The Role of Problem Orientations and Goals in Text Comprehension and Recall

DISCOUXSb,' PK'KOC'IXWNG' A . Hammer and W. Kintsch (eds.J @ North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982

THE ROLE OF PROBLEM ORIENTATIONS AND GOALS I N TEXT COMPREHENSION AND RECALL

Norbert A. S t r e i t z I n s t i t u t f u r Psychologie RWTH Aachen Aachen Federal R e p u b l i c o f Germany Based on a d i s c u s s i o n o f d e f i c i e n c i e s o f t e x t - b a s e d models, an e x t e n s i o n i s proposed which p o s t u l a t e s an encoding and a r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y . An experiment i s r e p o r t e d which p r o v i d e s evidence f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e two s t r a t e g i e s by i n d u c i n g d i f f e r e n t problem o r i e n t a t i o n s and g o a l s i n subj e c t s f o r t h e same t e x t . A s t o r y was c o n s t r u c t e d c o n s i s t i n g o f elements t o w h i c h d i f f e r e n t amounts o f r e l e v a n c y can be assigned a c c o r d i n g t o c u r r e n t o r i e n t a t i o n s . An o n - l i n e r e g i s t r a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g encoding was used. The r e s u l t s c o n f i r m t h e p r e d i c t i o n s o f t h e extended model.

I NTRODUCTI 0 N U s u a l l y people do n o t r e a d a t e x t (or l i s t e n t o d i s c o u r s e ) i n o r d e r t o r e c a l l i t e i t h e r immediately, o r a f t e r a b o r i n g and d i s t r a c t i v e i n t e r v e n i n g a c t i v i t y t o someone t h e y a r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n . On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e y have a s p e c i f i c i n t e n t i o n when r e a d i n g a t e x t ( w h i c h most o f t h e t i m e has been chosen by t h e m s e l v e s ! ) . They m i g h t be i n t e r e s t e d i n s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n on a s u b j e c t t h e y b e l i e v e t o be covered by t h e t e x t and i n t e n d t o use t h e e x t r a c t e d i n f o r m a t i o n i n some subsequent b e h a v i o r . O r t h e y may j u s t be i n t e r e s t e d i n i m p r o v i n g t h e i r knowledge i n a g i v e n domain i n a g e n e r a l f a s h i o n i n o r d e r t o be LIP t o date. I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t someone m i g h t b e engaged i n a p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a c t i v i t y w i t h o u t making any p r o g r e s s . I n o r d e r t o s o l v e t h e problem i t m i g h t prove u s e f u l t o t u r n t o a book o r some o t h e r source o f i n f o r m a t i o n and l o o k up a d d i t i o n a l a d v i c e . The newly acq u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n i s t h e n used i n t h e problem s o l v i n g process. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e above mentioned f a c t o r s c o n t r o l l i n g t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n , i t i s necessary t o p o i n t o u t t h a t people have c o n t r o l o v e r t h e f o r m a t and c o n t e n t o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y reproduce, i.e., t h e y d e c i d e what t h e y r e c a l l and what t h e y do n o t r e c a l l . O f course, t h i s d e c i s i o n depends on s i t u a t i o n a l and personal f a c t o r s . We s h a l l deal w i t h these a s p e c t s o f t e x t comprehension and r e c a l l i n more d e t a i l as we go a l o n g . The r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d h e r e i s p a r t o f an a t t e m p t t o develop a general framework f o r s t u d y i n g comprehension and problem s o l v i n g i n s e m a n t i c a l l y r i c h domains. Since t h e emphasis o f t h i s symposium i s on t e x t p r o c e s s i n g we w i l l m a i n l y deal w i t h t h e t e x t comprehension a s p e c t o f o u r r e s e a r c h . Neverthel e s s , i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e a n a p p r o p r i a t e p e r s p e c t i v e we w i l l o u t l i n e t h e general framework and m o t i v a t i o n w h i c h guided us i n c a r r y i n g o u t o u r r e 36 2

TEXT COMPREHENSION AND PROBLEM SOLVING

363

search. 1. TEXT COMPREHENSION

Over the l a s t 10 years t h e r e has been considerable increase in research o n t e x t processing. This shows a growing i n t e r e s t in using more complex mater i a l s in verbal learning experiments. The focus i s now more on encoding, r e t e n t i o n , and r e t r i e v a l of meaningful t e x t , such a s s t o r i e s , f a i r y t a l e s , coherent discourse, w r i t t e n 1 e t t e r s , paragraphs from textbooks, and o t h e r expository t e x t s . However, although one uses d i f f e r e n t material today t h e methods of investigation a r e s t i l l t h e same. Two points, in p a r t i c u l a r , need t o be reconsidered. F i r s t , most of the models proposed a r e mainly text-based and do n o t give enough a t t e n t i o n t o t h e a c t i v e r o l e of the reade r in his/her i n t e r a c t i o n with t h e t e x t . This can be seen not only in the models themselves b u t a l s o in the paradigms used to evaluate these models. Second, i n the real world learning from t e x t i s not an i s o l a t e d s i t u a t i o n ; processing o f t e x t by the reader always depends on context which includes preceding and subsequent behavior. S t r u c t u r e inherent in the t e x t vs. s t r u c t u r e imposed on t h e t e x t A g r e a t number of variables have been investigated i n order t o e s t a b l i s h empirical evidence f o r t h e i r influence o n the processing o f such m a t e r i a l s .

The majority of these experiments, however, emphasized only those variables which r e f l e c t the s t r u c t u r a l and/or semantic properties of the t e x t i t s e l f . A case i n point i s the widely accepted procedure t o capture the meaning of a text by means of a s t r u c t u r e d l i s t of propositions. This text base a s used by Kintsch (1974) serves a s a reference l i s t when scoring recall protocols f o r t h e i r match with t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t . This decomposition makes i t possible t o account f o r people's memory even f o r p a r t s of a sentence, or paraphrases of utterances, or f o r t h e i r idea of the g i s t of t h e t e x t . The propositional a n a l y s i s implemented by L N R (Norman and Rumelhart, 1975) c l o s e l y resembles t h a t used by Kintsch. Other models following a s i m i l a r approach t o text a n a l y s i s were proposed by Meyer (1975) and Frederiksen (1975 a ) .

Whereas models of t h i s kind emphasize bottom-up, or data-driven processing, others favor a more top-down, o r conceptually-driven approach. Looking f o r commonal i t i e s among t e x t s led t o models of comprehension f o r a c e r t a i n t e x t c l a s s , s t o r y , and t o t h e development of s t o r y grammars (Rumelhart, 1975; Mand7er and Johnson, 1977; Thorndyke, 1977). Of course, t h e r e a r e no pure representatives of e i t h e r approach: Kintsch and van D i j k ' s model (1978), for example, s t r e s s e s the importance of macropropositions and makes use of a c o n t r o l l i n g schema, although t h e i r model i s mainly based o n the propos i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of the t e x t .

The common claim of these models i s t h a t i t i s possible t o make valid pred i c t i o n s about the amount and type o f information r e c a l l e d on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r position in the t h e o r e t i c a l l y derived hierarchical s t r u c t u r e . Accordingly, the predominant f a c t o r i s t h e underlying hierarchy, e i t h e r i n terms of t h e coherence - dependency of t h e propositions (Kintsch, 1976; Meyer, 1975), o r a s a r e s u l t of t h e recursive application of rewrite r u l e s i n the s t o r y grammars. Basically, t h i s l i n e of thought a s s e r t s t h a t t h e o b j e c t i v e

364

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

s t r u c t u r e of a t e x t i s t h p d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t o r . In addition, one has t o bear in mind t h a t t h i s s t r u c t u r e r e s u l t s from a s e t of conventions agreed o n by a l i n g u i s t i c community.

