Frase, L.T. 1969. "Paragraph Organization of Written Materials: The Influence of Conceptual Clustering upon the Level and Organization of Recall." Journal of Educational Psychology. 60 (5): 394-401.
In this article Frase examines the effect of sentence organization in a document on reader recall. He explains in his literature review that if you rearrange sentences so that each sentence introduces a new concept or new terminology, it can affect the ability of the reader to both comprehend and recall information from the document. If you instead arrange sentences to allow for related information to be successively introduced, this should increase the reader's comprehension of the text.
In Frase's study, he introduced three versions of a text about the rules and pieces involved in playing chess to a group of women research participants. Each group received one of the three texts. Each participant read the text, took notes on what she had read, and re-read the text. Finally, the participants took a true-false test with questions about chess playing to determine their level of recall. Frase found that those texts where related sentences were close together resulted in a higher level of recall while the text that had disorganized sentences (introduced new material or information with each sentence) had lower recall. However, he also discovered that participants who read the disorganized text went about organizing it in their notes by linking related material. In the end, this decreased the amount of recall, because it took the reader longer to organize and learn the information in the text.
This article is extremely useful for my research topic; however, I have a few concerns about using it. The article, being published in 1969, is not very recent, and many relevant studies have taken place since it was published. Additionally, the methodology is a little suspect. The incentive for participants was based upon their ability to do well on the post-test. As quoted in the Procedure section of the article, "After the reading, I will ask you to evaluate some chess play and to indicate something about the chessmen. This will be a 30-item true-false exam. For every answer you get right above chance (15 right), I will give you 50 cents. You can thus win $7.50 if you learn the differences and similarities among the chessmen, and also how to apply this knowledge." Based on the readings in class about research with human subjects, this incentive appears to be extremely unfair. The participants did not have a choice in which study group they would be placed. If they were randomly chosen to be in the group with the disorganized text, they may not do as well on the post-test as those who were chosen to be in the organized text group (which was shown in the results of the study). The incentive for a study should not be merit-based, but, instead be the same regardless of their study group. Also, by only providing an incentive based on their ability to do well on the test, the results of the data could potentially be skewed. Participants may be overly motivated to do well on the test and could alter their studying, which may affect the results of the test. Based on these issues with the methodology of the study, I will not be using this article in the literature review of my report.
Showing posts with label syntax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label syntax. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
ENG 574: A Short Guide to Writing about Biology - Sarah Felicelli
Pechenik, Jan. 1993. A Short Guide to Writing about Biology. New York: HarperCollins.
A Short Guide to Writing about Biology presents guidelines for writers and editors of biology documents. The book is divided into ten chapters and covers topics including how to effectively read and take notes from references, how to write lab reports, how to write essays and term papers, how to write research proposals, how to write summaries and critiques, how to prepare for presentations, and how to edit and revise documents. She includes tips on creating graphs and tables, how to correctly and accurate cite sources, and how to write the statisical analysis of a study.
The author's suggestions throughout the book are extremely thorough and practical. She covers all aspects of scientific writing and walks the reader through the process step by step. The most helpful part of the book is in the first chapter, where the author suggests key tips for successful biology writing. Four of these recommendations increase the coherence and cohesion of the text:
“Write to illuminate, not to impress” (4). Define complicated terms and use simple words to communicate your point.
“Say exactly what you mean” (6)
“Never make the reader back up” (6-7). Lead the reader through the paragraphs, sentence by sentence by linking information together with sentence connectives and by repetition of important terms.
“Don’t make the reader work harder than they have to” (7-8). You should do the interpreting and not make the reader do it.
This inclusion is extremely useful for my research topic, as I am looking at the effect of syntax and semantics on reader comprehension of science text. I will be using this reference in my research project report.
A Short Guide to Writing about Biology presents guidelines for writers and editors of biology documents. The book is divided into ten chapters and covers topics including how to effectively read and take notes from references, how to write lab reports, how to write essays and term papers, how to write research proposals, how to write summaries and critiques, how to prepare for presentations, and how to edit and revise documents. She includes tips on creating graphs and tables, how to correctly and accurate cite sources, and how to write the statisical analysis of a study.
The author's suggestions throughout the book are extremely thorough and practical. She covers all aspects of scientific writing and walks the reader through the process step by step. The most helpful part of the book is in the first chapter, where the author suggests key tips for successful biology writing. Four of these recommendations increase the coherence and cohesion of the text:
“Write to illuminate, not to impress” (4). Define complicated terms and use simple words to communicate your point.
“Say exactly what you mean” (6)
“Never make the reader back up” (6-7). Lead the reader through the paragraphs, sentence by sentence by linking information together with sentence connectives and by repetition of important terms.
“Don’t make the reader work harder than they have to” (7-8). You should do the interpreting and not make the reader do it.
