DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 138 924 7S- 003 356 .

'AUTEIOR Rigney, Joteph W.; Mun7o, AllenTITLE On Cognitive Strategies for Processing Text.INSTITUTION University of Southern California,.Los Angeles.

BehavLoal Technology Labs.SPONS A2ENCY AdvanCed Research.Projects Agency (DOD) , Wat'lington,

Office,of Naval Research, Arlington; Va.Personnel an Training Research-Programs Office.

REPORT.NO BTL-TF-80PUB DATE Mat 77CONTRACT NO0014-75C-0838NOTE 70p.

EDRS PRICE. MF-$0.83.RC-$3.50 Plut Postage..DESCRIPTORS Artificiad. Intelligence; Association (Psychollogical);

*Dogntiie Processes; E.ducational Theories;*Expectation; Models; *Reading Comprehension;*Reading Processes; *Reading Research; Recall(Psychological).; Semantics;Syntax

IDENTIFIERS *Procedural Semantics; *Schemata

ABSTRACTRecent'deve Iopments in cognitive.psycholOgy and'

artifiCial intelligence have shown that various types of priorknowledge-play important roles\in understanding ,during textprocessing and have,retulted'in a new kindof-MOdel for cdnceptualproCeSsing, "procedural semantict."..LThi:S papei discusses-two typet ofunits, or schemata, which, according to this theory, are responsiblefor Conceptually driven processing- in reading: the form-schema.aceountg for readers' syntactic or formal r-xpectatiohs; the ,

Content-schema accCun.ts for readers' semantic'expectations. Modelsfor specific:forM- and content-schemata are proposei; implicationsfor effectiVe ttraagies fot adult realing aresderived from theptemises of the model; and'four.kinds of reading strategies(single-piss, exhaUst-ive muleti-pass, extractive multi-pass, andsel.eciive multi-pass) -are charactetized in terms of.themodel. Inaddition, potential appliCations, suggested by the consequences of

the theory, ate deAcribed.. These include uses for headings in texts,meant for constructing advance .organizets'..for textt, and.training of.readers to make more effective uSe of texts by being sensitive tbtheir motivating tasks and by exploitiag their capacities,focgenerating expectatioa-s- about the meaning ofthe texts, throughGonceNtually driven- process5ng. (Author/LJR)

**********4***************************1c*********#*******************tc* Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished *

* materials hot available-from other sburces. ERIC makes every-effort* to obtain the best copy. available. Nevertheless', items Of marginal *

* reproducibility are'often encounterel and this affects the quality *

* 'of the'microfiche and hardcOpy reptoductiont ERIC makes available.* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service' (EDR5) . EDRS is not, * .

* responsible for the quality Of the original document. Reprodnctions-* supplied by EDRS are the'best that-can be-made.from the `original. *

-*********************************************************************

r 1 a

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EpUCATION & WELFARE.NAT'ONAL. INSTITUTE OF

EOuCATION

DOCUMENT +-4AS BEEN REPRO-DuCED ExACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMT.E PERSON OR ORGANIZATION OR!GIN-z.TNG IT POINTS Or VIE& OR OPINIONS:.T;.TED DO NOT NE.CESSAR1LY REPRE-SEN OFF ,CIAL NATiONAL INSTITUTE OpEDUCAT,ON POSITION OR POLICY

BEHAVIORAL

TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIE.S

Pr\DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

1641 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Technical Report No. 80

ON 0CCNITIVE STRATEGIES FOR .PROCESSING TEXT

'March 107

-Joseph W. Rigney and Allen Munro

Sponsored byx

PerTonnel and Training Research ProgramsPsychological Sciences Division

Office of Naval Research

and

Advanced Research Projects AgencyUnder Contract N9. N00014-75-t=0838

"N.

4

The views and 6onclusions contained i.n this document are those ofthe authOrs-and ?j-lould not be interpreted.as'necessarqyvrepresentingthe official.policies, eithet expressed.or implied, of the Office ofNaval.Research, the Advanced Researdh Projects Agendy, 9r-the U.S.Covernmeut.

Approved far public.telease: D.istribUtion Unlimited.

This document has been approved -for public release and, sale;its distribution iunlimited. Reproduction in whole or in

° part is 'permitted- for any purpospe of the Llnite.d State,s

-Government

\

Unclassified

SECURITY ,!LAssiFICATION or TritS PAGE 'Hhen End;REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

-READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

1 REPORTNUMBER I: GCVT ACCESSION NO.),

Technical Report #801

3 RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

5 TYPE cArr REPCRT 6.PERIOD COVERED1

1 Jan. - 30 June - 1977

4 TITLE r'eu2d Subrirta; .

ON.COGNITIVE STRATEGIES FOR .

.

PROCESSING TEXT _ .

., .

6 PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7 AUTHORisr , , . .

J. W. Rigney.and Allen Munro.

8 CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(a)

vN00014-75-C-0838I; %.

.

. .

_

9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANb ADDRESS,

Behavioral Technology Laboratories ,

Tniversity of SOuthern Cafl1

forniaLos Aneles California '.90007

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROjECT, TASKAREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Program elemffit. 61153NProject: -0Task Area:

R0 6RR042-06-01

Work Uait: 154-355I CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADORES!? ee-

-

Personnel and Training Research ProgramsOffice of Naval Research (Code 458).Arlington, Virginia_ 22217 ,i,

..1:.' REPORT DATE-.\-

March.- 197713. 'NUMBER OF PAGES

--",....,.. 49 + vIA MONITORING AGENCY N AMEfi ADORESSil( dIllerent from Controtlinal Office)

. r.

4.

.

.

15. SECURITY CLASS. (of thug raport),`

Ucr:lassified.

.

15a. DECLASSIFICATION, DOWNGRADINGscHEDULE.r

,

lb oisTR;at..cric;iTATEMENT ((Willie Report), ... .

.

.Approved for public release; distribution unLimited ,

.

.

.

'

.

-N. ..

17. DISTRIBUTION ST ATEM-ENT (of tri abstract entred in Block 20, If different from Report)

.!."-

_

. .

..

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES'

,.

%.

19. K EY WORDS (Continua on reverse fde If neceireary and.identi(y by block number)

Text. Procesaing Strategies.

Procpdural Semantics' .

Conceptually-Driven ProcessingExpectatiOns in Reading

. .

..

.

20. ABSTRACT (Continrwe on reverire Ido If nceeary and Identify by block number)

Gurtrent research on reading is hampered by the Jack oa-framework Within which to study .the effects of areader's priorknowledge on his or her processing of an unfamiliar text. As a

result, most reading teseart.h has.empha'sized perceptual ratheq'than

congeptUal processing during reading. Evidence is cited in support

of the claim.that Various types of prior knowledge play important ,

roles in understanding during text processing.

DD, FORM1 JAN 73 1473 .EDITION OF I NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE

S/N 0102 LF 014.6601Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS.PAGE (When pedal Entered)

Unclassified

SECURITYCLASSIFJCATiONOPn"WSPAGEOMOnDelsammo.

Recent developments in cognitive psychology an artificialintelligence have resulted in a new kind of model for conceptualprocessing,.called_procedural semantics. In this report,e framework

' is laid for the application,of the procedural semantics formalism'to thenslysis of conceptually-driven'processing in-reading. Accord-ing to this theory', two different types of conceptual processing units(called schemata)' are responsible for conceptually-driven processingin reading. One type iS the form-schema, which accounts for the,SyntacL.

-tic or formal expectations which petiple make use of in text processingThe other type is the content-schemfr7 which accounts for the nature ofreaders' semantic expedtations. Models'for a small number-of-specificfotm- and content-sdlemata are proPosed, and certain experimental.and

- observational evidenceA.s'explained in terms of these models.

Implications for effective strategies for adult reading ar.E2derived from the premises of the medel. Several.di-fferent kinds ofreading strategies are,chatacterized in terms of the model. Whenreaders eMploy Stngle-pass strategies, they process the text in astrictly finest-, left-to,rght fashion. This approach makes minimaluse of-the potentialor conceptually-driven processing that could beachieved through the-activation of some high-level schemata. Inexhaustive multi-pass proceising, the first pass results in thesctiva-tion of a number:Of-form and content-schemata which can serve as anaidin subsequent-:passes, driving expectations about the form andmeaning of what is about.to be read. This technique can often bewasteful of.resources, since it does not 1actively direct ,processing .

toward what is most important or least well Understood. Extractivemulti-pass prOcessing reflectS a more efficient strategy for readingan entire ext. By usingthis technique, a reader "skims" the text ina sq-lecti/e way on repeated.passes, buildihg up such a complete under-standing of the meaning of the text that the final reading of the textis often a process ofmerel§ filling in the gaps in understanding.This technilque is often effectively used by graduates-of adult'readingimprovement classes. .Selective multi--pass strstegies characterize.thereading ofthose who'knoW what it is they want Eo know, and whO arewider no consttaint to learnall that might be learned from a-text.In this type of text yroceesing, the reader beginsthetssk with the

, intention of acqUiring soMe specific information.' As a result, anumber of specific content-schemata are activated and are used.to guide_the order and the selection'of those portiOns of the text to beprocessed.

Several potentialepplications are suggested by-the con-sequences of:the theory forconceptually-driven-Orocessing in reading,presented hereg These include possible uses for headings in texts,0means for constructing advance organizers for texts, and trainingreaders to make more effeCtive use of texts by being sensitive totheir motivting tasks end by exploiting their capacities for generatingexpectations-about the meaning of the texts through Conceptually-driveuprocessing.

-,UnclassifiedSECURITyCLASSIF.ICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Dto Entered)

1

ARpA TECHNICAL REPORT

1. ARPA Order Number2. ONR NR Number3. ProgiaM Code Number4. Name of Contractor

5: Effective Date.of Contract

6. Contract Expiration Date.7. Amount of Contract8. ,Contrpct Number9. Princikpal Investigator

10.. Scientific Officer11. 'Short Title

11.

.2284--

: -154355: 1 B 729: University of Southern CalifOrnia:/ January 1, 1977: *30 September 1977: $150,000

N00014-75-C-0838Joseph W. Rigney (2134 746-2127 .

MarshalljarrCognitive Strategies for 'Reading

This Research Was Supported ,

by,

The Advanced Research Protects Agency

and bi,

The Office of Naval Researgh

And aS Monitored by

The'Office of Naval Research

5

4f

s.

SUMMARY

Current research on reading is hampered by the lack.ofa frameWOrk.within which to study the effects of a reader!s priorknowledge on tis-or her processing of-4n unfamiliar 'text. As aregUlt, most readtng research has emphasized,perceptual rather thanconceptual processing during.reading. Evidence is cited in sUpportof the _claim that:various types of prior-knowledge play importantroles in-understanding during text processing.

Recent developments in cognitivepsychology and artificialintelligence have reSulted ina new kind of model for conceptualprocessing, called procedural aemantics. t'his report, a frameworkis laid for the application of the prodedural semAtics formalismto the analysis of conceptually-dr-b./en-processing in reading. Accord-ing to this theory, two.different types of conceptual proceising units ,

(called schemata) ire reSponsible for conceptually-driven.processingin reading. One type is the formsthema, which accounts for' the syntac-tic or formal expectations.which people make use of in text prgcessing.The:oiher type is the content-schema, which aCcounts for the nature ofreaders' semantic expectations. Models forOmall number of specificform- and content-schemata are proposed; and/certain expe'rimgntal andobservatiodal esvidence is explained in terma of these Models.

. .

"Implications foreffective.str tegies for adult reading arederived from the premises of the model. everal different kinds of .

reading strategies are characterized in ems of.th model. WhenreaderseTploy single-pass strategies, they process t e text in a

.. strict15; linear, left-to-right fashion. This approach makes minimal_

use of the potential for conceptually-driven processing that could beachieVed through the activation of some high-level schemata. In

, exhalistive multi-pass processing, the first pass' results in the active--tionof a number of form- and content-sthemata which can serve as anaid in subsequent passes, drivihg expectations about the form and

' meanimg, of what is about to be read. This technique can often bewasteful of resources, Since-it-does not actively direct processingtoward what is,most important or beast well--understocid. Extractivemulti-pass processing-reflects a more efficient strategy for readingan entire text. By using thia technique, a reader "skims".the text in-a selectiVe way n repeated passes., buildiv4; up such a complete under-standing of the meaning of the -tekt that the final reading of the textis-Often a process of merely filling in the gaps in understanding.This technique is often effectively used by.graduates of adult.readingimprovement classes. Selective multi-pass,strategies characterize thereedill'g of those who know What it.is they want to know, and who areunder no constraint to learn all that might be learned from. a.text.In this type of text'processing, the.reader begins the task with theintention of acquiring some s ecific information. As a result, anumber of specific content-sch ata are actiwated and,are used t.) guidethe ordei and the selection ot rose portions of the text to beprotessed'

-4

Several potential applications are suggested by theconsequence s'. of the _theory for, gonceptually-dri'ven processing inreading presented here. These include posstble °uses for headings in

11texts, means for constructing advance organizers for texts, and train-ing readers to make more effective use of texts y being sensitive

-..

to their motivating tisks and by exploiting their capacities forgenerating expec.tations about the meaning of the texts through concep-tualy-driven processing. .

A

10 0

ta.

6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The-research desCribed in this report wAs sponsored-byDr. Marshall-Farr and Dr. Henry Halff, Personnel and Training ResearchPrograms, Office of NaCial Research, and by Dr. Harry F..O'Neil, Jr.,'ProgriM.Manager, Cybernetics Technology Office, Defense AdvancedResearth Project.sency. 'Their support and encouragement is gratefullyacknowledged.

te

a

4

-

.