B u t how about a subjective s t r u c t u r e imposed on t h e t e x t by a reader? Does t h i s subjective s t r u c t u r e necessarily coincide with t h e objective s t r u c t u r e and t h i s again with t h e a u t h o r ' s s t r u c t u r e ? There a r e reasons t o doubt that. There i s a substantial body of research on f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g encoding, ret e n t i o n , recognition of word l i s t s , and o t h e r materials of limited comp l e x i t y ( f o r example, Melton and Martin, 1972). This research has demons t r a t e d t h a t t h e information presented to subjects does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y coincide w i t h the information perceived and encoded by the s u b j e c t . I n order t o account f o r t h i s , t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between nominal ( o b j e c t i v e ) and functional ( s u b j e c t i v e ) stimul i has been proposed. Consequently, d i f f e r e n t encodings of information will r e s u l t i n d i f f e r e n t memory t r a c e s f o r t h e same information, which, in turn, serve a s the basis f o r subsequent recall o r recognition tasks. I t seems reasonable t o r e l a t e t h e idea of a subject i v e s t r u c t u r e of t e x t t o differences in perception and encoding as has been demonstrated f o r word l i s t s and s i m i l a r m a t e r i a l . This leads t o t h e conclusion t h a t each reader encodes t h e same t e x t i n a d i f f e r e n t way according t o h i s / h e r present problem o r i e n t a t i o n o r goal s t r u c t u r e .

B u t how do these differences in problem o r i e n t a t i o n lead to d i f f e r e n t encodings and thus t o d i f f e r e n t internal representations? To answer t h i s question, we r e f e r t o schema theory ( f o r example, Rumelhart and Ortony, 1977). The notion of a "schema" has been proposed i n various disguises: a s "frames" (Minsky, 1975), " s c r i p t s " (Schank and Abelson, 1977), and "macros t r u c t u r e s " (van Dijk, 1977). Most of t h e time, t h e use of schemata was res t r i c t e d t o s t r u c t u r e s which a r e present i n t h e t e x t which evoke a homomorphic s t r u c t u r e i n the reader c o n t r o l l i n g the way t h i s t e x t i s processed. Well known examples a r e s t o r y grammars. Their proponents claim t h a t t h e inherent s t r u c t u r e which i s common t o most s t o r i e s or c e r t a i n c l a s s e s of s t o r i e s guides t h e processing and t h e r e c a l l of a p a r t i c u l a r s t o r y in a systematic way. What i s often ignored i s t h a t there a r e a l s o well-defined schemata o n t h e p a r t of t h e reader which r e s u l t from a s p e c i f i c purpose o r goal, problem o r i e n t a t i o n , or i n s t r u c t i o n . Especially t h e context of preceding and subsequent behavior will determine the focus of these schemata. Consequently, the emphasis of t h i s paper i s on the i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e o b j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e inherent in t h e t e x t and t h e subjective s t r u c t u r e imposed by the reade r . This i n t e r a c t i o n does not cause any problems in cases where t h e two s t r u c t u r e s coincide, i . e . , when t h e reader has t h e same i n t e n t i o n in reading t h e t e x t as t h e t e x t suggests by i t s o b j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e . Problems may, however, a r i s e i f the two s t r u c t u r e s a r e d i f f e r e n t from each o t h e r . This can r e s u l t in a c o n f l i c t i n the reader in case he/she does not adopt one reading o r i e n t a t i o n or i n t e g r a t e both. A completely d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n a r i s e s when the r e a d e r ' s goals or problem o r i e n t a t i o n s a r e so dominant t h a t he/she does not even d e t e c t t h e inherent s t r u c t u r e . I n t h i s case, one would predict t h a t t h e s u b j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e overrides t h e objective s t r u c t u r e . Previous research provides support for t h i s point of view. I n a well-known study, Pichert and Anderson (1977) emphasized the influence of d i f f e r e n t perspectives o f t h e reader on s i g n i f i c a n c e r a t i n g s and on the r e c a l l performance o f ideas presented i n a s t o r y . Effects of context were s t u d i e d ,

TEXT COMPREHENSION AND PROBLEM SOLVING

365

f o r example, by F r e d e r i k s e n (1975 b ) . U s i n g a n a t u r a l r e a d i n g s i t u a t i o n Graesser, Higgenbotham, Robertson and Smith (1978) s t u d i e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between s e l f - i n d u c e d and t a s k - i n d u c e d r e a d i n g comprehension. Flammer, S c h l a f l i and K e l l e r (1978) demonstrated t h e i n f l u e n c e o f d i f f e r e n t personal i n t e r e s t s on r e c a l l performance f o r a g i v e n t e x t . S t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s vs. generated r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s J u s t as t h e r e i s a need t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e s e t o f v a r i a b l e s presumably a f f e c t i n g a p e r s o n ' s p e r c e p t i o n and encoding o f t e x t , t h e r e i s a l s o a need t o t a k e a c l o s e r l o o k a t t h e processes c o n t r o l l i n g r e t r i e v a l and subsequent o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e r e c a l l . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t because t h e dependent v a r i a b l e (comprehension) i s based on t h e r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s .

I t i s c l a i m e d t h a t t h e models p r e s e n t e d above do n o t o n l y p r o v i d e a s t r u c t u r a l and/or semantic a n a l y s i s o f t e x t b u t , a t t h e same t i m e , a r e a t h e o r y o f p e o p l e ' s memory r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t e x t ( s t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ) . B u t t h e r e i s good reason t o assume t h a t t h e r e c a l l e d i n f o r m a t i o n ( g e n e r a t e d representation) i s n o t isomorphic w i t h the stored representation. A t the t i m e o f r e t r i e v a l and e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n , t h e p r o d u c t o f r e c a l l i s s u b j e c t t o processes c o n t r o l l i n g what and how much i s r e c a l l e d and how i t i s o r g a n i z e d and ( r e ) p r e s e n t e d . F a c t o r s which m i g h t have an e f f e c t on t h e c o n t e n t and s t r u c t u r e o f t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n a r e m a n i f o l d . Among them a r e , f o r example, t y p e o f r e c a l l i n s t r u c t i o n , i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by t h e s u b j e c t , t y p e and c o n t e n t o f q u e s t i o n s asked i n p r o b i n g experiments, s e l f - i m p o s e d r e s t r i c t i o n s induced b y t h e s i t u a t i o n o r f u t u r e c o n t e x t ("What k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e l e v a n t f o r t h e c u r r e n t t a s k and what do I need l a t e r o n ? " ) . I n a d d i t i o n , one has t o account f o r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o b i n g process n o t o n l y a f f e c t s t h e generated r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , b u t a t t h e same t i m e changes t h e s t o r e d r e presentation i t s e l f . We can conclude, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e method u t i l i z e d t o probe t h e s t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n determines t o a s u b s t a n t i a l e x t e n t whether t h e m o d e l ' s p r e d i c t i o n s a r e c o n f i r m e d o r d i s c o n f i r m e d . The reason why models may become s e n s i t i v e t o t h e c h o i c e o f methods i s m a i n l y due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y do n o t i n c l u d e s p e c i f i c assumptions a b o u t t h e r e t r i e v a l phase and p o s s i b l e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g i t . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e f o r t h o s e models t h a t a r e s o l e l y based on t h e s t r u c t u r a l and semantic a n a l y s i s o f t e x t . A t t h e same t i m e , t h i s r e f l e c t s t h e s t a t e o f t h e a r t i n r e s e a r c h on t e x t comprehension: so f a r , t h e r e e x i s t s no comprehensive and g e n e r a l l y accepted o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n o f comprehension o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g . 2 . PROBLEM SOLVING I n problem s o l v i n g , t h e concept o f knowledge r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s c e n t r a l . I n S t r e i t z (1981), we have argued t h a t d i f f e r e n t problem s o l v e r s w i l l c o n s t r u c t d i f f e r e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e same c o n t e n t domain p r e s e n t e d t o them. T h i s w i l l r e s u l t i n d i f f e r e n t problem r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e way t h e problem i s t a c k l e d . I n complex problem s o l v i n g , f o r example, i t i s p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y s u c c e s s f u l problem s o l v e r s a l r e a d y i n t h e f i r s t t h i r d o f t h e problem s o l v i n g s i t u a t i o n , as t h e y show s i g n i f i c a n t l y more problem r e l e v a n t f e a t u r e s i n t h e i r b e h a v i o r ( P u t z - O s t e r l o h , 1981; P u t z - O s t e r l o h and LUer, 1981).

