 2002, November). How web site organization influences free recall, factual knowledge, and knowledge structure. Paper presented at the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
11.
Eveland, W.P., & Dunwoody, S. ( 1998). Users and navigation patterns of a science World Wide Web site for the public. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 285-311.
12.
Eveland, W.P., & Dunwoody, S. ( 2001a). Applying research on the uses and cognitive effects of hypermedia to the study of the World Wide Web (Vol. 25). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Eveland, W.P., & Dunwoody, S. ( 2001b). User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from web versus print. Communication Research, 28, 48-78.
14.
Eveland, W.P., Krisztina, M., & Seo, M. ( 2004). Moving beyond "Just the Facts": The influence of online news on the content and structure of public affairs knowledge. Communication Research, 31, 82-107.
15.
Eveland, W.P., Marton., K., & Seo, M. ( 2002, July). The influence of online news on the content and structure of public affairs knowledge. Paper presented at the International Communication Association conference, Seoul, Korea.
16.
Fletcher, C.R. ( 1994). Levels of representation in memory for discourse. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of pscholinguistics (pp. 589-640). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17.
Fredin, E.S. ( 1997). Rethinking the news story for the internet: Hyperstory prototypes and a model of the user. Columbia, SC: Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
18.
Gaskell, G., Wright, D., & O’Muircheartaigh, C. (1993). Measuring scientific interest: The effect of knowledge questions on interest ratings. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 39-57.
19.
Genova, B.K.L., & Greenberg, B.S. (1979). Interests in news and the knowledge gap. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 79-91.
20.
Hidi, S., & Baird, W. ( 1986). Interestingness-A neglected variable in discourse processing . Cognitive Science, 10, 179-194.
21.
Hidi, S., & McLaren, J. ( 1990). The effect of topic and theme interestingness on the production of school expositions. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, N. Bennett, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Learning and instruction: European research in an international context (Vol. 2.2, pp. 295-308). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
22.
Kintsch, W. ( 1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
23.
Kintsch, W. ( 1992). Forward. In S. H. K. Ann Renniger, & A. Krapp (Ed.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. xii-xiii). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
Kintsch, W. ( 1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
26.
Kintsch, W., Weaver, C.A., Mannes, S., & Fletcher, C.R. (1995). Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
Kosicki, G.M. ( 2003). The media priming effect: News media and considerations affecting political judgements. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 63-81). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Krapp, A. ( 1988, September). Interest, learning and academic achievement . Paper presented at the Third European Conference of Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Madrid.
29.
Kwak, N. ( 1999). Revisiting the knowledge gap hypothesis: Education, motivation, and media use. Communication Research, 26, 385-413.
30.
Leon, J.A., & Perez, O. ( 2001). The influence of prior knowledge on the time course of clinical diagnosis inferences: A comparison of experts and novices. Discourse Processes, 31, 187-213.
31.
Lewenstein, B.V. ( 1992). When science meets the public. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science .
32.
Lewenstein, B.V. ( 1994). A survey of activities in public communication of science and technology in the United States. In B. Schiele (Ed.), When science becomes culture: World survey of scientific culture (Proceedings I; pp. 119-178). Boucherville : University of Ottawa Press.
33.
Long, L. ( 1991). An analysis of the organizational structure and explanatory content of newspaper science stories (science writing) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
34.
Long, L. ( 1995). Scientific explanation in U.S. newspaper science stories . Public Understanding of Science, 4, 119-130.
35.
Long, M.A., Steinke, J., Kalter, J., Schwaab, A., Savagian, A., Jaffer, N., . . . Wenzel, W. ( 1991, August). Explanation in newspaper science section news articles. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, MA.
36.
Mannes, S., & Kintsch, W. ( 1987). Knowledge organization and text organization. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 91-115.
37.
Mayer, R.E. ( 1985a). How to analyze science prose. In B. K. B. Britton, & John B. (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 305-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
Mayer, R.E. ( 1985b). Structural analysis of science prose: Can we increase problem-solving 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: Erlbaum.
39.
McNamara, D.S. ( 2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62.
40.
McNamara, D.S., & Kintsch, W. ( 1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-287.
41.
McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B., & Kintsch, W. ( 1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text [text coherence and prior knowledge]. Cognition and Instruction , 14, 1-43.
42.
Miller, J.D. ( 1986). Reaching the attentive and interested publics for science . In S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news (pp. 55-69). New York, NY: Free Press.
43.
Miller, J.D. ( 1987). Scientific literacy in the United States. In D. Evered & M. O’Connor (Eds.), Communicating science to the public (Vol. 19-40). London, England: Wiley.