4

TABLE.OF CONTENTS

Section Page',

A1

- II. SCHEMATA IN CONC UALLY-DRLVEN TEXT PRCCESSING 7-

I. INTRODUCTION_

Form-Scriemata

Form.-Schemata in a iiroader Context-

Content-Schemata4

15

24

More Comprehensive Content-Schemata-I

Experimental Evidenck for the Effects of

27

Content-Schemata in\Realing 30

11.

III. APPLICATIONS TO ADULT READING STRATEGIES 35.

.

Text-Processing StrategiesI

, 36,

Single Pass Strategies 37

Multi-Pass Strategies 38

Exhaustive Multi-Pass Strategies 39

Extracti e Multi-Pass Strategies 40'Selecti e Multi-Pass Strategies. 45

REFERENCE1-

43 -iv-

9 .

If

o

47

LIST OF FIGUIRES

'4

Figure

A Stage Representati of An Interectivg. Model

9f Reading

A Two .Dimensiona 1 S li.ce of the Messeie 'Centqr

A Scene\

Examples of Different Schem'Idte

Page

1.

2 .

3.

4

4.

5

28

fi

e

(

r

1 0

. a

C,

ON COGNITIVE STRATEGIES FORPROCESSING TEXT

Introduction

W. feel a strong need for some kind of model, or theory, oZ

learning from text, to counter the current sterile empiricism in this

field, by giving direction to research, Lnd to deal systematf.cally With-

the characteristics of different kinds of information in the text

itself.

Text is a linear string of symbols organized, bTspacing,

into characters, words, sentences, paragraphs, and'higher order sub-._

1 -

ivisions. A small set of characters can form an enormous number of

.w\ds, but only a small set of these is used in any one text. Words

can be combined to fordan infinite number of physically different sen-,

tences, but there are only'a,few commonly used rules for determining sen-

tence structure. Patterns Of characters and patterns of words recur

over and over in words and in Sentences. But, every piece of text isP

different from every-other' piece, making it difficult to specify and

to control stimulus parameters.

There is litt)e doubt that the familiar 15atterns of letters

in words (Alderuidn & Smith, 1971), and of wards in sentences facilitate

text-processing.taSks. -Faliar structure allows prediction of elementi

in the structure. Letters of familiar,words_can be read out of memory

after a glance at the printed words. Travers (1973) showed that "...words,

or large segments of words,/are habitually prptessed in parallel, While

random strings are processed as a series of individual letters or small

chunks." .-(p. 109). The familiar structure(of sentences permits pre.-

diction of classes of,words-coming next; nouns, adjectives, verbs,

connectives, and the like (see Kolers, 1970; StevenS. & Rumelhart, 1975;

1

Weber, 1970). The readability of the poem "Jabberwocky" is a tribute

to the facilitative effect of normal_sentence- structure, communicated

in this case by the presence of particular "function Words"-(such as

prepoStions and determiners) and by morphological affixes (such as

tense endings, plural markers, and the like). ParagraWi structures _

are much looser, indeed, almost arbitrary in comparision to sentence

structures, which, in turn, ard more flexible than word structures.

Loose though such structures may be, however, readers are.sensitive

to aberrations in paragra-A §tructures. Meyers & Boldrick (1975), for

example, showed that randomly rearranging the order of half of the- -

sentence§ Tn a text resulted ina severe deierioration of.subjects',

abilities to recall the stories later. But, Suppose that som e,. sentences

were anomalous-in termsof meaning; the wrong subjects for the verbs

-

and objects--the locomotive drew a picture of a cow. This introduces

semantic "sErambling" without topographic disorder. Marslen-Wilson &

Tvlet.-(1976) describe tlie:.effects of this treatment on recall. Or,r J

suppose one.sentence.in:the paragraph was not related to the topic of

the paragraph. Bransfopei & Johnson (1973) demonstrated the effects of_

this kind of seMantic scramblfng on memory for the information in the

paragraph.

e

-

We-are saying there must be some kind of top-downprocessing- _

that is predicting detailed levels from highen structure, and that4

occbrs in parallel with the bottom-upPrOcessing that synthesizes words

from letters, sentences from words, and paragraphs from sentences.

Bottom-up Processing has beefi almost excluA.vely, emphastzed in,theories

,. about reading.

If the levels of te)cf prbcessing task6,-from proceSsing,

letters, to proCessing words, to srpcessing sentences---werecombined

in appropriate ways with the levels of scrambling text--from letters.

in words to words in -sentences. r, senronces in paragraphs, then it is:

likely that discoutinuit n dependent measures that woHld

irAdicate that at least, ( Lccesses.Were running in paral'

. Rumelhart (in.presS) has advanced am interactive modej of

reading that describes in some detail mechanisms for.interactive top-dow'4/-

bottom-up processing.- Noteworthy are examples he cites of how top-down_

proce.3sing can influence bottom-up processing, his-parallel,pr ocessing,

Mechanisms, and his-Oantification of the interaction between the two

-sets-of parallel proCeases as a.multiplicative relationship between

direct eVidence and contextual evidence for hypotheses that drive pro-.,

- ceasing:

ahe values Of:Vi and Bi)aredeterMined in termsCT

of mixtures of higher0

level (parent)4,-same level (right and left sisters ) and lower-levelN

(daughter) hYpOtheses prevailing=at any one time.

,The'following figures from Rumelhart suggest some of the

features of his model.

The pattern'synthesizer in Figure 1 contains-a mesSage center. 2

tha

"Keeps'a running liSt of'hypotheses about the.,nature of the,input sting. Eaph knowledge sourceConstantly acans the message center,for the appearanceof-hypotheses relevant tOjts own sphere of knowledge.

-Whenever sucha hypothesis Oters themessage center:the 4nowledgesourcein .question evaluates the hypo7thes in light of itS own specilized knowledge.

13

I.

14

'-FigUre 1,

,A sta0 representation of an interactive model of reading,

(From Ru elhart,in Friss)

!OST

FRO LE .

INTERPRETATION

, Phrase

Level

Syntactic

Level

Categorical

Level

Lexical,

Level

Letter

Cluster

Zavel

Letter44 Level

cl

0

4

0

a Feature,

'Level

'NP'

16

Figure 2,

No dimensional slice Of ihe message center.

(FroM kumelhart, in Press)'; '

As a result of its'analytis the hypothesis may geconfirmee,.dis'cOnfirmed and removed from the 'messagecenter, or e new hypothesis.canwes'sage center:. This procesC;cOntinues until, somechcition can be reeChed; At:qhet point the-mostprobable hypothetis is determined te be the ,correctone. To facilitate the process, the message centeris highly, structured to t.-,hav the knowledge sourcesknow'exactly where toJindrelevant hy.P75Theses and '

so that.dependencies amonglypotheses are easily.'determined.

/

T/

The meesege.center can-.be represented as a three74dimehtional 'e.pace./,,Dne dimension representing theposition along the/lihe of:text, one.diMensionre-,preseptinethe.level-of theilypothesis (word level,letter levelj pUrase'leVel, ane dimensipnrepresenting aiternetive:hypotheses at't.he -same

Astociated With each hypothesis is e running'estimate oEthe *obebility'thatjit is the correcthypothesis: MOreover, hypothetet et each level mayhave potnters tO hypotheseS at higherHor'lower4levels,on which theyAaredependehtThue, for exampfe, thehypothesisehat the first word.in,e .string is theword THEit'suliportgd by the hypothests' thatlthefirst-letter df the strAng Is 'Tt anci sUpPorts the

,

hypothesis thet the string begtnt with a noun phrase.-'Figure 2 illuttratesA twd-dimefsiOnal slieemessage cedtek et some,point during the.reading It thephreee THE CAR. The figUre,ilfustrates hYpothesee atfive different levels.(feeture level, letter, leVelletter cluster level-, lextcal_leVel.and 4ynteeti.C'.level). The ciiiagram a,twaildimensionalsiiceinaemuch as rc) alternatiVe hypotheset are-illuStrated.

;In practice, lof course, many alternative h'Ypotheses- ,

would be conSidered and evaluatedzin the,.,eur.se of-:i.eadtae thisiphrate. It shoutd be popited outthatthe tNie,like etrhetw:e ehouldndt beitaked.tO:fmean'that the.tree wae.eonstructed -either from:a purely"bottom-up" procets (starting witk the features, then,hypothesfzinethe letters, then the letter.ciutteiLetc.), nor from a. pUrOYs"top-doWn" analysis (startingwith the,viewthat''ve,have anoun phrase and.that.noun -phrates are made up of,detetminers folloWed, bynouns, etc:)J Rather, the llyPotheses e'en be

.generated.etjeny..level. -If it_is.fikely that a linebegins- with 0 noun:,phiase, then- we poStulaté a nounphraseYand..lOok.for evidence.±If me see featUree

18

\

that suggest a "t"'as the first letter wepostulate a "t" in.the first position andcontinue processing. If we later have ioieject ei:her or both of these hypotheseslittle is lost. The system makes the' bestguesses nd checks out their imgications.If these guesses are wrong. it will'take abit'longer, but'the system will eventuallyfind some hypothtses at some level 'that it

, can accept." (Rumelhart,..in'press)

Schetata in Conceptually-DriVen Text-Proce-

In his proposal.for/aninteractivaModel of ru ,ulue_

(in press))makes it clear that there is otdina ily more than one source

.4 .oi conceptually-drrn,kroceSsing during reading., One type of soUrce

s.for top-down ana ysis is the reader's hypothesis, about the general'kind

f situation or nteXt with.which the text deals. 'A differenebtype of

Source fjr tbsp-,dow processing is the presence of speciiA "triggere'

*.in the s C -Pion or context, (as perceived-:hy the reader) which result,

in more lOcal or specific expectations than those of the first type.

Let us illustrate the-difference between these two types ofw

ir

sJurces for top-town processing by.bOtrowingan extended example of

. .

Rumelhart's. IfeSubject is first shown a picture of a scene (not,

let us agree for the present, of an activjty); and is.then"presented

with a tachistoscopic expbsure of a brief phrase that, according to the

instructions, describes some asPect or element of-the picture, then w6

di.4terent types of top-down processing are probabiy brought to bear in...

,

4, ., the subject's reading of the. phrase. Thelfirst type of top-down

processi is that which has to do With the subject's expectatiOnsN.

. .

created by the instructions: That is*, the subject understands.that the,

. .

alphabetic string to be presented.will have something to do with th

.

li.. ..

. .

scene previously predinted; tEat At will' be, in fact, a partiar'''. ,

.

description Of that,scene.- Thissort of expectation is very different

19,

20

.Figure 3.

,

A, scene, Figure prCvided by jean Mandler.

(From Ruielhart, in press)

# .4 4

,

0

I

,

$

from many or' 'ch the subject sow lave, were 11-? intri ons

;different. i.nLltructions,

expect to see a phrasc± which was an,bmpianation of'Some aspect of the

ample, the subject. might

picture If this were the case,othe subject woUld expect a liwer.

tmph.-tse than he does in the case of a partial description, and a phrase

4

wfth specifically relational or causative predication. Another exaMple

4of a .different sort of..expectation which different instructions cquld

(0'

, ..

. . - ._.,_ ,

arouSe is that of a prediction related to some. aspect 'Of-the picture.-_ -

In this case, the subject would presumably expect that the phrase

would contain some actional or change- state pred\icate.

The second type.of top-down or conceptual,y-driven processing

. ,

dn the context of this experimental example.of RumeIhart!s is the .

roUp of expectatigns.arouSed by specific details in'the_presented4rt

scene. Thus, a'prcture of a Wakswagen parked at a gas statiodwith a0 .

lake and mountains in' the background (see Figure 3) mabrespons1b1e .

forAkies of expbctations, such as that the phrase might be "A".

Volkswagen," or "A gas station," or YThe Mountain," or "Talake, and

so on. In fact, of ,5ourse, this is only a small fractiOn of the pos-,

sible specific e4pectations in,such a context; since many synonyms or

conte*tually equivalent fexPressions are possible, such as car,

"The 'service station," and so on.

Blow, it is all very well to specifythat there are at least

these twoo4fferent types of conceptUally-driven processing which must'

^ J

be a part of the-reading process, but to do this

-

same thing as showing how such c,yoceptually-driven rocessing is1

actuallyaCcoMplished. We think.that thdre is a great need for models---

of specific conceptuai/prOcessing entities 'which are responsible for1 \

not at all .the

7-

r

,

theSe top7down_eflects.- In wfiat'folloWs we sketch an approach to,

such a model.

1

- A/natural framework f4or the construction of a. model ofconbeptual entities' which have both structural and procesSingaspects

4

is that of procedural semantics (Minsky, 1975; Norman, Rumelhart, &

LNR, rg*5;.Winogre, 1975). 'Much of what follows is.based on a par-

rticular proce4,urar semaTtic0 model, naTely thatlifthe LNit research

...group

,- .. .0 4 -1C,,

'Above we mentioned twetypeS of

4,

,Conceptuaildriven processing

hich, might be expected in the paradigM.in which a presentation of a

4 INstopic preseneation of afi alphabetic

a

picture is followed by the:tace

string. The effects ofhe two typ s of proessing carjbe modeled.

, 3 ')

withIn.a procedural semantics system by4two,different'types of schemata

/

which are activated in this ekperichental context. The first tyPe of

conceptuaily:dri.,7en processing is that.which involves expecta0ions or

. .

I*

predictions about the form Of the String, which appears brieffY after. ,

the ilicture. This iolves a.number of fairly explicitprediction

aboUt syntax,,and a 'few expettationa about pertions of the semantic and

lexical content of the strinss. -WeProposethattfie effects of these0

-4. :.

kinds of ekpectatiou be modelk,by a type of schema, which, for want'

ki

of a'beciker wile, we will tall formrschemata for the present. -kamp,les,-

of form-Sch mata, explaineld in greater detail,below, include a bescrip-7

,

:option-Schema an-Explanati.op-SChemand a.Prediction-Schenia.'