366

GOAL PERSPECTTVES

One p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t h a t s u c c e s s f u l problem s o l v e r s b u i l d up an adequate problem r e p r e s e n t a t i o n r i g h t a t t h e b e g i n n i n g . I n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h d i r e c t evidence f o r t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i t i s necessary t o i n d u c e d i f f e r e n t problem r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s f o r t h e same domain. These r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s s h o u l d be graded i n terms o f adequacy f o r t h e problem i n q u e s t i o n . I n d o i n g so, one i s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f assessi n g t h e induced problem r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , i . e . , o f c h e c k i n g whether t h e des i g n used f o r i n d u c t i o n l e a d s t o d i f f e r e n t i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . I n cases where t h e i n f o r m a t i o n re1 e v a n t f o r s o l v i ng a problem i s r e p r e s e n t e d b y means o f a t e x t , r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n t e x t comprehension r e s e a r c h seemed t o p r o v i d e a u s e f u l a i d . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , we d i s c o v e r e d t h a t most o f t h e mod e l s proposed c o u l d n o t s o l v e o u r problem. I n g e n e r a l , t h e y do n o t deal w i t h t h e s t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ' dependency on t h e problem o r i e n t a t i o n a s u b j e c t m i g h t have d u r i n g p r o c e s s i n g . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e models were d e f i c i e n t i n t h e i r t r e a t m e n t o f t h e r e t r i e v a l phase f o r s i t u a t i o n s when t h e s t o r e d knowledge i s used i n subsequent b e h a v i o r . We d e f i n e t h e t e r m "problem s o l v i n g i n t e x t comprehension" as b e h a v i o r which makes r e l e v a n t use o f t h e knowledge a c q u i r e d , updated, o r l e a r n e d d u r i n g a p r e c e d i n g t e x t comprehension process. I t i s p o s s i b l e , t h a t t h e r e i s problem s o l v i n g i n t h e b e g i n n i n g which r e q u i r e s i n f o r m a t i o n n o t p r e s e n t i n t h e p e r s o n ' s mind. I n o r d e r t o f i n d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n he o r she m i g h t t u r n t o a t e x t and look f o r t h e m i s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . Then, t h e i n t e g r a t e d knowledge c o n s i s t i n g o f o l d and new i n f o r m a t i o n i s a p p l i e d i n t h e a t t e m p t t o s o l v e t h e problem. Thus, we use t h e t e r m problem s o l v i n g i n t e x t comprehension d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n i n , f o r example, comprehension o f p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s t o r i e s ( f o r example, Thorndyke, 1977; Mandler and Johnson, 1977; Rumel h a r t , 1977); s t o r y unders t a n d i n g as problem s o l v i n g ( B l a c k and Bower, 1980); r e a d i n g and l i s t e n i n g as problem s o l v i n g ( f o r example, Bock, 1978). A l t h o u g h i t m i g h t be u s e f u l t o i n t e g r a t e t h e s e n o t i o n s w i t h i n a comprehensive framework, we w i l l n o t f o l l o w up t h i s l i n e o f t h o u g h t a t t h i s p o i n t . 3. AN EXTENDED MODEL OF TEXT COMPREHENSION

I n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s , we p o i n t e d o u t some d e f i c i e n c i e s o f c u r r e n t t e x t comprehension models, e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e which a r e m a i n l y t e x t - b a s e d . We argue f o r a r e v i s i o n o f t h e s e models by e x t e n d i n g them i n such a way t h a t t h e y r e f l e c t n o t o n l y t h e c o n t e n t and s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e x t b u t a t t h e same t i m e i n c o r p o r a t e f a c t o r s o f t h e s i t u a t i o n and t h e r e a d e r . The main f e a t u r e s which p l a y a p a r t i n such a model a r e r e p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 1 w h i c h shows t h e f l o w o f i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e way i t i s processed a t d i f f e r e n t stages a c r o s s t i m e . We s t a r t o u t by assuming t h a t t h e r e a d e r i s s e t t o s o l v e a c e r t a i n t e x t - r e l a t e d problem. T h i s a f f e c t s h i m / h e r i n s e v e r a l ways. On t h e one hand, a c o r r e s p o n d i n g problem o r i e n t a t i o n or p e r s p e c t i v e i s i n d u c e d which c o n t r o l s t h e subsequent p r o c e s s i n g . On t h e o t h e r hand, p r i o r knowledge a s s o c i a t e d w i t h or r e l e v a n t t o t h e i n d i c a t e d c o n t e n t domain i s a c t i v a t e d . T h i s p r i o r knowledge c o n s i s t s o f f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n and o f schemata s t r u c t u r i n g t h e domain i n d i c a t e d . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e problem s i t u a t i o n induces a goal s t r u c t u r e w h i c h determines when and how t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d i s used i n subsequent b e h a v i o r . Then, t h e m a t e r i a l i s presented. One has t o b e a r i n mind t h a t the presented t e x t i s a l s o only a representation (Ro) o f t h e underlyi n g s t r u c t u r e and c o n t e n t , i . e . , t h e meaning i s expressed i n a c e r t a i n

m

,controls.