This inclusion is extremely useful for my research topic, as I am looking at the effect of syntax and semantics on reader comprehension of science text. I will be using this reference in my research project report.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
ENG 574: The Influence of Semantics and Syntax on What Readers Remember by Isakson and Spyridakis - Sarah Felicelli
Article Citation:
Isakson, Carol, and Jan Spyridakis. 1999. “The Influence of Semantics and Syntax on What Readers Remember.” Technical Communication 46 (3): 366-381.
Summary of article:
In this article, Carol Isakson and Jan Spyridakis wanted to determine whether decisions made about syntax (word choice and arrangement) and semantics (meaning of words) have an effect on the ability of a reader to comprehend information presented to them. Based on past research, Isakson and Spyridakis expected to see an improved recall of topics presented in the beginning or end of a paragraph or document, in active rather than passive voice, in an independent clause rather than a dependent clause, and in a clause rather than a phrase (368).
To test this idea, they conducted a study with 39 native English-speaking engineering students who were divided into two groups. Each group read one of two possible science texts that were selected with similar difficulty, paragraph and sentence structure, readability statistics, and number of idea units (IU’s). The researchers defined idea units as “the smallest information units that readers may logically pause at to emphasize, to enhance meaning, or to take a breath.” (369-370). Students read a copy of the text and then completed a math problem before taking the comprehension test. The purpose of the math problem was to have an interruption between reading the text and taking the comprehension test. Students also recorded the time it took to read the text and to finish the comprehension test.
The researchers found that for the two texts, readers recalled a higher percentage of new information that was presented at the end of a paragraph. On the other hand, students remembered a similar level of IU’s for the text that repeated facts at the end of a paragraph. In addition, readers more accurately recalled topics that were included in an independent clause or in the first or last paragraph of the text (377). Based on these results, Isakson and Spyridakis recommend that writers put emphasized content in:
• Clauses
• Independent clauses
• Relative clauses at the end of a sentence (if using relative clauses)
• The first paragraph of a document
• The last paragraph of a document and the last sentence of a paragraph (377).
Analysis/Evaluation of article:
Dr. Jan H. Spyridakis is a professor of technical communication at University of Washington, Seattle whose research focuses on methods of technical communication, user-centered design and international technical communication. Carol S. Isakson is also listed as being affiliated with University of Washington, Seattle; however, I was unable to locate information on her background or qualifications in my online search.
The article was published in 1999, so it is somewhat outdated; however, the information is still relevant to technical communicators today. The researchers did a thorough literature review which covered studies related to how a reader’s perception of a text (how familiar they are with the subject matter), how syntax of a text (passive vs. active voice), and how semantics of a text (where information is presented) influence a reader’s comprehension and recall. The studies that they included in their literature review supported the hypotheses that they presented for their study.
As far as their study is concerned, I thought that they used methods that were appropriate, with the exception of their post-test activity. They had participants write down everything that they recalled from the text and record how much time they took to write the recalled information. Then, they scored the recall writings using two raters. Although they had a 93% inter-rater reliability, they mentioned in the results that the analysis related to recall of information based on location of sentences or location of paragraphs in the text may not have been accurate based on their scoring method. I think it would have been more useful to use a post-test with questions instead of having participants just write down everything they recalled.
In addition, they used two different texts with different topics, which despite similar text criteria and difficulty level caused very different results. I think it would have been beneficial to use texts with the same topic, or use one text and rewrite it for the different treatments.
Lastly, the sample size that was used was somewhat small. The researchers had 39 participants (20 read one text and 19 read the second text) who were students. It would be interesting to see what the results would be if the sample size was larger.
Reflection:
Despite some of the issues with the study, the results were sound and showed that the syntax and semantics of a document can influence what readers recall and comprehend. The researchers also suggest several options for further research that may be interesting to pursue for my own research project. For these reasons, this article will be appropriate for my research project.
Isakson, Carol, and Jan Spyridakis. 1999. “The Influence of Semantics and Syntax on What Readers Remember.” Technical Communication 46 (3): 366-381.
Summary of article:
In this article, Carol Isakson and Jan Spyridakis wanted to determine whether decisions made about syntax (word choice and arrangement) and semantics (meaning of words) have an effect on the ability of a reader to comprehend information presented to them. Based on past research, Isakson and Spyridakis expected to see an improved recall of topics presented in the beginning or end of a paragraph or document, in active rather than passive voice, in an independent clause rather than a dependent clause, and in a clause rather than a phrase (368).
To test this idea, they conducted a study with 39 native English-speaking engineering students who were divided into two groups. Each group read one of two possible science texts that were selected with similar difficulty, paragraph and sentence structure, readability statistics, and number of idea units (IU’s). The researchers defined idea units as “the smallest information units that readers may logically pause at to emphasize, to enhance meaning, or to take a breath.” (369-370). Students read a copy of the text and then completed a math problem before taking the comprehension test. The purpose of the math problem was to have an interruption between reading the text and taking the comprehension test. Students also recorded the time it took to read the text and to finish the comprehension test.