, ,

The second type of!conceptualij=driven-processin-g Which--should

,

....:...

.take place in-the paradigm of.picture-thentphrase'involves expectations,

., ,

- 10_, \

\--

,;- .. .

t, ,abOut tfie content of the briefly-presented alphabetic stringsz... Thi s' : ,\ L.).-

\-4.

ii

.

. .

7rocessi= cau.be thbusht of as,_a_number of fairly explicit expectations \, ,.. _. .

-*-)

C.

I.

-10-,

with respect to the seMal:tics and to'the lexical components of an

Utterance, In only a few cases will this type of processing result,

,in syntactic expectations:, and thoae cases will ordinarily involve

.

"idiomatic" expressions, which are themselves much like lexical items.

Within a procedural semantics model, the prodpction of these types of

expectation i. can also be mOdeled, by the actions of another type of

schema, ihe content-schema. Examples.of content-schemata, discussed

detail below, include a'Service-Station-Schema, (.4 Volkswagon-Schema,'4

a Mountain-Schema, and so on.

,

In the next two sections, sime illustrative exampIeS of form-

and-content,,schemata are presented.

6Form-Schemata

, In the experimental context which,we have been uSing ns the

t ,

-basis fon organizing this,disCussion, there are a' number of possible,

form-schemata which mighE be activated depending on the natur of the

'instructions given to the subject, as well as on othet-factors0

ttie sake of the p e eni discussion, let us es"sume that there are four

;

possible types of phrases which subjects Coulp be led to expect to see

follow the pictUre. They are descriptions, explanations, predictions,A

and histories. In the example given in Rumelhart (in press)the sort

of phrases used are descriptions.

, 'Other factors which might be expected to 'contribnte tOthe activa- .

tiOn of form;schata must-inc de thesSubjectts previous experience with :this:experimental.paradigm, a _the nature of his onher. perceptions.of thepreceding phrase stimuli in the'cürrent experimental block; For example,

'if the instructions informed subjects that they would be presented withpattial.descriptions of the- picture,'we would expect the Description-Schema

, 9

to hecipMe activated,'and Co affeOt the ...iubject's -interpretations of thefirst phrase presented. If, however, the presented strings were in fact

,. predictions rather than,descriptions, then to the extenA that. subjectscorrectly manage to perceive.the,truematgre of,the.OrerenteAphrases, their,activations of-the DescriptionrSchema should be replaced b3Pa:Ctivatiods of-

. . :,

the Prediction-Schema. ,

. .2 4-11-

if-

Possible degcription's(which'Cou/d follow a presentation of Iigurel

include "The car," "A service station," "The car is at the service

station " "The lake in fron't of the mountain," ahd so:6n.- What kind of,

explanations might follow a presentation of Figure 1? "The car is stop- ,

ped in the road because it ran out of gas," and so forthie _4edictions

which-tould be presented after the subject-!sees the ,picture in Figure 1

include "The car will leave soon," "The driver will -get back in tfie car,""

'"The lake will dry up," etc. Histories which could be Aresented 'after

titlio picture include phrases, such as "The driver of the car went into the -

gas station," "The car just ran out of gas," and "The lake was dry last :

summer."

Let's consider the structure of some of these form-s,chemata.

We have.chosen to represent these schemata.in the format of pvdicaie

calculus, in order that the Predleate-argument or procedureparameter

relationships (the scoPe relationships, inOther words) should.--be clear.

In order to make the, se schemata7active Procedures 'in a computer simulation,"

tfiey would have tb be.integrated with a pre-existing data base of lower-

level.schemata, such as thbse named as sub-schemata of these schemata.

It is our intentIon that the proedures here described cobld beninteL,.\\\

grated:into 'One of the MEMOD datahases. (Norman, Rumelhart, & LNR, 1975),

such as NOUNWORLD or STORYWORLD.

First, consider the form of a Description-Schema.2

4s2iThe use of-Pdotible curlY brackets"' .in this schema and in:

/ those below is intended to connote that only one of the elements enclosed...,- ..

-.in these brackets will appear in .any given instance of.the scher. Thus

means that either a, or b-or c. can-be used to convey whatever schema thiscurly bracketpair ocCurs in. .All.three Are expeCted to some extent whenthe schema they are part of has been activated. But.= more, than one..of them is possible.as an instantiation of the calling schema.

,12-

2 5

ba

DESCRIPTION (OBJECT).

IEXIST (OBJECT, LOCATIVE-PREPOSITION (OBJECT, LOCATION))

.is when

NOUNPHRASE (OBJECT),e

POSSESS ,(OBJECT, QUALITY)

PAR01'..(OBJECT, PREVIOUS-SCENE)

end. ,

Whatie the meaning of the Description-Schema? It means thee

a Description May be conveyed by any of three syntactic-semantic devices.

The DescriptionLSchema4is "satiafied" or "activated" if any one of these

three subscheMata are activated. The 11/-st of these syntactic devices is

simply a noun phrase whose referent is an object,, (There is, 'in addition,-

a restriction placed on this objectsee the last line of the Description-

Schemanamely, that the object be part-Of the preyious scene shoWn the

sUbjectireader.) The NOUNPHRASt schema has an internal sttucture of its

own, which is not discussed here but which,would,presmably, include

the full range of syntactic possibilities for noun. phrases.

The second possible syntactic-semantic'device for conveying a '

description, according to the Description-Schema, is a locative sentence,

which predicates a locative relationship between the object and some

loCation. The third device is a qUalitative sentence (such la "The lake

has an islanA" or "The car is small"). Again, the Description-Schema

can be aatisfied if the subschemata for either one of these devices is

activated. In any case, the restriction that the OBJECT mentioned in

these sentences must be part of the just-presented scene still holds.

Consider now the structure of another form-schema, the Predic

.tion-Schema.

-13-

2 6

$

.

. PREDICTION (OBJECT1, [OBJECT )3

is when

FUTURE (Proposition (OBJECT1,... OBJECT2, OBJECT3,.. .:.))

PART-OF (OBJECTn, PREVIOUS,SCENE)

4

end.

When t e Prediction-Schema is activated, the reader expects that the/cl

phrase to be presented will be in the future tense. The FUTURE schema

.must, then, provide for the fact that the sentende can use either the

will construction or the be going to construction to convey tne future

tense. The Prediction-Schema requireS that at least oneof the noun

Thrases of the sentence (or, rather at least one of the arguments of the'

proposition) must pave for a referent an object from the previously pre-.

sented scene.

Thus far we have considered only the-top-dOwn processing.,

.effects of these form-schemata. It should be pointed out that these-

schemata are also open to the effects of bottom-up activation. We have

discussed the fact that these schemata excite or activate their cdMponent

.sub-schemata when they/theMselves are activated (as a result of, say,

the set provided bytheinstructiOns). It should also be clear, however,

that the form-schemata can themselves be activated in A bottom-up; data-,

driyen fashion, when their own subschemata happen to become activated

independently. For example, if the FUTURE schema were to become activated

4as a resblt of .syntactic or lexical processing on a phrase ( ,g., the

.7)

phrase ia going to wOuld ord4 sult in the-activation of the

3The use .of square brackets to enclose some of the param,-c2rs

of a schema indicates :that those ParameterS have optional status. This

means that only bne of the objacta from the scene need be mentioned inthe prediction, but that*other objects can optionally be included. ,

FUTURE schema), then this alone would be enough to at least partially

activate the Prediction-Schema. Mutual activation works.both ways -(see

,Levin, 1976, for a discussion).

Form-Schemata in a Broader Context, Although it is undouttedly

an instructive exercise to develop atheory of form-schemata within the

restricted experimental context we have teen using, we would do well to1.

.remembef that real reading does not conaist of a sequence of tachistos-

copilly presented flasi-es; each one preceded by a context-setting picture.

In naturalistic reading. context is not ordinarily established by preceding

--pictures. Natural texts gre ordinarily long sequences of sentences, with

only occasional graphic supplements in certain types of texts. The differ-

ences between,ordinary reading and'the sort of reading which subjects do

in the experimeht we have been.discussing have several consequences fon

the application of the,schema theory of conceptually-driven processing

.to ordinary reading. One of these consequences has to do with the co-

herence or unity which is an important aspect of any well-written

lengthy text. Another consequence is related to the fact that the con-

textual effects which result in the activation of particular content-'

schemata must be ascribed not to the presentation of a picture, but

rather to the reader's ,pmderstanding of the-preceding textual material,

Considef first the cOheren& or ulity of most natural texts.

,The form.-schemata which were discussed above (such as Description and

Prediction) were designed to account in part for the order of the indi-

vidual words of the presented phrases, In real texts, however, there is

akpo-a partiaIly,predictable ordering of the phrases and sentences Of

the-body of the tekt. Tie intenled meaning of almost any naturally7

oCcuring te: c cetLuyb

-15--

2 8

grossly violated if, for example,'

the sentences c were to be put into random order. Rumelharr

(1975) has tr.:. ount for these facts about the high:Er-order

structure of leveloping,a special kind of form-sc lama to account

for the epiz., dcture of narratives which are characterized by

having primar lists. His"schema for stories" can be thoughi of

as a form-schi- guides readers expectations about the sequence

of ideas in a Hi text.

Ther presumably,be other types oL high-order form-

schemata for pnceptually-driven processing in the reading of

texts. For ex ___gney (1976) has suggested that textual materials

be classified f the four following types: narrative, explanation,

representation, ascription. Acceptingthis classification system,0

the only type o for which a high order text-proceasing schema has

been developed -c'atives XMandler & Johnson, 1977; Rumelhart, 1975;

Thornd3,4e, 197 -2e the processing of the other text types is pro-

bably of even ;!.tte _ significance for pedagogical applicationS, this

is obviously :d important field for future model-building.

Rigney propc :hese four kinds of information may be found separ-

1

ately or .int -'w' 1 in one text, that the knowledge derived from each.

-'.

. may contribu: .nceptually-driven motor performance, and hat dif-I ,

ferent kinds cf L.Jtor performance may depend upoh different amounts and

mixtures of .this knowledge. At issue here are the effects of,these

..- different kinds orinformation on text-processing strategies. To examine

this issue, it is necessary to characterize these four categories of

information in More del%Ail.

As

currently is

pointed out above, the interest of procedural semanticists

narratives. The ou,tstanding features of narrative

Information:- , Jy-related episodes, characters, and plot, 'set t1,

-16-

2 9

of informatiin,apart from Che other t:tree categories. The, reader

martative cam identify with one or mc: 2 characters anc vicariously

:,Ernce their (fmotions a tempo=lly-orz. 7-nd 77.Tents

smulations of :pf, epfdic flo,,J of lif fr-om whicb IL-ae readeT an,r

l'impressfon of I and persc7,l __rr,o1;Imerit. Nariati-/es

are written with :_:increte nouns.abot. :oncrete episodes, with

;flt Jrnical Vocabularies, and the narrativ .71eS us=ally are designed

sy reading. ReadinT, narratt-e text is , s ar. to 7.ne data-limited

r:f processing discsed by Norman and Ez11,row (1975) than to re-,

processing. That is, words easily understood; sen-,

ten::: structure is easily followed by Most ri..aders Speed and accuracy

of 77.pcessing are not normally limited by competition for the reader's

F=-,ssing resources. The presence of protazonists in the nartative,

-ne Disodic nature df tilt,: text, and the plot must facilitate-concep-,-

-driven.processing. These. features, combtned with high imagery-

descriptions. probabl:- facilitate retention. These characteristics

n:-...17rative also make this type of information attractive for research.

.Houlir-er, narrative information is infrequently encountered in.technical

=aiming or in the sciences, where explanatory, representational, and

>rescriptive information are more common.

We have jusC characterized the reading of some texts as data-

imited processing and the reading of other, more diffiCUlt texts as

: rce-limited processing, using the terms introduced by Norman and ,.

Bobr7w (1975)., Tosome.it may,seem,that we violate the spirit of these.,

r. since Norman and- BobrOw apply 'the 'data-limited' designation

to simplesensory' processes, such as hearing a signal in

mr_csi.,,;i115Wever, Norman 3obrow make clear that the termS

3 0

resource-e- 1 a-Limited re absolute, 'apply only to pL:J( sses

within a 7 :Llan- rl.age of resource alloclon. Thus, if we wE:re to

..conEider ion I, which people are sitc.i: usly doing oth,.r

resource-den1L::ling taisks, such as shadowing o :ape7recorded m==ssage,

as,well as text., then we would ex,De.: al: types of

Processing, ttIudiLr narrtI've reading, td ap73ear resource limit C..

What we are c.-..x;! 4ith here, however, is n=mad reading, fr.: whf.ch

subjects.are rac:: .:aneously_trving to oar:- out other complex :ogni-

rive tasks. st:. n in passing. that sate seen to be canable

of knitti tng nove7i but not while reading technical materials.)

In normal _-practicad ai.:21t readers can be said "nehave ifl .

a data-limited ff:a37 . while proces_ lig most nm-rative texts; (There are,

exceptions, pethhaps, Or the wo=k ct au:hors, such a, Tames Joyce

'but it is r_om. ur-7..aL- :hat such texts ran be sJmrly classifi as narratives.).

Performance_ par!-7......L:Larly if measured y self-ra,4ngs of undrstanding ,

or grasp of bc r.lot structure fr iikel tc be uniformiL7 aigh for

such texts: xas oE performance similar to thoSe menticue.:d above

for narratis Nrot." re2veal muCM poorer results for the same reeaders

with more te7.7 Lica: rEaterials, if, say, the same amount of reing time

per word were ed to the subject.