ORIENTATION _ _-----

/

a c t ival-es

I

L m i I d m17 I II SELECTION

knowled re

PROBLEM

ENCODING STRATEGY

J

how and when to use

RO 'ERIAL

1 I

RS

STORED

I

GENERATED

RETRIEVAL STRATEGY

1

/ PROBLEM SOLVING

P 0

informat io

cont'ro 1s

I

recall

Fig. 1 . Main features of an extended model of text comprehension

w

m

v

368

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

format r e f l e c t i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e i n some way. O f course, t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n t p o s s i b l e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s R o o f t h e i d e a an a u t h o r / s p e a k e r i n t e n d s t o p u t across. D u r i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e t e x t , problem o r i e n t a t i o n and p r i o r knowl e d g e c o n t r o l t h e p e r c e p t i o n and encoding o f t h e m a t e r i a l . T h i s encoding strategy SE c o n s i s t s o f two components. The f i r s t component scans t h e mat e r i a l , e v a l u a t e s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n terms o f t h e problem o r i e n t a t i o n by a s s i g n i n g values o f r e l e v a n c e t o t h e problem, and s e l e c t s t h e r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r subsequent s t o r i n g . The second component s u p e r v i s e s t h e s t o r age o f t h e s e l e c t e d i n f o r m a t i o n . S t o r i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n v o l v e s i d e n t i f y i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e m a t e r i a l , comparing t h i s s t r u c t u r e w i t h e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s o f p r i o r knowledge, r e s t r u c t u r i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n accordance w i t h t h e g i v e n problem o r i e n t a t i o n , and f i n a l l y c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e s t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n RS which serves as t h e b a s i s o f t h e r e t r i e v a l phase. A f t e r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n and s t o r a g e o f t h e t e x t , t h e r e w i l l be a t i m e when t h e s u b j e c t wants t o access t h i s s t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h i s i s e i t h e r a consequence o f t h e goal o r i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t was p a r t o f t h e i n i t i a l p r o blem s i t u a t i o n ; i n a second c o n d i t i o n , an a d d i t i o n a l r e c a l l i n s t r u c t i o n i s g i v e n t o t h e s u b j e c t a f t e r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n . The p r e c e d i n g goal and t h e subsequent i n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r o l t h e r e t r i e v a l o f t h e s t o r e d i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y SR c o n s i s t s a l s o o f two components. The f i r s t component searches t h e s t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n RS i n o r d e r t o f i n d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n asked f o r under t h e p r e s e n t circumstances o f r e t r i e v a l . I t s e l e c t s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n marked b y a t a g s t a t i n g i t s r e l e v a n c e t o a c e r t a i n purpose. The i n f o r m a t i o n t h u s s e l e c t e d i s o r g a n i z e d i n t o a f o r m a t which seems t o be h i g h l y a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e goal t h a t determines how t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s t o b e used i n subsequent b e h a v i o r . F i n a l l y , a n e x t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n RG i s g e n e r a t ed. I t can c o n s i s t o f a w r i t t e n r e p r o d u c t i o n , an o r a l r e c a l l , o r t h e answer t o a question. There i s a l s o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e generated r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s immediat e l y used as new i n p u t f o r t h e same p r o c e s s o r ( r e a d e r , l i s t e n e r ) i n subseq u e n t problem s o l v i n g b e h a v i o r . The focus o f t h e encoding and t h e r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y may n o t be t h e same depending on t h e c o n t r o l l i n g o r i e n t a t i o n s and g o a l s . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o keep t h i s i n mind when e v a l u a t i n g methods used t o t e s t models o f t e x t comprehension. Whereas t e x t - b a s e d models p r e d i c t t h a t a p r o p o s i t i o n h i g h i n t h e t h e o r e t i c a l l y d e r i v e d h i e r a r c h y w i l l be r e c a l l e d w i t h h i g h e r p r o b a b i l i ty, o u r model p r e d i c t s t h a t t h i s depends much more on t h e problem o r i e n t a t i o n d u r i n g encoding and o n t h e goal d u r i n g r e t r i e v a l . Thus, a l t h o u g h t h e c o n t e n t s t r u c t u r e i s s t i l l assumed t o be r e l e v a n t , t h e o r i g i n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e p r e s e n t e d t e x t has been s u b j e c t e d t o two t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s (SR, SE) by t h e t i m e t h e f i n a l r e c a l l i s generated. Obviously, s p e c i f i c p r e d i c t i o n s o f t h e model, i .e., how t h e s e two t r a n s f o r mations a f f e c t a g i v e n t e x t , depend on t h e a c t u a l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f m a t e r i a l and i n s t r u c t i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , we w i l l deal w i t h them i n d e t a i l a f t e r t h e cond i t i o n s o f o u r experiment have been s p e c i f i e d i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n .

4 . EXPERIMENT I n o r d e r t o t e s t t h e model, we designed an e x p e r i m e n t t h a t s h o u l d b e a b l e t o demonstrate t h e e f f e c t o f t h e two proposed s t r a t e g i e s d u r i n g encoding and r e t r i e v a l . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s necessary t o m o n i t o r b o t h t h e p e r c e p t i o n

TEXT COMPREHENSION AND PROBLEM SOLVING

369

and t h e r e c a l l phase i n d e p e n d e n t l y . T h i s was achieved by u s i n g a method o f on-1 i n e r e g i s t r a t i o n o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n s i d e r e d r e l e v a n t by t h e s u b j e c t a t t h e t i m e o f p e r c e p t i o n . By p l a c i n g s u b j e c t s i n t o d i f f e r e n t problem s i t u a t i o n s b e f o r e l i s t e n i n g t o t h e same t e x t we t r i e d t o i n d u c e d i f f e r e n t encoding s t r a t e g i e s and, thereby, d i f f e r e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s s t o r e d by t h e subject . A t t h e same time, t h e experiment a t t e m p t e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e how d i f f e r e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e same problem domain a f f e c t p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g processes and success. T h i s way, i t would be p o s s i b l e t o assess t h e m o d e l ' s p o t e n t i a o f becoming a component o f a comprehensive model d e s c r i b i n g comprehension and problem s o l v i n g i n an i n t e g r a t e d framework. T h e r e f o r e , two "who-donei t " t y p e d e d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g problems were embedded i n t h e t e x t which had t o be s o l v e d by t h e s u b j e c t s . METHOD S u b j e c t s . 96 s t u d e n t s o f t h e T e c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y Aachen s e r v e d as s u b j e c t s i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t . Students m a j o r i n g i n psychology were n o t a l l o w e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e . A l l s u b j e c t s were p a i d f o r t h e i r s e r v i c e s . M a t e r i a l . A 883-word s t o r y was w r i t t e n , c o n s i s t i n g e n t i r e l y o f d e c l a r a t i v e sentences. A t a p e r e c o r d i n g was made o f t h e passage f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n t o t h e s u b j e c t s . The passage was r e a d a t moderate r a t e by an experienced male r e a d e r . Reading t i m e was f i v e m i n u t e s . The s t o r y i s e n t i t l e d "A c o n c e r t by r e q u e s t i n t h e h o s p i t a l " . I t d e s c r i b e s a sequence o f events and episodes t a k i n g p l a c e i n a h o s p i t a l b e f o r e , d u r i n g , and a f t e r a c o n c e r t g i v e n by a group o f m u s i c i a n s i n o r d e r t o e n t e r t a i n t h e p a t i e n t s . F o r more d e t a i l s on t h e t e x t r e f e r t o Appendix A. The s t o r y ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n i s based on t h e s c r i p t (Schank and Abelson, 1977) o f a c o n c e r t b u t t a k e s p l a c e i n a h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g . T h i s makes i t p o s s i b l e t o i n t r o d u c e i n a n a t u r a l way two groups o f c h a r a c t e r s ( p a t i e n t s and music i a n s ) which a r e t h e r e s p e c t i v e c a r r i e r s o f r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r two problems P i and P2. They c o n s t i t u t e t h e premises f o r t h e independent b u t c o m p l e t e l y isomorphic d e d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g problems embedded i n t h e s t o r y . Each problem i n v o l v e s f o u r dimensions w i t h f i v e values on each dimension, i . e . , names, diseases, room numbers, c l o t h e s f o r t h e f i v e p a t i e n t s and names, i n s t r u m e n t s , p o s i t i o n s on t h e stage, c l o t h e s f o r t h e f i v e m u s i c i a n s . ( T h i s problem r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n can be o r g a n i z e d i n t o two 4 x 5 m a t r i c e s . ) Three t y p e s o f r e l a t i o n s connect these i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s w i t h t h e t e x t : a f f i r m a t i v e , n e g a t i v e , and " i n between" r e l a t i o n s , t h u s c o n s t i t u t i n g a network which r e p r e s e n t s t h e l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e problem. There i s a t o t a l o f 2 . 20 = 40 problem r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s and 2 . 13 = 26 r e l a t i o n s c o n n e c t i n g them. The problems were c o n s t r u c t e d i n a s p e c i a l way. I n "What i s t h e name o f t h e p a t i e n t o r d e r t o s o l v e , f o r example, problem PI: who has t h e c o n c u s s i o n ? " , i t i s necessary t o i n t e g r a t e a l l 20 elements v i a a t l e a s t 13 r e l a t i o n s i n a s y s t e m a t i c way. (Of course, i t i s p o s s i b l e t o e s t a b l i s h a d d i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s between t h e elements by i n f e r e n c e d u r i n g l i s t e n i n g o r i n t h e problem s o l v i n g p a r t o f t h e experiment.) A l t h o u g h t h e s e elements a r e necessary t o s o l v e t h e problems, t h e y do n o t a i d i n grasping t h e g i s t o f the s t o r y ' s p l o t . Therefore, they a r e n o t r e l e v a n t f o r a general comprehension o f what t h e s t o r y i s a l l a b o u t . S i n c e t h e y s t a t e m i n o r d e t a i l s a b o u t t h e c h a r a c t e r s t h e y would be c l a s s i f i e d as b e i n g a t y p i c a l o r i r r e l e v a n t f o r t h e u n d e r l y i n g s c r i p t and s e t t i n g . On t h e o t h e r hand, s t o r y elements s t a t i n g o n l y t h e h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g and r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s of t h e c o n c e r t s c r i p t a r e i r r e l e v a n t f o r s o l v i n g t h e problems. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e 4 1 s t o r y elements and t h e 40 problem