The researchers found that for the two texts, readers recalled a higher percentage of new information that was presented at the end of a paragraph. On the other hand, students remembered a similar level of IU’s for the text that repeated facts at the end of a paragraph. In addition, readers more accurately recalled topics that were included in an independent clause or in the first or last paragraph of the text (377). Based on these results, Isakson and Spyridakis recommend that writers put emphasized content in:
• Clauses
• Independent clauses
• Relative clauses at the end of a sentence (if using relative clauses)
• The first paragraph of a document
• The last paragraph of a document and the last sentence of a paragraph (377).
Analysis/Evaluation of article:
Dr. Jan H. Spyridakis is a professor of technical communication at University of Washington, Seattle whose research focuses on methods of technical communication, user-centered design and international technical communication. Carol S. Isakson is also listed as being affiliated with University of Washington, Seattle; however, I was unable to locate information on her background or qualifications in my online search.
The article was published in 1999, so it is somewhat outdated; however, the information is still relevant to technical communicators today. The researchers did a thorough literature review which covered studies related to how a reader’s perception of a text (how familiar they are with the subject matter), how syntax of a text (passive vs. active voice), and how semantics of a text (where information is presented) influence a reader’s comprehension and recall. The studies that they included in their literature review supported the hypotheses that they presented for their study.
As far as their study is concerned, I thought that they used methods that were appropriate, with the exception of their post-test activity. They had participants write down everything that they recalled from the text and record how much time they took to write the recalled information. Then, they scored the recall writings using two raters. Although they had a 93% inter-rater reliability, they mentioned in the results that the analysis related to recall of information based on location of sentences or location of paragraphs in the text may not have been accurate based on their scoring method. I think it would have been more useful to use a post-test with questions instead of having participants just write down everything they recalled.
In addition, they used two different texts with different topics, which despite similar text criteria and difficulty level caused very different results. I think it would have been beneficial to use texts with the same topic, or use one text and rewrite it for the different treatments.
Lastly, the sample size that was used was somewhat small. The researchers had 39 participants (20 read one text and 19 read the second text) who were students. It would be interesting to see what the results would be if the sample size was larger.
Reflection:
Despite some of the issues with the study, the results were sound and showed that the syntax and semantics of a document can influence what readers recall and comprehend. The researchers also suggest several options for further research that may be interesting to pursue for my own research project. For these reasons, this article will be appropriate for my research project.
ENG 574: Potential Research Topic for Final Project - Sarah Felicelli
Topic
I am interested in researching the effect of syntax and semantics on reader comprehension and recall of scientific text because I want to learn how to effectively communicate complex scientific concepts (specifically related to biology, medicine and health) to people with no background in science, so that people in the general public can make educated decisions about nutrition and their overall health.
Why I am Interested in This Topic
This is a topic that I began researching last semester in Dr. Nord’s Editing Technical Publications course. We read an article by Carol Isakson and Jan Spyridakis (1999) who found that decisions made about syntax and semantics in the writing and editing process have an effect on the ability of the reader to recall or comprehend the information presented to them. For example, they found that readers would more accurately remember information that is included in an independent clause or that is placed in the first or last paragraph of a text (Isakson and Spyridakis 1999, 377). In the case of scientific documents, the ability of non-scientists to comprehend and recall information is essential to their understanding of scientific topics. As a biology instructor, I have always been interested in figuring out ways to make complex topics easier to understand, and as a technical communicator, I am interested in doing that as well. For my final project for ENG 574, I am considering taking the study from one of the articles on text cohesion and reader comprehension of science text and replicate the experiment that the researchers did.
Possible Research Questions for This Topic:
• How do syntax and semantics affect reader comprehension of health brochures?
• How do syntax and semantics affect reader understanding of healthcare information documents?
• How do syntax and semantics affect reader comprehension of science text?
I am interested in researching the effect of syntax and semantics on reader comprehension and recall of scientific text because I want to learn how to effectively communicate complex scientific concepts (specifically related to biology, medicine and health) to people with no background in science, so that people in the general public can make educated decisions about nutrition and their overall health.
Why I am Interested in This Topic
This is a topic that I began researching last semester in Dr. Nord’s Editing Technical Publications course. We read an article by Carol Isakson and Jan Spyridakis (1999) who found that decisions made about syntax and semantics in the writing and editing process have an effect on the ability of the reader to recall or comprehend the information presented to them. For example, they found that readers would more accurately remember information that is included in an independent clause or that is placed in the first or last paragraph of a text (Isakson and Spyridakis 1999, 377). In the case of scientific documents, the ability of non-scientists to comprehend and recall information is essential to their understanding of scientific topics. As a biology instructor, I have always been interested in figuring out ways to make complex topics easier to understand, and as a technical communicator, I am interested in doing that as well. For my final project for ENG 574, I am considering taking the study from one of the articles on text cohesion and reader comprehension of science text and replicate the experiment that the researchers did.
Possible Research Questions for This Topic:
• How do syntax and semantics affect reader comprehension of health brochures?
• How do syntax and semantics affect reader understanding of healthcare information documents?
• How do syntax and semantics affect reader comprehension of science text?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)