Explanian, a form of infcrmation Al,countered in E,I1 science,

is characlérizaC IT _exiCal items with highl- specialized referents,

often abstract ccmceTts,.. which are related IT causality more often than,

4BosTEi, biographer=f Samuel j7nnson, provides mi extreme

example of data-tImij'ed processingin7. readin:,;-. He claims to.ha7e foundJohnson weepiTlg bec,suse he could n turn tsi T'ages of,a book as quicklyas.he could r.2.J (Boswell%seetals to f. this wa.s.a tribute to.Johnson!s amacri:41 mencal faculties, '-ut it 0,.--ts possible to us rt it

:.was .-f:mtended ..T.CfcalHon more as a cimment o 17e dearth,of.Contz inhis 7eaaIng ml=er.,)

a_

by time to other abstract concepts. Rather

high imagery episcdes, there is a causally-b:

based on abstractions. .The vocabularies used

td flow of

--lence of descripticn;

anat_ms contain

technical terms that may be unamiliai to the and the.expository

style often is forbidding.

ProceSsing for coMprehension of lex- l.s.ems LTA explanatory .

infortation interaCts with processing for highe-1 --mantic structure.. .

-The reader has to work barder.to translate t:72 Into a paraphrase

equivalent rhat he feels he comprehends. ThansL, technical termss

muSt engage a different set of schemata thar reac. -T- a narrative, if

the reader decides to try to, infer the'defi :he term from the

context, or ifile decides to look in another ,Jur7-1 for its definition.'

Either of these activities becomes a major of the processing

strategy. Some relationships among explana :oncepts tend to be

confusing ;:o keep track of and to remember. .'!red opposites are

ekamples; positiVe-negative, D-1, high-low, 717-:]= carriers and

. majority'carriefs., forward biased-reverse Verbal explanation

in which obieots or.events:are.changingatat : one.npposite to

another as a. conseqUeaceof Other objects or .7e.nts changing state Cfom

one opposite to another often.are very-confsl-'ig en a, first reading.

Processing explanatory inforMatic: ean be mmre resource-.

limited than data-limited. Processing is me- lfkaly to be pushed into, -

a degraded,,mode, in which the reader does no f. fully urnderstand what he

is Teading.

'Information in theform of represtation describes features

of objects. Representational,information temds '.13 contain a high pro-

port n of graphic Material' o supplement tex:- Its semantic structuYe

3 2

,

:c,I1Ja. co be closely reLatec , the ',truccure of the c...) ing des-

so ahat in a pa-srti r tenic:.. domain, say LLc equip-

MEIT: amd svstems in the Nav . represet: ILtional-informatic Jr:: be organized

in cn,e a few standard fo:-mats. r some experia :. e these, the

reac -r ca develop schemata the strt.ctures that will :calitate

subeatuent processin mar_rfiel f.ais domain. 7..hea --hit the

object that is -he subject :he renres_entation k = well

defined physical and fumcticaL 1 stru:cure must also fai1 concep-

tualiydriven prccessim. O ct:s can be classifieL int: factilies based

on similar structures, and higer- eve: schemata cam be 1.arrw.J that

. allow predictions based on.names f objects and their or.

functional featLlres. Furthermore_ many of the schema orae object

)

be highly useful for proces,--limE representational =formation about

another -similar object, at the conceptually-driven level. Graphic

material in representational information would influenc.--., ;,-.rocesming

stn.tegies. Good pictorial information can quickiy onvq Foys_cal and

functional siructure. Block diagrams are presumably easily aomrerted to

higt:-level schemata. Examination of ItlocAtiagrams p-2bably-should

occur early in'a text-nrocessing stragegy.

Like explanaition, repnr.zaentation is likely to tmvo:ve abstrac

co=epts represented by lexical iIens linfamiliar to :he reade7r, and ti,au:s

temn-processing is likely to be 'rced toward t.reurce- Lid mo6Y.

Hcv7.-ar, representation, invclirih: as it does descriprion c- .:oncrete

obje=mS, allows the uS*e of conren.-schemata develope:L: from e!xver_iendirt

'tharaa ab4---cts, Which 'sho\uld familf..-tare conceptually-dr=ert

as, f-Or example, for Telar_ing fumatinnal to physical '-stm-cre,of.an

elec. tronic, device.

Prescriptive info7Etion i3 concern-led with procedures.

,a=r_fhes how to do E,T,

rules for &it::

It

iing. We use a broac. de_Anition, to inclu e

10.ng as well as step-by-:step instructi s_

comsider genaral ;--7..:es of nLis type,

7-aevel schemata. 7._ can- d Lreht beha

tnis wiew-pofnL th_e ime-being,

nfze tuat Scandura (297- makes a different

===tured learning.

The structure

Eltan-_ ',performance is comt,

crgand.red by goal structu

King ,ezci Langston, 1972).

-.2reseript-__ve

3d cf strings

once learned, as sources

ior in certain circumstances,

least, ilthdugh we recog-,.

of "rulet" In his thecty4

=ration is heavily tiMe-basa12.

relatively simple actions

(Rigney -19-59; Rigney, Towne,

Textual :nior tin of this tYpe may

desert:he goal srructures, ,:77 it may descri-L. ;:nysical actions, or it may

4

e a TmLxture. It, too, s often supplemenrndby picturesand diagrams,-

and ..tr may ccmtain, as -=;tatistical algorithms, worked out examples.

It :Is often the ca naz, fn follewing.prscriptions, it is difficult .

to ta..._1'wham an intrmeciate goal 17as been attned, or if some error

has T=eVented its arl-,414mmellt. Man.'machine in-,:arfaces,upon which 'al

taslis are performad n do not.- p=vide this :_nd of detailed feedback.i

For- eimple, wf7- ,I=ss-necks, aln error a long statistical compu-

tarfo= nay mot tmmedia-ely.

p-re:-..,/e information often.assumes tnat the reader already

th

/I

f-.-- at he can use tc complete the prescription

Lisuai: applies to ietails ._ procedures. Brown (l976

inted out exampIas of implieIj procec-ireS in prescriptions used

to tich imathematics.

The, goal r tures .tot :7:escr1p .rls can be ca:Isally as u'elL

3 4

as sequentially.relate... ';.:oal is to operatr, a device, say a ,

radar repea=er, the power MalE ,-Je turned on and otLix ccntrois mdst be. - .

set to put the repeater in =e 7trect mode. If tha ta7a.-=oal is t71-...,

2ompute the standard d-e,:Lat7-11 :7-77mm a set of observatioms, certain inter-?

mEldiate r,?sults must b, _irst. Different patieins o sequence

relatiomships within goal s=ct.:_res were described i igne7 et. al.,

(1971) for serial task:3 tc D: -,e.rformed on ml=m/machine interfaces.,

4

Simiiapatternsu o doubt exist In other goal structures in prescriptions.

aoththe secAlential and the caLz)al struc=ures of presortmtions should aid,t

conceptually-driven proessia.: of prescrirtive te=t- 1Procedural.schemata

from prior experience with otner prescri?tionS of a similar 'kind would-,

ugcl. Resource n1iitatio =,, for processing prescriritive text could

relate to lack of undrstanding'of technical telnology, t from gaps

in the irstructLms, .e., ±mpflait procedurelk The reao(2r mighl mot

detect these gaps u=7,-..1 tried to use the iritructions to Co sometthing:

Ance prescriptiOns c:,,i1O vary frmm iists of generi rii1.s -o expli 'it

itep-h57-step instr, t' processing them cc21.1d be _itherf primaril

Tasour-a-lirited or pr-. nartly

La summary, e have att,limted to di,stingul_sh am: four t es

tax=aal ; narrativ- exppnation, repreety=tion, and

7reorip=don, on the iasis of fea: ees that: would i=::-.;enc. conceptually-

l-:iven processing. These different kinds of informa:tiem contain dif-

.erent featu.es that impose processing. loads ,:ft ''tffererat :itructural.

Levels of And tliAt- dri proc:essineith t:.-c+iwzree. ).eing

1..mited (yr being :.:Aleolarce77-71-- i;rocessing narTatives would

rend, a= De 12ta.-11mted. is, all levels of tqe text are asily

understood 'processing can proceed at top speec to fill in s:czs of

`t?, 5

-22-

.1%

-existing schematic structures. Tte Otber three kind's of in:formation

y contain technical terms at the lexical level whce meaning.is

unknown to the reader- Learning the meaning of.Ulese terms by looking

them up outside the texr-takes time from processing the texr. If the

meaning cannot be found, comprehension of the text will be degraded. ,

The other three categories of text also of--:-.en are incomplete representa7

tions, explanations, or prescrfptions, because the wthor assumed Ale

goadeAmuld complete them by inferen,re or alreadr.,- possessed the know-

ledge or procedu*;-9.the or left cut. If these resources are not

possessed by the reader, text-processing will be resource-limited.

Strategies are likely tc be different for data71imited than for resource-.

limited processing. The latter is Ifkely to be more heavily data-driven,

to be slower, and to he operating more often In a degraded mode

ctually, is probably nor thc case that natural texts can,

in general, he classiVA simply as ar. example c.f cme or another of the

above four text tFpes. Mostnaturai texta of mc.rE -.7,an a couple of pages

probably toniist of a sequence mixture f these 1:xt types. For

example, am electronic trouble-slimoting manua be.expected to

include explanations of the functions of certain oil-cuits, representationa

. b

of the layout of the cfrcuits, prescriptions for actual troubleshooting

(e.g., niV7ic.i.ay:: difconnect the power while removing Cle case of this

instrumnt%" and 1).)s,sih1y even pihrratives "fl. there was a young

repairtor oarc,d Franl. whc 7hought Le would save time by not disconnecting

the liower befare removing the case of theAG-34', Of course,.it in

not always true that-natural texts ere a mixture c.-1 these text types. _

Nariative texts, in particular, may .6ometimes be ver7 extensive, even of

book- length, without ever being interrupted with prescriptions or explana-

tions. Nonetheless, pedagogica: materials in particular are probably

3 6-23-

e

-chz,..1racterized by mixtures of the foutstexttypeS. Schemata for,the

Ci-iiree text types which have not yet been modeled need -to be developed.

Cantent -Schemata

W1thin the simple and not-wholly-natural context of the

'tachistosC,:. 'c experiment we have4een using to discuss conceptually- (-

) 4. _

'driven sehemata, content'schethata are fairly straightforward. Content-.

-

schiemata can vary in tomplexity, just as form-schemata can. The simplest

sort of ccntent-schemata are those which are closely bound to singleA.

'lexical items (words). In the-experimental-paradigm, these.are the

concept sc-rlemata which are responsible for the subject's reccignition

that one object in a picture is a car, anotlier is a lake,'and so on.

1

Once these concepts have been activated (the idea of a car or Ihe idea

oE a lake), then the'names. for these concepts, "carorielakt," are_

.also activated, and are thus, to some extent, expected in the,subse-,

cimm7.t tachistoscopically 4esented phrase.4r)

We will present as examples of the-class.oP lexical-level

co7.:...:ent-schemata two ilistances, one fot the 'concept lake and one for the

concept Volkswagen. Consider first t e schemat.M4for Volkswagens.

VOLKSWAGEN,( )

iswhen

nME .,(xlidelkswagen")

CLASS'(x, CAR) . 4

CLASS (x, VEHICLE)

CLASS (x, OBJECT)

SHAPE. (x, ....)

SIZE (x,. ....)

COLOR..(x, variable)

etc.

Here the visual properties of .

Volkswagens are spe5ified

7

-24-

ft

DRIVE (PERSON, x)

SOMETIMES (NEED (x, GAS))

end.

,Here.the functional properties

of Volkswagen are specified

Presumably, it'is the visual properties af Volkswagens, as specifi

subjects' Nolkswagen-schemata,'which enable subjects to recognize he

approp,riate portion of the Figure asla Volkswagen: (It s not our

s.3

concern here to specify howlthis is accomplished; see Wi stbn, 1975 for

some recent work on a frames or schemata approach to visual recognition

, , - . _

.problems.) Once these visual information subschemata hav-E been activated,

.g

( .,.

,...

,

as a result'of visuarprocessing of the picture, they cause the schema

for'Volkswagens to become activated. This attivation re'sults in certain

expectations with respect to some of the lexical items in the subsequently

presented

/hrase, The only direct lexical activation as a resuit of the

Volkswagen-Schema i "Vorkswagen." (Perhaps we should have also included.

t °

in the schema the alternate name "Bug.") In fact, however, the activa-

V(.

v..

tion of the Volkswagen-Schema not only causes th'e word "Volkswagen" to

\ be expected, but also, indirectly, other lexical items. It does this byx

\

.

causing activation of other, lexical-level content schemata, which, of ,

4 . .

..

\

..

t tDurse also have their own namcs. For example, the schema VOLKSWAGEN\\

.

activates the schema CAR,- which has the,name "car." Therefore, "car" is

another,expected word in the phrase which 'the subject will seL after

the presentation of the picture.

In some of the example sentences and phrases mentioned earlier,

reference was.sometimes made to object& which were not pictured in the

figure shown to the subjects. For example, '.'the driver"-IC'an be-referred

ta. '

'to in a post-picture phrase. It is possible that such references are

kao '

33-25-

.

.

. more difficult for subjects to perceive in a tachistoscopically pre-

sented phraSe thau-refeiences to-objects which were seen. However, it

seems likely that they are easier td perceive than are references to

irrelevant objects, stich as "the popCorn." One possible answer to how

this mechanism of relevance is achieved is to be found in the content-

schemata. -Because'the Volkswagen-Schema includes a subschema which has0

a PERSON who DRIVES the car, there is some expectation for a reerence

to this'person, although this Maybe on1S- weakly activated.