370

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

r e l e v a n t elements i n c l u d i n g t h e i r r e l a t i o n s i n t h e s t o r y was o r g a n i z e d i n such a way t h a t t h e r e would be no p o s i t i o n e f f e c t . Desiqn and Procedure. S u b j e c t s were randomly assigned t o t h r e e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s and r u n i n i n d i v i d u a l sessions. B e f o r e l i s t e n i n g t o t h e s t o r y t h e y were g i v e n a w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n which, i n a d d i t i o n , was r e a d t o them by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r . Common t o a l l s u b j e c t s was t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i n C o n d i t i o n C ( 0 ) . It s t a t e d t h a t t h e y would hear a s t o r y f r o m a t a p e t w i c e . The f i r s t t i m e would s e r v e t h e purpose o f p r o v i d i n g an o v e r v i e w . D u r i n g t h e second time, t h e y would b e a l l o w e d t o t a k e w r i t t e n notes ( p a p e r and p e n c i l were p r o v i d e d ) w h i l e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y l i s t e n i n g t o t h e tape. A f t e r t h e second t i m e o f l i s t e n i n g t h e y would be expected t o r e c a l l t h e s t o r y o r a l l y . While r e c a l l i n g t h e y would b e a l l o w e d t o use t h e i r w r i t t e n n o t e s . In C o n d i t i o n C( l ) , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n c o n t a i n e d an a d d i t i o n a l d i r e c t i o n s t a t i n g t h a t t h e y w o u l d have t o s o l v e a problem a f t e r h a v i n g r e c a l l e d t h e s t o r y . The problem wouid be based on t h e p r e s e n t e d s t o r y and would c o n s i s t i n answe r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n : "What i s t h e name o f t h e p a t i e n t who has a c o n c u s s i o n ? " . In C o n d i t i o n C(2), s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d t h e same i n s t r u c t i o n s as i n C ( l ) exc e p t t h a t t h e y would have t o s o l v e two problems, i . e . , t h e problem ( P i ) we mentioned b e f o r e and an a d d i t i o n a l problem (P2): "What i s t h e name o f t h e m u s i c i a n who p l a y s t h e g u i t a r ? " The i n s t r u c t i o n s s u b j e c t s were p r e s e n t e d w i t h can be found i n Appendix B. I t should be n o t e d t h a t C(0) - s u b j e c t s d i d n o t know a b o u t any problem b e f o r e l i s t e n i n g t o t h e s t o r y . Thus, t h e i n dependent v a r i a b l e was t h e number o f problems s p e c i f i e d b e f o r e 1 i s t e n i n g w h i c h had t h r e e v a l u e s : 0, 1, and 2. There were 48 s u b j e c t s i n C o n d i t i o n C(0) and 24 each i n C o n d i t i o n s C ( l ) and C ( 2 ) . A f t e r having read t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s , subjects l i s t e n e d t o t h e tape twice, t o o k notes d u r i n g t h e second time, and gave an o r a l r e c a l l o f t h e s t o r y . T h i s r e c a l l was r e c o r d e d on t a p e . Since t h e experiment was designed n o t o n l y t o s t u d y t e x t comprehension b u t a t t h e same t i m e t o i n v e s t i g a t e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g b e h a v i o r ( a l l s u b j e c t s had t o s o l v e t h e problems a f t e r w a r d s ) , t h e subsequent problem s o l v i n g was monit o r e d . Since we w i l l n o t r e p o r t d a t a on t h a t p a r t o f t h e experiment i n t h i s paper, we s h a l l n o t d e s c r i b e t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e f u r t h e r procedure a t t h i s p o i n t . They can be found i n S t r e i t z (1981). I n a f i n a l i n t e r v i e w , we checked whether some o f t h e s u b j e c t s i n C o n d i t i o n C(0) had any s p e c u l a t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e problems d u r i n g l i s t e n i n g . Twelve s u b j e c t s o u t o f f o r t y - e i g h t r e p o r t e d t h e y suspected t h a t t h e y would have t o s o l v e a problem based on t h e s t o r y a f t e r h a v i n g l i s t e n e d t o t h e s t o r y f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e . The reason was t h a t t h e y were reminded b y t h e s t o r y o f s i m i l a r p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g p u z z l e s t h e y had e x p e r i e n c e d i n newspapers o r magazines. S i n c e t h e s e s u b j e c t s n e i t h e r met t h e C ( 0 ) - C o n d i t i o n n o r one o f t h e o t h e r two c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e f u l l sense t h e y were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e f i n a l d a t a a n a l y s i s . I n a d d i t i o n , one C ( 2 ) - s u b j e c t d i d n o t meet t h e c o n d i t i o n f o r o t h e r reasons. T h i s l e f t 36 C ( 0 ) - s u b j e c t s , 24 C( 1 ) - s u b j e c t s , and 23 C ( 2 ) - s u b j e c t s . S c o r i n q procedure. W r i t t e n notes and o r a l r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s were scored f o r t h e i r match w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t . S t o r y elements were d e f i n e d by i d e a u n i t s r e p r e s e n t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e s e t t i n g ( l o c a t i o n , t i m e , g e n e r a l a s p e c t s o f c h a r a c t e r s ) , a c t i o n s , e v e n t s , and episodes d e s c r i b e d i n t h e s t o r y . P r o t o c o l s were scored f o r t h e g i s t o f t h e s e i d e a u n i t s ( i d e n t i c a l , reduced, o r new) and f o r presence o f t h e p r o b l e m - r e l e v a n t elements. The m o d e l ' s p r e d i c t i o n s . A p p l y i n g t h e model t o t h i s experiment, d i f f e r e n t i a l p r e d i c t i o n s can be made f o r t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s in terms of t h e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s d e s c r i b e d b e f o r e . F i r s t , we w i l l c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e e f f e c t s of t h e proposed encodinq strateqy, D u r i n g encoding, s u b j e c t s i n C o n d i t i o n C(0)