44.
Miller, J.D. ( 1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203-223.
45.
Miller, J.D. ( 2001). Who is using the web for science and health information? [web]. Science Communication, 22, 256-273.
46.
Miller, J.D. ( 2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 273-294.
47.
Nass, C. ( 2010). Thinking about multitasking: It’s what journalists need to do. Nieman Reports, 64, 11-12.
48.
Nickerson, R.S. ( 1999). How we know-and sometimes misjudge-what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 737-759.
49.
Nickerson, R.S., Baddeley, A., & Freeman, B. ( 1987). Are people’s estimates of what other people know influenced by what they themselves know? Acta Psychologica , 64, 245-259.
50.
Nisbet, M.C., & Scheufele, D.A. (2007). The future of public engagement . The Scientist, 21, 39-44.
51.
O’Brien, E., & Myers, J.L. ( 1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom-up. In S. R. Goldstein, A. C. Grasser, & P. vanden Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
52.
Palfrey, J. ( 2006). How digital natives experience news. Retrieved from http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2006/05/20/how-digital-natives-experience-news/
53.
Pan, Z., & McLeod, J. (1991). Multilevel analysis in mass communication research. Communication Research, 18, 140-173.
54.
Perig, W., & Kintsch, W. ( 1985). Propositional and situational representations of text . Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 503-518.
55.
Pew Research Center. (2008). Internet overtakes newspapers as news outlet. Washington. DC: Pew Research Center For The People & The Press . Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1066/internet-overtakes-newspapers-as-news-source
56.
Pew Research Center. (2010). Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/
57.
Poldrack, R. ( 2010). Novelty and testing: When the brain learns and why it forgets. Nieman Reports, 64, 9-10.
58.
Renninger, K.A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. ( 1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
59.
Rowan, K.E. ( 1988). A contemporary theory of explanatory writing. Written Communication, 5, 23-56.
60.
Rowan, K.E. ( 1999). Effective explanation of uncertain and complex science . In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 201-225). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
61.
Scheufele, D.A., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
62.
Schmalhofer, F., & Glavanov, D. ( 1986). Three components of understanding a programmer’s manual: Verbatim, propositional, and situational representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 279-294.
63.
Schriver, K.A. ( 1992). Plain language for expert or lay audiences microform: Designing text using protocol-aided revision. Berkeley : Center for the Study of Writing, Universitry of California .
64.
Schutz, H., & Wiedemann, P.M. (2008). Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science , 17, 369-379.
65.
Shirk, H.N. ( 1992). Cognitive architecture in hypermedia instruction. In E. Barrett (Ed.), Sociomedia: Multimedia, hypermedia, and the social construction of knowledge (pp. 79-93). Cambridge : MIT Press.
66.
Simpson, A., & McKnight, C. ( 1990). Navigation in hypertext: Structural cues and mental maps . In R. McAleese & C. Green (Eds.), Hypertext: State of the art (pp. 73-83). Oxford, England: Intellect.
67.
Tremayne, M. ( 2004). The web of context: Applying network theory to the use of hyperlinks in journalism on the web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 237-253.
68.
Tremayne, M., & Dunwoody, S. ( 2001). Interactivity, information processing and learning on the world wide web. Science Communication, 23, 111-132.
69.
van Dijk, T.A. ( 1983). Discourse analysis: Its development and application to the structure of news. Journal of Communication, 33, 20-43.
70.
van Dijk, T.A. ( 1985). Structures of news in the press. In T. A. v. Dijk (Ed.), Discourse and communication: New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication (Vol. 10, pp. 69-93). New York, NY: Walter de Gruter.
71.
van Dijk, T.A. ( 1986). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
72.
Viswanath, K., Kahn, E., Finnegan, J.R., Hertog, J., & Potter, J. ( 1993). Motivation and the "knowledge gap": Effects of a campaign to reduce diet-related cancer risk. Communication Research , 20, 546-563.
73.
Voss, J.F., & Silfies, L.N. ( 1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 45-68.
74.
Wenger, M.J., & Payne, D.G. ( 1996). Human information processing correlates of reading hypertext . Technical Communication, 43, 52-60.
75.
Yaros, R.A. ( 2005). Communicating complex news: Structuring stories to enhance public engagement and understanding of science. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication, San Antonio, TX.
76.
Yaros, R.A., & Cook, A.E. ( 2010). Tracking explanations in health news: More attention is not always needed for understanding. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication ( Science Communication Interest Group), Denver, CO.