It should befremembered that thenature of the "expectations"

we have been discussing for these Particular lexical items is necessarily

somewhat weak. There are a large number of possible lexical items,

.baed on the schemata activated by the depictions of objects in the plc-.

ture presented.to the subjects, so not a great deal of activation can

be alloted to any one lexical- "hypothesis."

Another activated lexical-level content-schema is the Lake-

Schema, which is respOnsible for the subject's expectation that the word

"like" may appear in the tachistoscopically presented phrase. Here is

the schema.

LAKE (x)

IS when

NAME (x, "lake")

CLASS (x, BODY-OF-WATER)

CLASS .(x, LANDSCAPE-FEATURE)

CLASS .(x, OBJECT)

.SHAPE,(x, irregular & variable)

SIZE (x, large & variable)

'COLOR (x, BLUE, GREEN, GRAY)

-26-

3 9

;

PoSSIBLE (EXIST (ISLAND, in x))

etc.

POSSIBLE (SAIL (BOAT, on x))

POSSIBLE (DRY-UP (x))

=-,

4

end.

Conent-schemata can, of course, be activated by other means

than the perceptilrn of possible referents of these schemata in a picture.

In normal re.e. ng of a sentence like "John asked his mother if he could

sail the bOat," the.Lexical-level content-schema SAIL will ordinarily

begin to be activated slightly before the schema BOAT (simply because

reading is normally a-left-to-right process). To.some extent, the prior

activation of SAIL.will facilitate the activation of BOAT, because the

schema BOAT is a possible component of the'schema SAIL. If the sentence

were "John asked his mother to pass the gravy boat," the lexical-level

,Content-scheinaGRAVY'would lick activate the schema BOAT, although it

would presumably actiLmtethe schema for GRAVY-DISH, which would,.in turn,

result in an expeciatton for the, lexical item. "boat," a possible name

for a gravy container. Anderson & Orrolky, (1975) and Anderson, Pichert,

Goetz, Schallert, Stevens-& Trolllp (1976) have demonstrated that,contexts

have the property of selecting'specific interpretations for the lexical

items that appear in them. They show further that it is these Interpre-.

tations (or instantiations of the relevant schemata) which seem igrbe

remembered, rather than the lexical items themselves.

k,More Comprehensive Content-Schemata. People reading texts

11

undoubtedly have other, more complex or more integrative, content-schemata

at ;:ktrk when they.are reading texts. Text understanding consist; of

-27-

4 0

MoatabstraCt

::Top-dovin,Schemata in reading 2-10-77

cr-

COntent Form

content-form dimension

Narrative schema

Psychopiment-report schema

0riSperling paradigm

article schema

44

Boats-sail-on.44 -4.)cn lakes schema

. Nostconcrete

Volkswagen schema

Figure 4

-Description schema

Examples of different schemata

4 1

-28-

more than stringing together lexical-level concepts. _Some simPle

examples of supra-lexica]. schemata are included in the above schema

for the Concept lake.. For example, the "POSSIBLE (SAIL (BOAT, on x))"

subschema conveys the notion that boats can sail'on lakes. There must

be a large number Of simple schemata like-this,. which,reflect people's

knowledge about possible relationships between objects in the world.-

Such schemata Can be activat'ed in reading in a number Of different ways.

The perception of a lexical item such as "boat" or "lake" whose concept-

schema participates in suCh a relational schema (1fte "POSSIBLE (SAIL.

'(BOAT,:on LAKE))") results in-the:activation of the relational achema,

to some extent.

Many.more abstract content-schemata are possibl.e. For example

4<-

a psychologist who is familiar, with the Sperling Paradigm of short-term

memory experiments.will experiente an actiVation of his or her Sperling--

Paradigm-Article-Schema when reading a report of.such an experiment.

At the level of greatest abstractness, the distinctions 'between form

and content-schemata become less absolute. The Sperling-Paradigm7ArtiC1e-

.

,Schema just mentioned surely has form characteristics as well as content

.characteristics (e.g., the activation of such- a schema should mean1

(:expectations for,a certain-format -- introduction,section<,.followed by.

Methodology,,followed by Results, etc.). The extremely abstract, compre-

hensive schemata proposed for narratives (Rumelhart,'1975; Thorndyke,

1977;'Mandlet & Johnson, 1977) have content aspects,as well as form.

Figure 4 gives some.examples of different types of schemata-

varying along two dimansions: abstractness and the content-form dimension.

4 2

-29-

1..

Experimental Evidence for the. Effects of Content-Schemata in leading.

What kind of experimental or observational evidende can be

.cited in support for the kind of content-schemata We have just sUggested?

One type Of experimental evidence, which supports the existence of the

sort ofccntext effec predicted by the lexicalLlevel content-schemata

is provided by Swinney and Hakes (1976). Earlier research (Foss; 1970;_

Foss and Jenkins, 1973) Showedthat the presence of a lexical ambiguity

in a neutral sentence resulted in a momentary increase in processing '

complexity, as measured-by-reactien time in,a phoneme monitoring task.

Swinney and Hakes showed that "at least some types of,,prior disambiguating

contexts 'can eliminate the processing load effect typically obtained:

following an ambiguity." (p. 688). Bedause one meaning for a poten-

tially ambiguous word was activated by the cd-atext, apparently only that

meaning of the word was activated when it was read: -This seems to support

the claim inherent in the model tor lexical-level content-schemata that

access to a concept for a lexical item results in access to concepts for

related words:

There is also evidence for effects, dde to content-schemata

with.large'r Scope thanlexical-level schemata. One of the:most'coMpelling

ltdemonstration experiments" that comes.to mind,is a group of reading

experiments done by Bransford and Johnson .(1973) and some of their co-

workers. In one experiment, for example, all mbjects were reqUired to

read a'brief passage (about 100 words), Half of the subjects,were given

the passage with ona.title;'half saw,it with.a,different title. The

title.was."A $pace.TriP to an Inhabited.Flanet." ..The.iecond was

,

"Watching a. Peace March from the 40th Floor.." This.was Od text which

followed the title::

4 3

-30

"The view was breathtaking. From the window onecould see the crowd below. Everything lookedextremely small from such a'distance, but the color- .

ful costumes could still be seen.. Everyone seemedto be moving in one direction in an orderly fashion

,and tpere seemed to be little children as well asadults. The landing was gentle, and luckily theatmosphere was such that no special suits had.tobe worn.- At first there was a great deal ofactivity. Later, when the speeches started, thecrowd quieted down. The man, with the televisioncamera took many 'shots of the setting and the crowd.Everyone was very friendly and seemed to be gladwhen the music started." (Bransfore Johnson,1973, p.412)

-As can be seen, the text makes'quite good sense when.understo from

the Niewpoint pf either title.5 But what does it mean t "make gpod

sense from the viewpoint of either title"? What does .this mean in(3

.

terms --7F the.processing the reader is doing as he.reads the text? From

the pori2-b\pof view provided by the theory of content-schemata the title

has th... effects of activating different cohtent-schemata, one haying

4to do with peaee marches the other with spacethips or science-fiction.

These.schemata are mid-level content schemata. They have much larger-

scope than simple lexical-level schemata, but they do not have the dePth

and complexity .(or many of the form characteristics) that larger schemata.

such as an episode-schema might have.

According to our theory; when one of these sChemata is acti-

yated, it guides processing of the text. Many of the sentences in the

text are evidently ambiguous. Yet the feeling one has in reading the

text, after first having read one of ttie titles, is not one Of ambiguity

sr All. Because one has formed a conceptual "set" which guides processing,.

.' 5n enenc

.

I fact the.5th ste, "the' landing was gentle and luckily *.. ,.

) the atmosphere was such that to special suits had to be worn," does not-

.'make very good sense fromtbe viewpoint of a peach march... This sentence's:Significance in: the experiment is diseussed-below. ',

-31-

A A

.each of the conc. Lntroduced by the sentences already bos a "slot"

to fit into in a ,xisting mental structUre, the activated Peace-March-

Schemaor Spacesh:1,7- chéma.

What cau,d be the format of suCh mid-level,content-schemata

in the schema framework-we have been using? .Here are possible structures

for a Peace-March-Schema and a'Spaceshi,07Schema.6

PEACE-MARCH

is when

LARGE (GATHERING .(PEOPLE))

ORDERL: (M)VE (GATHERING (PEOPLE down STREETS))

INTEND (PEOPLE, DEMONSTRATE (PEOPLE FAVOR (PEOPLE;PEACE).. to POLITLCIANS))

POSSIBIE (SING (ETOPLE))

(SPEAk (LEADER, to PEOPLE))

POSS:7LE (NEWS-COVER (MEDIA, 9)7.

. enc.

SPACESA -LANDING -

is

LAND (J;22ESHIPS, on ALIEN-PLANET)

P IBLIL (EXIST (ALIEN-CREATURES, on ALIEN-PLANET)).

PC:%.::113, (SIMILAR (ALIEN-;CREATURES,. HUMANS))

,POSSIBLEJBREAMABLE (ALIEN-ATMOSPHERE))

shoulti be remembered'that schemata sUch as thOse followingare Aesigned o conVey not Oe.autbors' conCepts for th particular ideas,

:but rather tha concepts-of. some Mythical'"average man:" hprahave beenpreVious attempts to aescriSe.-sOine imbortint mid-level co ent schemataby psychologists. Heider'a (1958) attempt to formulate a7"naive psycho=logy" is:.one example of this: The.prese t work, however, has the benefitof'a More explircit Model framework (nam y4A)rocedural.aemantics) than .

'did Heider'S, .

- The symbol i is used to refer to the activation of the_callingSchema itself, in this case,.the activated Peacp-liarch-Schema.

-

'

POSSIBLE (FRIENDLY (ALIEN-CREATURES, to HUMANS))

end.

What eVidence is there that the two different titles resulted

In different procesaingof the2text, aside from the introspective reports

. of readers that they havedifferent mental experiences when reading. the

same text with different titleS? Recall sentence mentioned in Foot-,

note 5, "The landing was gentle and luckily' -Lie atmosphere was Such that .

no special suits had to be worn." The contep introduced by this sen-

tence do not seem to fit naturally into a Pear.:-1,1archs-Schema, although'

/ .

they work well in a Spaceship-Landing7Schema. 717 a post-treatment test

of memory for the'text passage, those suhjemts wmotead the passage

under th 'peace march" title had significantly 7=rer memory tor this

sentemce than.did those subjects who read the pom7Txp.undet'the "space-

ship' title.8

In other Work (Barclay, 197-3; Bra:1st-D.3rd, Barclay & Franks,

1972; Bransford.& Frank's, 1971; Johnson, Eransford, Nyberg, & Cleary,.

1972)'Bransford'and his associates demonst,7ated that memory and depth

of understanding are closely related. We may consider It likely that

subjects who.tead the i)asdage under the 1=..arade" title'did not have as'

complete an understandingof the andmalous sentence and its significance,

in the framework.of:the narrative as did the subjects.in the othet grOup.

From theviewpoint of our theory of reading, tile reason fpr thiSdiffetence

. is,that the4ctivations ofthe'Peace-Match-SChema did not make any con- 7,

1ceptually-driven processing. contributiwto the underatanding,of-this

. ,

4"tifter hearing the passage, Ss weie asked to recall it. Most

sentences were recalled well except for.the'oneabout "the landing."

here was e*tremely low tecall.for this sentence,.and Ss noted that there

was one sentence-(i:e., about,a landing) that they could not understand.

Even when,presented with a "cue outline"-(e.g.,,Luckily the landing

and the atmosphere .), Ss exhibited very low ability to

remember what the sentence was about." --Bransford & McCarrell, 1974,

p.297.

46 ,

-33-

1

...particular-sentence during reading. For those sL..-bjectS who experienced

an activation of theeSpaceship-Landing-Schéma, however,.there was an

important conceptually-driven contribution to the understanding of this

-sentence.

. Schallert's (1976) work can be viewed a a replication.of the

.

underlying findings of Bransford & Johnson (1973) . 14th more nearly

precise control of the structure of the texts. Subjects read Aragraphs

which were Specifically conStructed to be ambiguous, each having two'. ,

coherent and distinct semantic readings. The two titles prepared for

each text determined which 'reading was appropriate. The results' show(I

that when subjects prncesed a 'text Iprmeaning, the nat.= of their

mornnries for the texrlicre partiadetermimed by the preceding title..

What possib1 -:. signifLcanc,., for'application to adult reading

strategies do the results of BransfDrd and Johnson'S experiment have,.

when viewed from the.perspective of our theory? They suggest that

maximum understanding, memory and efficiency in processing obtain

whenreaders have experienced prior activationof the.appropriate

'mid-level content-schema. One prosaic application of thia suggestion'

is that texts should be written with qpropriateheadings, that is, ,

those which will cause the'activation oT schemata which.have slots for.,

the major concepts presented in the portion.of.text following that

heading. Another possible applidation would be io train adult readers-

to make more effective uSe of headings. .For example, if a reader

thought briefly about each heading before actually reading a text, he

.'might begin the reading task with a very good idea.of the meaning of

the6text, due to the activation of a nuiber of content-schemata of

varying scapes. This seems to be an important,aspect of a puMber of

47

reading improvement courses, such as the Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamica.

program. This kind of application is discussed in detail below;

Still another way in which readers :an be brought to experience the

activations of facilitative c.tent-schemata is for them to read some

simple, short, prepared sl_mmary of the text first. Educational psycho-

logists have exi)lored te u e of such summaries ad rela.ted preparatory

maLterials, they call "advance organizers." For recent reviews of

this'literamure, see Paw & Waller (1976).and Hartley & Davies (1976).

It has beem noted .t:J.:at ne Of.the greatest problerx.With this area.of

resear , is the lack of a cohesive theoretical'framework

fur characterizini.; r comparing,particular advance organizers. It may

he :hat the theory .'or content7schemata we have described, when coupled

with a framework fo: producing summaries such as that proposed in Rumel-

hart (1975), could crovide Such a framework for analyzing advance

or7anizers. 4

Application to Adult Reading_ Strategies.