TEXT COMPREHENSION AND PROBLEM SOLVING

371

will be guided by the o b j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e as suggested by t h e hospital s e t t i n g and t h e concert s c r i p t . In c o n t r a s t , C ( 1 ) - and C(2)-subjects will predominantly focus on t h e problem-relevant elements in t h e t e x t . The l a t t e r two conditions s h o u l d only show a d i f f e r e n c e in encoded P2-relevant problem elements. This should be t h e case because C(1)-subjects do not know about P 2 a n d t h e r e f o r e a r e n o t expected t o pay a t t e n t i o n t o i t , whereas, t h e r e should be no difference with regard t o Pi-relevant elements. In a d d i t i o n , one has t o take i n t o consideration t h a t c e r t a i n capacity l i m i t a t i o n s a r e very l i k e l y . This should r e s u l t in a trade-off between t h e d i f f e r e n t categories. I n the case of s t o r y elements, f o r example, t h e increase in t h e number of problems known before ( t h e independent v a r i a b l e ) should r e s u l t i n a corresponding decrease in encoded s t o r y elements. Following t h i s l i n e of reasoning, we present a summary o f t h e predictions i n Table 1. Table 1.

Predicted rank order of the three conditions according t o t h e number of d i f f e r e n t t e x t elements encoded during l i s t e n i n g .

i Type of t e x t elements

rank order of conditions

s t o r y elements

C(0) > C ( 1 ) > C ( 2 )

P 1-re1 eva n t el ements

C ( 1 ) = C ( 2 ) > C(0)

P2-re1 evant el ements

C ( 2 ) > C(0) > C ( 1 )

Second, we will consider the e f f e c t s of t h e proposed r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y . In t h e r e t r i e v a l phase the induced goal of how and when t o use information will b e d e c i s i v e . Of course, the r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y can only operate on what i s a v a i l a b l e , i . e . , t h e stored representation. Subjects i n Condition C(0) should only have t h e goal of r e c a l l i n g t h e s t o r y because they think t h a t t h i s will be t h e end of the experiment. Therefore, there should not be a g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e stored representation a n d the generated recall except f o r some elaborations or omissions due t o inaccuracy. I n c o n t r a s t , C ( 1 ) - and C(2)-subjects know t h a t the actual problem-solving p a r t will s t a r t subsequently t o the recall t a s k . They i n t e r p r e t the request to recall t h e s t o r y as n o t being r e l a t e d t o problem solving which i s t h e i r ultimate goal. Therefore, they a r e 1 ikely t o suppress t h e respective problem-releva n t information although i t i s present i n the stored representation. Consequently, one would predict d i f f e r e n c e s between s t o r e d and generated representations f o r Pi-relevant elements in b o t h conditions. A s u b s t a n t i a l decrease i n Pp-relevant information s h o u l d only be expected i n Condition C ( 2 ) . 5 . RESULTS AND D I S C U S S I O N

The experiment provides two s e t s of d a t a . The f i r s t s e t r e s u l t s from the w r i t t e n notes the subjects took while simultaneously l i s t e n i n g t o the tape. We consider t h i s note-taking as an on-1 ine r e g i s t r a t i o n of t h a t information rated relevant by the subjects a t the time of encoding i n accordance with t h e i r c u r r e n t problem o r i e n t a t i o n . I t can be assumed t h a t subjects p a r t i c i pating i n t h e experiment a r e very f a m i l i a r w i t h t h i s kind of s i t u a t i o n because they a r e used t o taking notes while attending l e c t u r e s and seminars. Although t h e w r i t t e n notes a r e , of course, n o t t h e stored representation i t s e l f they do r e f l e c t e s p e c i a l l y those f e a t u r e s t h a t will be a f f e c t e d

372

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

during encoding. The second s e t c o n s i s t s of data obtained from t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n s of the oral recall protocols and i s considered t o r e f l e c t t h e impact of the r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y . The findings of g r e a t e s t i n t e r e s t a r e shown in Figures 2 , 3, and 4 which present the data on both encoding and r e t r i e v a l a t t h e same time. The d i f ferences between t h e dashed and the s o l i d l i n e s demonstrate the e f f e c t of the r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y operating on the s t o r e d representation Rs. Figure 2 presents the data f o r t h e s t o r y elements.

O----+

ORAL RECALL

O---O

WRITTEN NOTES

\ \

\

a W L L r o

‘s

...

-0

F i g . 2 . Number o f s t o r y elements encoded and recalled.

Considering f i r s t the mean proportion of s t o r y elements in t h e w r i t t e n notes, one finds a highly s i g n i f i c a n t decrease as the number of problems increases; F(2,80) = 23.6, Fcrit.(2,80) = 4.85 f o r p < 0.01. This i n d i c a t e s t h a t subjects were very s e n s i t i v e to the induced problem o r i e n t a t i o n . The same finding s t i l l holds f o r the oral r e c a l l , F(2,80) = 20.2, b u t t h e r e i s an i n t e r e s t i n g increase r e l a t i v e t o t h e information present i n t h e w r i t t e n notes. Subjects in a l l conditions recall o r a l l y more than t h e i r w r i t t e n notes on the s t o r y elements show. This i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g because the s e t t ing and s c r i p t information provided by t h e t e x t can be e a s i l y reconstructed from j u s t a few notes by means of inferences. Furthermore, one has t o bear i n mind t h a t subjects have additional information i n t h e i r memory and thus generate a more comprehensive p i c t u r e of the s t o r y by f i l l i n g in s c r i p t based information. I n summary, i t should be noted t h a t the more subjects were oriented to a s p e c i f i c problemlsolving t a s k , the fewer s t o r y elements

TEXT COMPREHENSION A N D PROBLEM SOLVING

373

were r e c a l l e d . These s t o r y elements, however, would be high i n a t e x t base hierarchy a s proposed by t h e conventional text-based models reviewed in Section 1. Therefore, they should b e encoded and re c a lle d t o a high degree which i s n o t t h e case here. I n c o n t r a s t , t h e i r re c a ll depends o n the problem o r i e n t a t i o n a s predicted by o u r model and thus confirms our hypotheses a s s t a t e d i n Table 1. The following two f i g u r e s show t h e r ecal l p at t ern f o r problem-relevant information which c o n s i s t s of minor d e t a i l s i n the de sc ription o f the p a t i e n t s ( P i ) and musicians (P2). According t o a propositional a n a l y s i s a s , f o r example, proposed by Kintsch (1974) and described in d e t a i l in Turner a n d Greene ( 1 9 7 7 ) , t h i s information would be represented by modifier proposit i o n s a n d t h e r e f o r e low i n t h e hierarchy.

o----*

WRITTEN NOTES

70%

i

d

ORAL RECALL

20% 10%

Umber o f P,- relevant problem elements encoded

and recalled. As t h e dashed l i n e i n f i g u r e 3 i n d i c a t e s , s u b j ec ts i n Conditions C ( 1 ) and C(2) encode more Pi-relevant problem elements t h a n g r o u p C(0); F(2,80)=6.2.

Computing c o n t r a s t s , one f i n d s two s u b s et s : C(0) vs. C ( l ) and C ( 2 ) . This confirms again our prediction i n Table 1 based on t h e proposed encoding s p e c i f i c i t y according t o a PI-problem o r i e n t a t i o n . O n the o t h e r hand, s u b j e c t s i n c ( 1 ) a n d C ( 2 ) reproduce t h i s information only t o a small degree i n o r a l r e c a l l . This can be i n t er p r et ed i n terms of our proposed r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y . The c o n t r o l l i n g goal a t t h i s point in time determines t h a t the problem-relevant information i s not r e l e v a n t f o r r e c a l l i n g t h e s t o r y because i t i s only needed i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t problem-solving phase. There a r e

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

374

even a number of subjects in these conditions who s t a t e d t h i s goal e x p l i c i t l y while generating t h e i r oral r e c a l l . This s t r a t e g y i s not followed by t h e C(0)-subjects. They reproduce a l l they know about problem P i , because they do not have a f u r t h e r qoal. (They did n o t know t h a t t h e r e wa a problemsolving p a r t t o t h e experiment.)-This d i f f e r e n c e in r e t r i e v a s t r a t e g y i s r e f l e c t e d by t h e number of recalled Pi-elements, F(2,80) = 6 5, again res u l t i n g in two subsets C(0) vs. C ( l ) ahd C(2). F i n a l l y , we will turn to P2-relevant problem information. On y s u b j e c t s in the C(2)-condition did know about P2 before l i s t e n i n g t o the s t o r y .

*--a

/ /

/

P

WRITTEN NOTES ORAL RECALL

F i g . 4 . Number of P2-relevant problem elements encoded and recalled.

Again, t h e r e s u l t s support our t h e s i s . Figure 4 shows t h a t C(2)-subjects a r e superior t o the o t h e r two groups with respect to the encoding of P2-information; F(2,80) = 12.3. I n t h i s case, t h r e e subsets could be i d e n t i f i e d . C ( 1 ) - s u b j e c t s a r e worse than C(0)-subjects, because by knowing only about P I before, they a r e s e t t o deal with i t exclusively. Although C(0)-subjects did n o t know about P 2 , they will w r i t e down some of t h i s information a s they take notes on t h e whole s t o r y . Considering the recall data, the e f f e c t of t h e r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y i s q u i t e noticeable. C(0)-subjects recalled a l most everything they wrote down f o r P2, whereas C(2)-subjects, having t h e most information a v a i l a b l e , r e c a l l e d very l i t t l e of i t . C(1)-subjects, having minimal information o n P2, consequently r e c a l l e d the l e a s t of a l l t h r e e groups; F(2,80) = 6 . 8 .

TEXT COMPREHENSION AND PROBLEM SOLVING

375

I n summary, we may conclude t h a t the data of the experiment provided evidence f o r t h e existence of the postulated s t r a t e g i e s of encoding a n d ret r i e v a l . Moreover, i t has been demonstrated t h a t the induced problem orient a t i o n s and goals controlled these s t r a t e g i e s in the predicted way. A l though in t h i s experiment d i f f e r e n t problem o r i e n t a t i o n s a n d goals were only simulated, i t seems t o be necessary t o extend text-based models in the proposed way i f they a r e t o deal with t h e real world.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported i n p a r t by a grant from t h e Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Do 200/4) t o Gerd Luer. The author wishes t o thank Hans-Willi Schroiff f o r useful ideas and his a s s i s t a n c e a t many stages of t h e research. Helmut Buchner, Monika Krummbach, and Jurgen Heck helped t o c o l l e c t the d a t a . Wilfried Holtum and Thomas Staufenbiel a r e thanked f o r t h e i r help with scoring the protocols. Walter Huber provided helpful suggestions. The r e a d a b i l i t y of the English version was improved by Ingwer Borg, Rudiger Schreyer, and - during t h e f i n a l e d i t i n g - by Eileen Kintsch. Finally, thanks a r e due t o Gerd Luer who made i t a l l possible and provided guidance t h r o u g h o u t t h e research.

REFERENCES

Black, J.B. and Bower, G . H . Story understanding as problem solving. Poetics, 1980, 9 , 223 - 250. Bock, M . Wort-, Satz-, Textverarbeitung. S t u t t g a r t : Kohl hammer, 1978. Flammer, A . , S c h l a f l i , A . , and Keller, B. Meeting the r e a d e r ' s i n t e r e s t s Who should c a r e ? In M.M. Gruneberg, G . E . Morris, and R . N . Sykes ( E d s . ) . Practical aspects of memory. London: Academic Press, 1978, 679 - 686. Frederiksen, C . H . Representing logical a n d semantic s t r u c t u r e of knowledge acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 1975 a , 7 , 371 - 458. Frederiksen, C . H . Effects of context-induced twocessinq operations o n s e mantic information acquired from discourse.' Cognitive Psychology, 1975 b , 7. 139 - 166. Graesser, A . C . , Higgenbotham, M . W . , Robertson, S . P . , and Smith, W . R . A nat u r a l inquiry i n t o the National Enquirer: Self-induced versus task-induced reading cbmprehension. Discourse Processes, 1978, 1, 355 - 372. Kintsch, W . The representation of meaning in memory. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1974. Kintsch, W . Memory f o r Prose. I n Cofer, C . N . ( E d . ) . The s t r u c t u r e of human memory. San Francisco: Freeman, 1976. Kintsch, W . and van Dijk, T . A . Tcward a model o f t e x t comprehension arid production. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 363 - 394. Mandler, J.M. and Johnson, N.S. Remembrance of things parsed: Story s t r u c ture a n d r e c a l l . Co 1977, 9, 111 - 151. Melton, A.W. and Mart ng processes i n human memory. Washington, D . C . : Winston, 1972. Meyer, B.J.F. The organization of prose and i t s e f f e c t s on memory. Amsterdam: North-Hol land, 19/5. Minsky, M.A. A framework f o r representing knowledge. I n P . H . Winston ( E d . ) . The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

376

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

Norman, D . A . a n d Rumelhart, D . E . Explorations i n cognition. San Francisco: Freeman, 1975. P i c h e r t , J.W. a n d Anderson, R . C . Taking d i f f e r e n t perspectives on a s t o r y . Journal of Educational Psychology, 1977, 69, 309 - 315. Putz-Osterloh, W . uber d i e Beziehunq zwischen T e s t i n t e l l i q e n z u n d Problemloseerfolg. Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r Psychologie, 1981, 189, 79 : 100. Putz-Osterloh, W. u n d LUer, G . uber d i e Vorhersagbarkeit komplexer Problemloseleistungen durch Ergebnisse in einem Intel1 i g e n z t e s t . Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 1981, 28, 309 - 334. Rumelhart, D . E . Understanding and summarizing b r i e f s t o r i e s . I n D . LaBerge and J . Samuels (Eds.). Basic processes i n readinq: Perception and comrehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. Ruielhart, D . E . and Ortony, E . The representation o f knowledge i n memory. I n R . C . Anderson, R.J. Spiro, an W.E. Montague Eds. . Schoolin a n d the a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge. Hi:lsdale, N.J.: E!lbauL, Rumelhart, D . E . Notes on a schema f o r s t o r i e s . I n D . G . Bobrow a n d A . Collins ( E d s . ) . Representation and understandinq. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Schank, R . C . and Abelson, R . P . S c r i p t s , l a n s , o a l s , a n d understanding. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 197% S t r e i t z , N.A. Die Bedeutung der Reprasentation von Wissen beim Problemlosen. Aachen, 1981 (unpublished manuscript). Thorndyke. P.W. Coqnitive s t r u c t u r e s i n comprehension and memory of n a r r a t ive ciscourse. Cognitive Psychology, 1977; 9, 77 - 110. Turner. A . and Greene. E . The construction and use of a propositional text , . base: I n s t i t u t e f o r * t h e Study o f I n t e l l e c t u a l Behavior. Techn. Report No. 63, University o f Colorado, Boulder, 1977. van Dijk, T . A . Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discourse comprehension. In M.A. J u s t and P . Carpenter ( E d s . ) . Cognitive Processes in comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.