Rumelhart does.not deal with our major intetest here;.intentional

control oVer the reaC(ing processor. -.He has,described an automatic, pro-7

babilistic processor. It seems clear to us that, superimposed on this,

th6re must be a conttolstructure, an executive level, that Can assign .

'different Jcinds Of prOcessing taska to,the reading processor: Most" text

contains a.,variety of different kinds of information; it is &land of

1.z...formation fruit cake. The resources of, the reading proceSsar, can be

Ideriloyed to satisfy aVariety of different kinda of goals asSociated

with sUrface structure and_deep structure, and to satisfy one goal there

may be more than'orle processing strategy: For example, f we are read-

,.

ing for meaning, WE can continhe to.pick upinformation on successive

4 8

passes (many experimental studies of reading allow only one,pass),

,We cap set our reading .processor for different subsoals on each pass,

or for a maximum com:oreliension on ea:ch paSs. We can skip around, not

following the serial topography, Or we can follow it. We can review

our retention of what we just 'read, or nct, betwen passes. We can

regulate the Amount of processing capacity -we exT nd, from low-concen-

tration skimming to llighreoncentration reading. We can read with the

intention to remember, or with some short-term goal in nind that does

not require.long-term retennlon (e.g.,.looking up a teIephOne number).

The common denominator of al_ text procesaing strategies seems to be

limitedinput capacity. It is not ar accident that the information.

in texts is'packed in serial strings.

SuppOsinethat the theories odtlined above offer a reasonable

way for us to to.understanesome of the effects oE conceptually-.

driven proCessint in reading. Do they hav; anypplicability to adult ,

. reading strategies? We think that they do, and that, to _some extent,--

they help to explAin,theeffectiveness of the commercial reading

effectiveness courses approach, discuSsed below under Extractive-Multi-

Pass Strategies.

Text-Processing Strate'gies

We will group these as single-pass strategies and multi-pass

strategieS. In what follows, we attempt to delineate basic strategies

for understanding text. 'That, PS, we'assume that the reader has,the

task of understanding all or a selected part of a text passage. We will

leave for subsequent consideration the influences,of other orienting

tasksi noting in passing that the literature contains many examples of

the ef(ects of different'orienting tasks on word, sentence, and text

processing. One of the most sttiking is the.demonstration by AAronson

°-dbnd,Scarborough (1976) thattsubjccts who were told they Would.h6Ve,ta-

recall sentences word-for-word used different word-by-word.reading-

times.and'patterns than subjects instructed simply:to tomprehend the

sentences. During reading', recall subjects spent an average of 181 msec

more per word than comprehension subjects, and.their phrase structure

.

processing patterns were,markedly different. We also recognize that text

in textbooks often is supplementeE, by review questions, exerdises, or.

problems; and that the reader can choose to,use or be taught to use .

rehearsal, or mental imagery, or other learning. strategies.. For a

,pre4minary discussion ofthese issues, see Rigney (1976).

Single-Pass Strategies. It might be possible for a reader to

Start at.the,beginning of a-text, with the first word, and read it word-,

by-word straight through to the end, without looki-w ahead or looking

back. The reader.would attemPt tc comprehend the temt on one trip

through. However, eye-movement studies indicate thLt sf,:ricti word-by- .

word processing seldom occurs. Remders may look bac at parts of sen-

tences, or look ahead, or cross sentence and paragraph boundaries in.the

search for meaning. For experimental purposes, it m.._v be necessary to

force an appr'xiMation of striet 1ass processfng. A necessary

tondition is segmented PreSentation -of the text, -word-by-word, sentenee-'

bysentence, or fraie-by-frame, to prevent non-sequential vis451

'scanning strabegies. 'Auditory presentation often. is used, aithough this',

adds the requirement for phonemic processing, and drops the realuirement

for graphemic.procesSing. .

Strict single-pass processing canbe. forced, .

as in Thorndyke's study, by paCed presentation, e.g.c on,le line at a time

for 5 seconds. Even here, itseemS likely that studefs might san

.- back and forth on the line during the 5 seConds. Lets strict single-paSs

-177

50

, strategies are allowed by sequentiaL programmed instruction frames

which may contain more visible information, and. may require additional

processing in a frame. The student processes the module, answers a

question about it, and goes.on if cdrredt or reprocesses it if not. The

frame could be shown briefly and then reMoved.

There seem to btseveral things wrong atb singre-pass proces-

sing strategies. For eicample, they reduce tbe scope of the input for top-..

down procesSing, using the topography of the pl , and skipping about,

across sentence and paragraph boundaries to pick up clues to higher-level

structure.. Clues to this structure must be accumulated word-by-word

and sentence-by-sentence, before it can be.predicted from prior.experience

with.similar material.' This could-limit the contributiOns of conceptually-

driven Processing.

.Some kinds of...single-pass strategies.may be effective for pro- 1)

cessing some kinds of text. In conceptually.dense, technical material,

there can be many7technial terms that are not explained.

in the text...1 . .

The student MaY have.to search for explanations of these terms and re-

write.the sentences,.one by one, substituting'the explanations, befoie

.he can:comprehend the passage made up of the sentendes. This seems to

be a matter of translating the data into equivalent, analogical or meta-

phOrical forms, that can be used by-conceptually-driven processing . Thib

is one, way, of achieving understanding of conceptually denst text,

'Multi-Pass Strategies. Single-pass strategies discuSsed above

are *based on the idea that 'all the, information in the text can be ex-

tracted on one,trip through. It is the acquisition of ideas, rather

than tht acquisition of words that distinguishes%single-pas:

'multiple-pass strategies. The basis for multi-pass strategies is that

-38-

several passes could be more effective than a single-pass. Putting

text on pages and Ordering pages in sequence allows the reader to

select. apy part of the.text he pleases to process next. He can

cross over sentence, line, paragraph, and page boundaries any time heeP to

chooses, de can go back and reread a phrase or sentence he does not

'understand, or look ahead tO get some ideaof higher.levels of organi=

zktion, or ski& over material he.already understands or that is not

relevant to hs goal. He can selectively prOcess-FO satisfy some

non-semantic objective, ignoring the information in the text. How

should he use this poWer and flexibility of his text processor?

It seems to us that these strategies should utilize the

'power bf conceptually-dtiven piocessing in,the top-down, bottom-up

model. HeretOfOre, the implications of conceptually-driven processing',e

in text comprehension seem to have.bben overlooked. Yet, it is clear

,

that it is of overwhelming importance. Most of the time, when we are

e.

reading, we pre acquiring new information from data that cOnsists of

utterly familiar patterns of letters in words, words in sentences, and

sentences in paragraphs. Fiom whence-comes the pew information?

It may be useful to'distinguish:among the different kinds of

.multi-pass strategies on.the basis of how the text processoV is Used in'

each pass. Tentatively, N5e identify ekhaustive, ektractive, and selec-.

time types:

Exhaustive Multi-Pass'Strategies. The:exhaustive'Multi-paa'S .

sttategy concentrates on full comptehension on,each pa'ss.. We ail have

had the experience oT reading a passage, say a chapter in a textbook,

for a second or thirdrtime and eagh time realizing that we are acquiring

- more information. The-exhaustiVe.multi,pass strategy probably is fairly. ,

'5 2

1.

commonVused by students. It is simple to apply. ThS reader finds a

quiet environment, aits down with the text, andreads it through with

,\

as much concentration as possible, and then reads it again wiph deep

concentration, and so on. Management pf intervals between readings is

important...A-low long,should'they be? What should.go on in these inter als?

"Evidence in the literature is equivOcal, although the reader probably

'should not read similar material during the interval and the interval,

probably:should not.be.too long. The interval could be used,for a review

of what was read. This will revealjrregUlarities in recall. Recall is

likely to be good for top,level truèure ; not so good for details, at0

least for narrative Information (Thornd ke, 1977; Mandler & Jbhnson, 1977).

Review might uncdver gaps in knowledge that otherwise would not be remember-,

*eAfrom the first pass, but the review itself is likely to be selectiye.

Whether review is done or not done, the next reading is likely_.to be

different than the first. It will be.more selective and less compee-.,.

hensive, concentrating on parts of,the text reMembered to beAifficult,.4 .i. , .

..

,

,:

skimming parts remembered'to be of lAttle importance, or already known.i "

' What seems to happen asa cOnsequence of top-down, bottomLup'intar--

actionaduring.sthe preceding passja that confusion and some anxiety

will be generated over passages that were not, well understood: These

feelings7Will motivate the reader to direct his text.processor to Con-,.

centrat& on these confusing passages the next time. There iS a tendency,

then, for the exhaustive multi-pass, strategy to be conceptually-driven

'toward the extractive. multi-pass strategy on successive passes.

Extractive Multi-Pass Strategies. For non-trival passages,

ay a chapter in a textbook, onereading will not Suffice to store all. ,

0.N,

the information in,the shapter in LTM, or to make.all of it retrievable..

-40-4f,

5 3

from LTM. If interactions between top-down and bottom-up processing

tend.to 'make successive passes extractive, why not teach extractive

multi-pass strategies? The studenTght be taught to look for overall

structure, for terms he does not Imo for.summarizing sentences, for

style of exposition, for differentlands of processing,tasks, etc.

The assumption $s that relatively quick, extractive passes might accumu-.

jate contextual Information that mnuld be extremely useful Tor the top-

down part.of tho text processor to use in guiding procesAini. If the

, context could be established early in LTM, could the acquisition of

4etailed information then proceed on an extractiv'e basis? Multilass

extractive processing seems to work well for reading the-journals.

Studies n Cognitive Psychology,. Memory and Cognition, or any other

cientific journal haVe a standard format dictated by the editorial

,

poftcy. One multi-pass extractive processing Strategy used to under-,-

stand articles in these journals could be:

1. Read the title and sumMary.- Dothese descr,ibe what theeXperiment is about? If nOlt, read,atew sentences of'the,introduction for additiOnal clues.

2. 'Look for tables *or figures that summarize result§ andgive labels of main variables. .Try-to get some idea 404-Whet happened'.

. Read the final,discussionnr Summary. These,give more'clues'to what the author thought he was doing..

- 4. Reid part or all of the,thethods and procedures sectiontciget some.idea.of_theepisodic'strUcture bf theexperimeAtal design.

5, Look for answers.to unanswered questions or.passageA thatwill reduce confusiOn.

,Mentally reVieWryour understandint of what waS done,

found, And condluded.

The Evelyn Wood reading dynamics approaCh seems tobe the

leading example of an extractive multi-pass strategy. Successful'graduates

'

-

of the EW classes "read" texts atLa much faster rate than.they did

before ,training. (We use scare quotes here only because some might

object to the use of the term "read" whe:. the reader does not actua4.447

see every word in the text. For our part, we feel that this is reading

if the reader gets just as complete an understanding as would be the case

if every word had been read.) In addition, they usually seem to compre-

hend or remember more of what they read, based on Multiple-choice measures

of grasp-of-content developed by the EW staff. This seems like an anoma-

lous result, since we in psychology ordinarily expect to find speed-

accuracy trade-offs. Yet it is explicable, we think, if we understand

some of the EW techniques in termsbof the schemata theory outlined above.

One of the most important rules that EW graduates are supposed to follow,

particularly when they are reading technical material is to preview

the material. The previewing is done in several passes. First, the

reader pages through the text looking at major headings, picture captions, ,

and diagrams. During this process, he or she is to try to form hypotheses

about the major points made by the text. Then the reader makes a second

pass through the material, this tilAe-a slower and more detailed one.

Using the,hypotheses formed in the first pass, the reader tries to form

a number of partia4r independent hypotheses about the detailed points

made by ehe text. On this pass, he or she tries to notice vOcabulary

items or concepts which are unfamiliar, With the intentiOn of seeking the

meaning of these items during the actual reading of the text. If the

reader feels uncertain about the overall'structure of the text or a

the purpoae of some subsection of the text, a third pass or A parti

pass fs also performed.- Only when the major ideas are.firmly fixed

the mind of the reader does he or she finally "read" the text. As a

result of teaining in self-ferced pacing of eye movements, this final

5 5-42-

reading is done quite quickly, but it is not our interest here to

deal with the nature of the speed training, but rather only the compre-

hension training.

The effectiveness of the EW previewing techniques can be-`

understood in terms of thetheory of forM-and content-schemata discussed

above. The?-first pass can be thought of as an attempt to activate an

appropriate high-level textual schema, or, rather, a number of high-level

schemata of both types (form and content). If the reader was not aware

of the top-level form-schema approprix to the text (i.e., whether the

text was primarily a narrative, a p escription, a representation, or an

explanation), this pass should'activate the appropriate schema. In

addition, some top-level content-schema should be activated by the first

pass--the reader should experience an activation-of his psychology-

Experiment-Report-Schema When he looka through a short text and dis-

covers headings like "Methodology.," "Results," "Discussion," and recog-

-nizable psychological terms in the title and figure.captions. (This

example iS" true, of course, only in the case of those readers who are

familar with articles on experimental psychology). In those cases in

which knowledge of the topic matter can be extremely specialized, an-

even more detailed and explicit'top-level content-schema can be activated

on the first pass. Thus,'some psychologists might preview a certain

article and experience an activation of a "Sperling-Paradigm-Arti6le-

Schema," rather that the more general "Psychology-Experiment-Report-

Schema,". The important notion provided by the schema-theOry approach

to reading is that previewing can activate schemata-Which might have bene-

ficial conceptually-driven processing effects in reading.