APPENDIX A This appendix i s meant t o provide a b e t t e r idea of t h e content and t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e x t used i n the experiment. Due t o l i m i t a t i o n s o f space i t i s not possible t o r e p r i n t the t e x t . For the complete German version r e f e r t o S t r e i t z (1981) T h e text s t a r t s out w i t h t h e introduction of the theme (concert by request) and of two groups of characters ( p a t i e n t s and musicians). In additioij, there i s a general description o f t h e s e t t i n g ( h o s p i t a l , p e d i a t r i c s ward, nurse, ward physician). Then t h e s t o r y continues as a sequence of the following episodes and events.

TEXT COMPREHENSION AND PROBLEM SOLVING

377

- c o n v e r s a t i o n between a n u r s e and t h e ward p h y s i c i a n a b o u t t h e announced concert - r e q u e s t f o r p e r m i s s i o n by a p a t i e n t t o a t t e n d t h e c o n c e r t - a r r i v a l o f t h e musicians i n t h e h a l l - s e t t i n g up t h e equipment - c o n v e r s a t i o n between t h e m u s i c i a n s and t h e ward p h y s i c i a n - a r r i v a l o f t h e audience ( t h e p a t i e n t s ) i n t h e h a l l - f o r m a t i o n o f t h e band on s t a g e - announcement o f t h e band by t h e ward p h y s i c i a n who o r g a n i z e d t h e c o n c e r t - f i r s t p a r t o f t h e performance o f t h e band i n t e r r u p t e d by r e a c t i o n s and applause o f t h e audience - announcement o f an i n t e r m i s s i o n - c o n v e r s a t i o n s and a c t i o n s d u r i n g t h e i n t e r m i s s i o n - second p a r t o f t h e performance o f t h e band i n c l u d i n g e n t h u s i a s t i c r e a c t i o n s o f t h e audience - r e q u e s t f o r an encore - encore - end o f t h e performance - musicians a r e p a c k i n g up t h e i r i n s t r u m e n t s - audience l e a v e s W i t h i n t h e s e episodes i n f o r m a t i o n d e s c r i b i n g s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e s o f t h e f i v e p a t i e n t s ( P i - r e l e v a n t elements) and o f t h e f i v e musicians ( P 2 - r e l e v a n t elements) i s p r o v i d e d as demonstrated i n t h e f o l l o w i n g examples ( t r a n s l a t ed from t h e German v e r s i o n ) . " I n t h e meantime, t h e p a t i e n t s o f Ward I11 assemble i n t h e h a l l . F i r s t , a p a t i e n t i n a w h i t e night-gown e n t e r s t h e h a l l . Because he s u f f e r s f r o m asthma he walks v e r y s l o w l y . " ... who wears a b l a c k l e a t h e r v e s t asks h i s c o l l e a g u e t o h e l p him w i t h s e t t i n g up t h e equipment." ...

"u

.. .

I n t h e f i r s t example, " w h i t e night-gown'' and "asthma" e s t a b l i s h a n a f f i r m a t i v e r e l a t i o n between two P i - r e l e v a n t elements. The same i s t r u e f o r "Bernd" and " b l a c k l e a t h e r v e s t " f o r problem P2. P a i r s ( o r t r i p l e s ) o f t h i s k i n d o f p r o b l e m - r e l e v a n t elements e s t a b l i s h t h e a f f i r m a t i v e and n e g a t i v e ( o r " i n between") r e l a t i o n s . They a r e d i s t r i b u t e d o v e r t h e t e x t i n such a way t h a t t h e r e i s no advantage f o r any o f t h e two problem domains as m i g h t be p o s s i b l e b y a primacy and/or recency e f f e c t . T h i s i s accomplished b y i n s e r t i n g t h e problem r e l e v a n t elements which a r e o f no r e l e v a n c e f o r t h e s t o r y ' s p l o t i n an a l t e r n a t i n g way i n t h e above mentioned episodes.

37%

GOAL PERSPECTIVES

APPENDIX B

INSTRUCTIONS s u b j e c t s were presented w i t h b e f o r e l i s t e n i n g t o t h e t a p e . C o n d i t i o n C(0): You w i l l now hear a s t o r y w h i c h has been t a p e r e c o r d e d b e f o r e . T h i s s t o r y w i l l be t h e b a s i s f o r t h e r e s t o f t h e experiment. You w i l l h e a r t h e s t o r y twice. D u r i n g t h e f i r s t time, y o u w i l l have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b t a i n a g e n e r a l i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e s t o r y . Please, l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y . D u r i n g t h e second time, y o u w i l l have t h e chance t o t a k e notes w h i l e l i s t e n i n g . A f t e r h a v i n g heard t h e s t o r y t w i c e , y o u a r e t o g i v e an o r a l r e c a l l o f t h e s t o r y . You w i l l be a l l o w e d t o make use o f y o u r w r i t t e n n o t e s and e v e r y t h i n g e l s e t h a t you s t i l l remember o f t h e s t o r y . C o n d i t i o n s C ( l ) and C ( 2 ) : ( I n t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s s u b j e c t s g o t t h e same i n s t r u c t i o n s as t h e C ( O ) - s u b j e c t s and i n a d d i t i o n t h e f o l l o w i n g problem o r i e n t a t i o n s . ) The w r i t t e n notes and e v e r y t h i n g e l s e t h a t i s s t i l l i n y o u r memory i s supposed t o be t h e b a s i s f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r t o f t h e experiment, namely, t o s o l v e a problem. The problem i s r e l a t e d t o t h e s t o r y you w i l l hear. C o n d i t i o n C( 1) I t c o n s i s t s i n answering t h e f o l l o w i n g question: "What i s t h e name o f t h e p a t i e n t who has t h e concussion?" You w i l l have a s u f f i c i e n t amount o f t i m e t o s o l v e t h i s problem.

C o n d i t i o n C(2) I t c o n s i s t s i n answering t h e f o l l o w i n g two q u e s t i o n s : "What i s t h e name o f the p a t i e n t who has t h e concussion?" and "What i s t h e name o f t h e m u s i c i a n who p l a y s t h e g u i t a r ? " You w i l l have a s u f f i c i e n t amount o f t i m e t o s o l v e t h e s e two problems.

I n a l l c o n d i t i o n s , after h a v i n g l i s t e n e d t o t h e t a p e t w i c e , s u b j e c t s were presented w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g r e c a l l i n s t r u c t i o n : Now, p l e a s e g i v e a n o r a l r e c a l l o f t h e s t o r y y o u j u s t heard. You a r e a l l o w ed t o make use o f y o u r w r i t t e n notes and o f e v e r y t h i n g e l s e y o u s t i l l r e member.