The second pass, which is guided, to some extent, by the schema

-43-

56

activated by the first pass, shoulV result in the activation of some

more explicit, lower-level content-schemata. Some of these schemata

will be lexical-level content-schemata, activated by the presence of

particular words in the bits of text read by the previewer. The reader

naturally tries to fit these activated schemata into the structure pro-,

vided by the top-level schema.

During these passes through the text, the reader, is building

up a conceptual representation of,,the entire textin a sort of outline

form. When the actual reading of the teXt begins,he or she does not

need to see every word, because most of what the'text says is already

4

known. aeading is,then more a process of filling in the gaps in an

established\knowledge structure, rather than a process of creating an

entire knowledge structure from scratch, essentially in a bottom-up,-

data-driven manner.

Why is it, then, ,that stUdents of the EW method of reading

appear to be capable'of processing more information per unit time? We ,

would prefer not to believe that EW graduates have significantly larger

1-STM buffers or significantly faster-read-in and read-out of STM. What

other options are there? Perhaps the nature.of what is stored in STM

is different. Specifically, perhaps the EW graduate processes the text

in significantly larger chunks. Because the EW grad has deliberately

:ought about the activation of a large number of top-level and mid-level

schemata, the text can be understood in terms of these complex, integra-

tive concepts as it is being read. Whef/Fhis works, it is not necessary

for the reader to first store in memory each of the low-level, lexically-

bound concepts in STM in sequence, and only 'then to figure out what the

ounifying, integrative concept is that captures all of these.. Instead,

the higher-level concept schema is already activated, and the lexical-

5 744

level units need only be superficially checked to ensure that they fill

their expected roles in the integrative schema. -

Selective Multi-Pass Stragegies. Obviously, the type of

multi-pass strategy hat is most effective will be strdngly influenced

by the objectives of the reader and by the type of text to be processed.

No one'ever needs to learn absOlutely everything in a passage of text,

from physical topography to deepest deep structure. Less exhaustive

objectives ar the rule*. It is essential that the objectives be clearly.

speci;ried sinc they will determine the processing strategies that could

be useful.

In all text processing strategies'discussed so far,-the top

level goal was assumed to be achievement of some reasonable level of

comprehension of all the teXt. Of course, these strategies,could be

applied to a page, a chapter, A book. The segment of text has td be

defined.

A,more limited objective, is very common, and is particularly

important in relation to job'performance requirements. The reader's

needs for information from processing a text are established by a re-

quirement. to perform some task or function.. He must find information

in the text.that will help him meet bis requirment, and he.wiShes to

,learn only that information. He must be able. to:identify information

he does not want to learn aS well as information he needs. In snch cases,

it is particularly important that the learner not adopt'an exhaustive

reading strategy; since this is extremely inefficient when only a small

part of the total inf6rmation in the text is needed.

One.strategy which may work well when the reader has a limited

,and specific objective with respect to selecting information fromithe

-45-

.58

text is for the reader to begin, not by_reading some portion of the

text, but by thinking deeply about his objective before using the text.

By thinking about thE., -_,bjetive and relatinvittc what he already knows,

the reader activates numper:of content-schemata which should be.rele-

vant to.his objective. These activations may.include the activationof

some specific lexical items for which the cOntent-schemata are incoMplete.

If this is so, these lexical items-can serve to initi4te the fiist use of...

the index or table of contents of the text, if the text is provided with

these self-directional-aids. Even if the text is not so provided, the

-reader can begin his processing of the text by skimming, searching for

instances of these poorly, understood a'rms or semantically related terms

in the text. Hopefully, anlarea'of the text rich in such terms might

contain the solution to his problem.

...This type ofmulti-pass strategy is heavily conterned with

locating apPropriate information. By its continual use, the reader`.

would be expected to learn schemata relatil to text-searching strate-

gies. In the professions, the volume of the literature often forces

the use of this sJe,tive strategy, with the consequence that profes-

sionals are likely to have a good store of knowledge about where infor-

mation about topics is located in scientific journals and books, and

about who did the studies.k4-

Since the selective multi-pass strategy is a-valuablc tool in

job environments in which the reader must direct his.own text-processing

to aChieve learning objectives that will allow him to accomplish specific

performanCe requirements, this strategy is the subject of a more intensive ,

treatment elsewhere.

t./

-46-

REFERENCES

AarorOon, D. and Scarborough, H.S. Performance theories for sentencecoding: Some quantitiative evidence. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976, 2, 56-70.

Alderman, D. and Smith, E.E. Expectancy as a determinant of functiOnalunits in perceptual recognition. Cognitive Paychology, 1971,2, 117-129.

Anderson, R.C. .and OrtunY, A. On putting apples into bottles: A

problem of polysemy. Cognitive PsychologY, 1975, 7, 167-180.

Anderson, R.C., Pichert, j.W. Goetz, E.T., Schallert,, D.L.,.Stevens., K.V.and Trollip, S,R. Instantiation of general terms. Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,'1976, 15, 667-679.

Barclay, J-.R. The role of comprehension in remembering sentences.Cognitive PsychologY, 1973, 4, 229-254:

Bransford, J.D., Barclay, J.R..; and Franks, J.J. Sentence memory: A

constructive versus interpretive.approach. Cogniti-ve Psychology,

1972,.3,. 193-209. V

Bransford, J.D. and Franks,..J.J. The'abstraction'of linguistic ideas:-Cognitive Psyehology; 1971, 2, 3317350.

Bransford, J.D: and Jbhnson, M.K. Consideration'of some probleMs of

comprehension. In W.G.. Chase (Ed.) Visual Information Processing.New Nork: Academic Preas, '1973.

Bransford, J.D. : and McCarrell, N.S. A sketch of a ognitive approach-

. to comprehension: Some thoughts about under ing what it means

to. Understand. In W.B. Weimer &,D:S.'Palermo s.), Cognitionand. the SymboliC Processes. Jiillsdale,-New Je Lawrence

ErlbaumASseciates, 1974:

iBrown; J.S. PerSonal,communication. ARPA Contracters eting, Boston

Mass., Novembr'1976.,- -

*

H.W. and Waller, T.G. ,Mathemagenic behaviors and efficiency ining from prOseaterials: Review, critique and recommendations.

Vey w of Educational Research. 1976, 46, 691-720.1V

Hartley,'.7.-and Davies, I.K. Preinstructional strategies: The role of'pretests, behavioral objectives, overviews and advance organizers.Aeview of Educational Research, 1976, 46, 239-265.

Heider, F. 'The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: JohnWiley &;.-Sons, 1958.

Johnson, M4.;.;.Bransford, J.D., Nyberg, S., and Cleary, Comprehension.factors.in interpreting memory.for abstract and concrete sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11,'451-454..

-

-47--

6 0

References - continued.

Kolers, P.A. Three stages in reading. In H. Levin ana J.T. Williams

(Eds.), Basic Studies in Reading, New York: Basic Books, 1970.

Levin, J.A. Proteus: An activation framework for cognitive processmodels. (Working papers ISI/WP-2). Los Angeles: Information

Scrtnces Institute; 1976.

Handler, J.M. and JohnSon, N.S. Rememberances of things parsed: Story

structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9, 111-151'.

Marslen-Wilson, W. and Tyler, L.K.- Memory and levels of processing ina psycholinguistic context. Journal and Experimental Psychology:Human Jearning and memory, 1975, 1, 584-591.

Minsky, M. A framework for representing knowledge. In P.t Winston (Ed.),

The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Norman, D.A. and Bobrow, D.G. On 4ata-limited and resource-limitedprocesses. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7, 44-64.

NOrman, D.A,, Rumelhart, D.E. and The LNR Group, E;cplorationS inCognition. SAy-Francisco: Freeman, 1975.

Rigney, J.W. Cfo, cognitive strategies for facilitating acquisition,retention, and retrieval in training and education (Tech..Rep.No. 78), Los Angeles: University of Southern California, BehavioralTeChnology Laboratoriei, May 1976.

Rigney, J.W. and Towne, D.M. Computer techniques for analyzing themicrostructure of.serial-action work in industry. Human Factors,

1969, 11, 113-122.

Rigney, J.W., Towne, D.M., King,,C.A. and Langston, E.T. Computer-Aided

Performance Training for Diagnostic Procedural Tasks. (Tech.Rep.No.70)

Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Behavioral TechnologyLaboratories, October 1972.

Rumelhart, D.E. Notes on a schema for stories. In D.G. Bobrow and A.1

Collins (Eds.), Representation and Understanding: Studies in Coroi.tve

Science. New York: Academic Press, 1975.

Rumelhart, D.E. Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.)

Attention'and Performance VI. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, in preds._

Scandura; ,J.M.. Structural approaCh td instructional problems. American -

ilblf

Psychologist, 1977, '32, 33-53.

..

challert, D.L.. Improving memory for prose:- The relationship between

'depth of processing and context. Journal'of-Verbal Learning and'

Verbal Behavior, 1976, 15, 621-632.

61-48-

References - continued.

Stevens, A.L. and Rumelhart, D.E. Errors in reading: Analysis usingan augmented network moeel of grammar. In D.A. Norman, D.E.Rumelhart, and the LNR Research Group, Explorations in Cognition.

San Fram-isco: Freeman,,1975.

Swinney, D.A. and Hakes, D.T. Effects of prior'context upon lexiCalaccess during sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning andVerbal Behavior, 1976, 15, 681-689;

Thorndyke, P.W. Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of-narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9, 77-110./

Travers, J.R. The effects of forced serial prOcessing on identificationof words and random letter strings. Covitive P4chology, 1973,5, 109-137.

Weber, R.M. First graders use of grammatical context in reading. In H.

Levin and J.T. Williams (Eds.), Basic studies in reading. New York:

Basic Books, 1970.

Winograd, T. _Frame representations and the declarative-proceduralcontroversy. In D.G. Bobrow and A.M. Collins (Eds.), Representation.and Understa'nding: Studies in COgnitive Science. -NeW'York: _Academic

Press, 1975.

Winaton, P. The sychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

6 2

749-

ONR DISTRIBUTION LIST

Navy

4 Dr. Marshall J. Farr, DirectorPerSonnel & Trairking Research

ProgramsOffice of Naval Research (Code 458)Arlington, VA 22217

1 ONR Branch Office495 Summer St.Boston, MA 02210Attn: Dr. James Lester

1 ONR Branch Office1030 East green St.Pasadena, CA 91101Attn: Dr. Eugene Gloye

ONR Branch Office536 S. Clark StreetChicago, Il 60605Attn: Dr. Charles E. Davis

1 Dr. M. A. BertinScientific DirectorOffice of Naval ResearchScientific Liaison Group/TokyoAmerican EmbassyAPO San'Francisco 96503

1 Office of Naval ResearchCode 200Arlington, VA 22217

Commanding OfficerNaval Research LaboratoryCode 2627Washington, DC 20390

1 LCDR Charles J. Theisen, Jr.,MSC, USN4024Naval Air DevelopmentCenterWarminster, PA 18974

-Commanding OfficerU.S. Nal,ral Amphibious School

Coronado, CA 92155

63

-1-

Commanding OfficerNaval Health Research CenterSan Diego, GA 92152Attn: Library

1 Scientific Advisor to the Chiefof Naval Personnel (Pers Or)

Naval Bureau of Personnel400m 4410, Arlington AnnexWashington, DC 20370

Dr. Jack R. BorstingPrevost 8. Academic DeanU.S. Naval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, CA 93940

1 Mr. Maurice CallahanNODAC (Code 2)Dept. of the NavyBldg. 2, Washington Navy Yard(Anacostia)

Washington, DC 20374

1 Office of Civilian PersonnelCode 263Washington, DC 20390

Superitendent (Code 1424).Naval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, CA 93940

Mr. George N. GrAineNaval Sea Systems CommandSEA 047C12Washingt65 DC 23062

1 Chief of,Naval.Technical TrainingNaval Air Station Memphis (75)Millington, TN 38054Attn: Dr. Norman J.,Kerr

1 Principal Civilian Advisor for ,

Education and TrainingNaval Training Command, Code 00APensacOla, FL 32508

Attn: Dr. William L. Maloy

1 Dr. Alfred F. Smode, DirectorTraining AnalysiS & Evaluation GrodpDepartment of the NavyOrlando, FL 32813

Chief of Naval Education andTraining Support (01A)

Penszcola, FL 32509

1 Capt. H. J. Connery, USNNavy Medical R&D-CommandNNMC, Bethesda, MD 20014

1 Navy Personnel R&D Center-Code 01

, San Diego, CA 92152

2 .Navy Personnel R&D CenterCode 306San Diego, CA 92152Attn: Dr. James McGrath

A. AYSjoho.im, HeadTechnical SupportNavy Personnel R&D CenterCode 201San Diego, CA 92152

Navy Personnel 11C.D Center

San Diego, CA 92152Attn: Library.

-1 Navy Personnel R&D CEmterSan Diego, CA WL,2Attn: Dr. J. D. Fletcher

, 1 Capt. D. M. Gragg,.MC, USNHead, Section on Medical EducationUniformed Services Univ. ofthe Health.Sciences.

6917.Arlington RoadBethesda, MD 20014

Officer-in-ChargeNavy,Occupational Development &= AnalYsis,Center (NODAC)Building 150, Washington Navy YardCAnacostita)WashingtohimDC 20374

LCDR J. W. Snyder, Jr%F-14 Training Model ManagerVF-124-San Diego, CA 92025 6 4

-2-

1 Dr. John FordNavy Personnel R&D Center.San Diego, CA 92152

1 Dr. Worth-Scanland,Chief of'Raval Education & TrainingRAS, Pensacola, FL 32508

Army

1 Technical DirectorU.S. Arm,; 7:arc!- for

_:;ciences

1300 Wilson Blvd.Arlington, VA" 22209

At

1 Armed Forces Staff CollegeNorfolk, VA 23511Attn: Library

1 CommandatU.S. Army Infantry SdhoolFort Benning, GA" 31905Attn: ATSH-I-V-IT

1 CommandantU.S. ,t0-7:,y

ATTN: EA

Fort BenjaMim Harrison, F 46216--

1 Beatrit7e

Army k4Aeatch Institute1300 Wilson Blvd.

n 22209

1 Dr. Frank J. HarrisU.S. Army Research Institute1300 Wilson Blvd.Arlington, VA 22209

1 Dr. Ralph DusekU.S. Army Research In4itute1300 Wilson Bivd.Arlington, VA 22209

1 Dr. Leon'NawrockiU.S.- Army Reseatch Institute1300 Wilson Blvd.Arlington, VA 22209.

1 Dr. Joseph WardU.S. Army Research Institute1300 Wilson Blvd.

"Arlington, VA 22209

1 Dr. Milton S. Katz, Chief .

Individual Training & PerformanceEvaluation Technical Area

U.S. Army Research Institute1300 WilsOn Blvd:,rlington, VA 22209

I Col. G. B. HowardU.S. ArmyTraining Support ActivityFort Eustis, VA 23604

1 Col. Frank Hart, Directa;."Training Management InstituteU.S. Army, Bldg. 1725Fort Eustis, VA 23604

.1 HQ USAREUE & 7th Army-)CSOPS

.

-::AREUR Director of G.:ED

rU New York 09403

A.P.I Field Unit - LeavenworthP.O. Box 3122Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027

Air Force

116.- Research Branch

AFMIT/DPMYPRandOlph AFB, TX 78148

1 AFHRL/AS (Dr. G. A. Eckstrand)Wright-Patterson AFBOhio 45433

1 Dr. Ross L. Morgam (AFHRL/ASR)Wright-Patterson AFBOhio 45433

//.

1 Dr. Marty Rockway (AFHRL/TT)Lowry AFBColorado 80230

,DCDR USAADMINCENBldg. #1, A310'Attn: AT21-0ED Library'Ft. Benjamin Harrison, IN 46216

r Dr. Edgar JohnsonU.S. Army Research Institute1300 Wilson Blvd.Arlington, VA 22209

Dr, James BakerU.S. Army Research Institute1300 Wilson Blvd.Arlington, VA 22209

-3-

6 5

1 Instructional Technology BranchAFHRLLowry AFB, CO- 80230

1 Dr. Alfred R. FreglyAFOSR/NL, Building 410Bolling AFB, DC 20332

1 Dr. Sylvia R. Mayer IT)

HQ Electronic Systems' DivisionLO Hanscom FieldBedford, MA OlTiO

Capt. Jack Thorpe, USAFAFHRL/FTSWilliams AFB, AZ 85224

1 Air University LibraryAUL/LSE 76-443Maxwell AFB, AL 36112

1 Dr. T. E. CottermanAFTWASRWright Patterson AFBOhio 45433

1 Dr. Donald'E. Meyer'U.S. Air Force

. ATC/XPTDRandolph AFB, TX 78148

1 Dr. Wilson A. JuddMcDonnell-Douglas Astronaucics

Co. EastLowry AFBDenver,, CO 80230

1 Dr. Willian(StrobieMcDonnell Duuglas Astronautics'Co. EastLowry AFBDenver0 80230

Marine Corps

Director, Office of Manpower.Ptilization

HOS-e Marine Corps (Code"MPU)BCB, Building 2009Quantico, VA 22134

Dr. A. L. Slafkosky. Scientific Advisor (Code R.D.-1)

HQ, U.S. Marine.CorpsWashington, DC 20380.

AC/S, Education PrpgramsEducation'Center, MCDECQuantico, VA 22134

Coast Guard

Mr..Joseph J. Cowan, Chief, Psychological Research Branch

(G-P-1/62)U.S. Coast Guard HeadquartersWashington, DC 20590

Other DoD

1 Advanced Research Projects AgencyAdministrative Services1400 Wilson Blvd.Arlington, VA 22209Attn: _Ardella Holloway

_1 Dr. Harold F. O'Neil, Jr.Advanced ReSearch Projects AgencyCybernetics Technology, Room 6231400 Wilson Blvd.Arlington, VA 22209

1 Dr. Robert YoungAdvanced Research Projects Agency1400 Wilson Blvd.Arlington, VA 22209

12 Defense Documentation CenterCameron Station, Bldg. 5Alexandria, VA 22314Attn: TC

1 Military Assistant.for Human ResourcesOffice of the Director of Defense-Research and Engineering

Room 3Di29, The PentagonWashington, DC 20301

1 DirectorManagement Information Systems OfficeOSD, M&RA A

Room 3B917, The PentagonWashington, DC 20301

Other Govenment

1 Dr. Vern UtlryPersonnel R&D CenterU.S. Civil Service Commission1900 E Street NWWashington, DC 20415

1 Dr. Andrews R. MolnarScience Education Dev. & Res.National Science FoundationWashington, DC 2.0550

Dr. Marshall S. SmithhisIociate DirectorNIE/OPEPA.National Institute of EducationWashington, DC 20208

1 Dr. Joseph L. Young, DirectorMemory & Cognitive ProcessesNationaL Science FoundationWashington, DC 20550

1 Dr. H. Wallace Sinr..iko, DirectorManpower Research & Advisory ServicesSmithsonian Institution801 N. Pitt StreetAlexandria, VA 22314

-4--

6 6

1 Dr. James M. FerstlEmployee Development: Training

TechnologistBureau of TrafhingU.S. Civil Service,CommissionWashington, DC 20415

1 William J. McLaurinRoom 301Internal Revenue Service2221 Jefferson David Hwy.Arlington, VA 22202

Miscellaneous

, 1 Dr. John R.-AndersonDept. of PsychologyYale UniversityNew Haven, CT 06520

Dr. Scarvia B. AndersonEducational Testing ServiceSuite 10403445 Peachtree Road NEAtlanta, GA 30326

1 Professor Earl A. AlluisiCode 287bept. of PsychologyOld Dominion UniversityNorfolk, VA 2308

1 Dr. Daniel AlpertComputer-Based EducationResearch.LaboratoryUniversity of IllinoisUrbana, IL 61801

1 , Ms. Carole A, BagleyApplication AnalystMinnesota E ucatiormi Computing

Consortium1925 Sather Ave.Lauderdale, MN 55113

Dr. Gerald V. BarrettUniversity of AkronDept. of PsychologyAkron, OH 44325

6 7

-5-

1 Dr. John BrackettSo4ech460-Ibtten Pond RoadWalthl, MA 02154

1 Dr. Robert K. BransonLA Tully Bldg.Florida State UniversityTallahassee, FL 32306

1 Dr. John Seeley, BrownBolt Beranek and Newman, 'Inc.50 Moulton St.*Cambridge, MA 02138

1 Dr.-Victer. BundersonInstitut9 for Computer Uses in

Education3,55 EDLC

Brigham Young UniversityProvo, UT 84601

1 Dr. Ronald P. CarverSchool of Education 4p,

University of MissOuri-Kansas City5100 Rockhill RoadKansas City, MO 64110

Jacklyn CaselliERIC Clearinghouse on Information

ResourcesStanford UniversitySchool of Education - SCRDTStanford, CA 94305

1 Century Research Corporation4113 Lee HighwayArlington, VA 22207

1 Dr'. Kenneth E. ClarkCollege of Arts & SciencesUniversity of RochesterRiver Campus StationRochester, NY 14627

1 Dr. Allan M. CollinsBolt Beranek & Newman, Inc.50 Moulton St.',Cambridge, NA 02138

Dr. John J. CollinsEssex Corporation6305 Caminito EstielladoSan Diego, CA 92120

Dr. Donald DansereauDept. of Psychology .

Texas Christian University -

Fort Wroth,"TX 76129

1 Dr. Rene V. DawisDept. of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, MN 55455

1 Dr. Ruth DayDept. of PsychologyYale Univeesity

Hillhouse Avenue-New,Haven, CT 06520

1 ERIC Facility-Acquisitions4833 Rugby Ave.Bethesda, Mb 20014

1 Dr. John EschenbrennerMcDonnell DouglaS Astronautics

Company-EastP.O. BoY. 30204,

St. Louis, MO, 80230

Major I. N. EvpnicCanadian,Forces Personnel

Applied Research Unit1107, Avenue RoadTor14to, Ontario, CANADA

1. Dr.'Victor FieldsDept. -of Psychology'Montgomeri CollegeRockville, MD 20850

4

1 Dr. Edwin A. Fleishman,Advanced,Research Resources

Organization8555 Sixteenth St.Silver Spring, MD 20910

Dr. Larry FrancisUniversiey of IllinoisComputer-Based Educational

Research Lab.Champaign, IL 61801.

.A1 -Dr Frederick C. .Frick

MIT Lincoln LaboratoRooth D. 268

P.O. BoA 73 .

Lexington, MA 02171 6 8

-6-

1 Dr. Joha R. FrederiksenBolt Beranek.& Newman, Inc.50.Moulton StreetCambridge, MA 02138

1 Dr. Vernon S. Gerlach. College of Education

146 Payne Bldg. BArizona State UniversityTempe, AZ 85281

1 Dr. Robert Glaser, Co-birectorUniversity of Pittsburgh3939 O'Hara St.Pittsburgh, PA 15213

1 Dr. M. D. HavronHuman Sciences Research, Inc.7710 Old Spring House RoadWest Gate Industrial ParkMcLean, VA 22101

1 Dr. Dun-can HansenSchool of:EducationMemphis State UniversityMemphis, TN 38118

1 HumRleestern Division278$7 Berwick DriveCarmel, CA 93921Attn: Library

1 HumRRO/Columbus OfficeSuite 21's

2601 Cro3s Country DriveColumbus, CA 31906

'1 HumRRO/PZ.'Knox OfficeP.O. Box 293 .

Fort Knox, KY 401214

1 Dr. Lawrence B. JohnsonLawrence Johnson & Associates, Inc.Suite.5022001 S Street NWWashington, DC 2019

1 Dr. Arnold F. KanarickHoneywell, Inc.2600 Ridgeway,Pkwy.Minneapolis, MN 55413

,Dr. Roger A. Kaufman203 Dodd HallFlorida State UniversityTaltahassee, FL 32306

Dr.. Steven.W. KeeleDept. of'PsychojogyUniversityof: Oregon.Eugene, OR 97403,

Dr. Davis KlahrDept. of PsychologyCarnegie-Mellon UniversityPittsburgh, PA 15413

1 Dr. Robert R. MackieHuman Factors Research, Inc.6780 Corton Drive

Goleta,,'CA 930i7

1 Dr. William C. Mann 4-

1Triversity of So. Californiainformation Sciences Institute4676 Admiralty WayMarina del Rey, CA 90291

1 ,Dr. Leo MundayHoughton Mifflin Co.P.O. Box-1970Iowa City, LA 52240

Dr. Donald.A. NormanDept. f Psychology C-009University of California, San Diego,La Jolla, CA 92093

Mr. A. J. Pesch, PresidentEclectech Associates, Inc.,P.O.'Box 178N. Stonington, CT 06359

1 R. Dir. M. RauchP II 4Bundesministerium der VerteidigungPostfaCh 16153 Bonn 1GERMANY

1 Dr. Andrew M. RoseAmerican Institutes for Research1055 Thomas Jefferson St. NWWashington, DC 20007

- 1 Dr. Leonard L. Rosenbaum, ChairmanDept. of PsychologyMontgomery CollegeRockville, MD 2650.

Petrullo2431 N., Edgewood St..Arlington, VA .22207

Dr.,kenneth A. TolycynPCR Information Scientea Co..CoMmunication.Satellite Applications7600 Old'Springhouse Rd.McLean, VA 22101

Dr. Steven M. PineN 660 Elliott HallUniversity of Minnesota

75 East River Rd.

Minneapolis, MN 55455

6 9

-7-

1 Dr. Mark D. ReckaseEducational Psychology Dept.University of Missouri-Columbia12 Hill HallColumbia, MD. 65201

Dr. Robert J. SeidelInstructional Technology Group

HumRRO300-N. Washington.St.Alexandria, VA 22314

Dr: Richard SnowStanford Univers,itySchool Of. EducationStanford, CA 94305

1 T. Persis'SturgisDept. of PsychologyCalifornia'State University-ChicoChico, CA 95926

1 Mr. Dennis J. SLILivanc/o Canyon Research Group, Inc.32107'Lindero Canyon RoadWestlake Village, CA 91360

1 Mr. Walt W. TornowControl Data CorporationCorporate Personnel ResearchP.O. Box 0 -HQN060Minneapolis, MN 55440

1 Dr. Benton J. UnderwoodDept. of PsycholoeNorthwestern UniversityEvanston, IL 60201

1 Dr. Carl R. VestBattelle Memorial InstituteWashington Operations2030 M Street NWWashington, DC 20036

1 Dr. David J, Weiss \Dept. of PsychologyN660 Elliott HallUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, MN 55455

1 Dr. Keith WescourtDept. of PsychologyStanford UniversityStanford, CA 94305

Dr. Claire E. WeinsteinEducational Psychology Dept.University of Texas at AustinAustin,.TX 78712

Dr. Anita WestDenver Research InstituteUniversity of Denver,Denver, CO 80201

1 Mr. Thomas C. O'SullivanTRAC1220 Sunset Plaza DriveLos Angeles, CA 90069

1 Dt. .Earl Hunt' .

Dept. of PsychologYUniversity. of WashingtorSeattle, WA 98105

Dr. ThomAs G. StichtAssoc. Director? Basic SkillsNational InstitUte of Education1200 19th Street NWWashington, DC 20208

1. Prof. Fumiko SamejimaDept. of PsYchology..Austin.Peay Hall 304CUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville, IN 37916

7 0

-8-