Abstract
This study investigated whether individual differences in working memory (WM) span are associated with different WM management strategies during the reading of expository text. In Experiment 1, probe questions were presented on line during reading to determine whether thematic information was maintained in WM throughout comprehension. The data indicated that readers across the range of WM span maintained thematic information in WM throughout the reading of a given passage. In Experiment 2, sentence reading times and accuracy for both topic and detail questions were measured in two conditions: when topic sentences were present and when topic sentences were absent. Subjects performed similarly across the range of WM span in the topic-present condition, but lower span subjects performed more poorly on detail questions in the topic-absent condition. In Experiment 3, the topic-present condition of the second experiment was replicated, except that subjects expected to receive questions about details only. Thematic processing and retention of topic and detail information all increased with span. Taken together, these results suggest that, for more difficult text processing tasks, high- and low-span subjects adopt different WM management strategies and these strategies influence what is learned from reading the text.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baddeley, A. D. (1986).Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D., Logie, R., Nimmo-Smith, I., &Brereton, N. (1985). Components of fluent reading.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 119–131.
Black, J. (1985). An exposition on understanding expository text. In B. K. Britton & J. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository text (pp. 250–265). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Britton, B. K., Glynn, S. M., &Smith, J. W. (1985). Cognitive demands of processing expository text: A cognitive workbench model. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository text (pp. 227–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cronbach, L. J., &Snow, R. E. (1977).Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Halsted Press.
Daneman, M., &Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 450–466.
Derry, S. J. (1984). Effects of an organizer on memory for prose.Journal of Educational Psychology,76, 98–107.
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Owen, P. D., &Cote, N. C. (1990). Encoding and recall of texts: The importance of material appropriate processing.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 566–581.
Engle, R. W., Cantor, J., &Carullo, J. J. (1992). Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: A test of four hypotheses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 972–992.
Epstein, W., Glenberg, A. M., &Bradley, M. M. (1984). Coactivation and comprehension: Contribution of text variables to the illusion of knowing.Memory & Cognition,12, 355–360.
Fischer, B., &Glanzer, M. (1986). Short-term storage and the processing of cohesion during reading.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,38A, 431–460.
Fletcher, C. (1986). Strategies for allocation of short-term memory during comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,25, 43–58.
Fodor, J. A. (1983).The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Glanzer, M., &Nolan, S. (1986). Memory mechanisms in text comprehension. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 20, pp. 275–317). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Haberlandt, K. F. (1984). Components of sentence and word reading times. In D. Kieras & M. Just (Eds.),New methods in comprehension research (pp. 219–251). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haberlandt, K. F., &Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 357–374.
Hare, V. C., Rabinowitz, M., &Schieble, K. M. (1989). Text effects on main idea comprehension.Reading Research Quarterly,24, 72–88.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983).Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1987).The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory.Psychological Review,99, 122–149.
Kieras, D. E. (1981a). Component processes in the comprehension of simple prose.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 1–23.
Kieras, D. E. (1981b). Topicalization effects in cued recall of technical prose.Memory & Cognition,9, 541–549.
Kieras, D. E. (1982). A model of reader strategy for abstracting main ideas from simple technical prose.Text,2, 47–81.
Kieras, D. E. (1984). A method for comparing a simulation to reading time data. In D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.),New methods in comprehension research (pp. 299–325). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kieras, D. E. (1985). Thematic processes in the comprehension of technical prose. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository text (pp. 89–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.Psychological Review,95, 163–182.
Kintsch, W. (1993). Information accretion and reduction in text processing: Inferences.Discourse Processes,16, 193–202.
Kintsch, W., Britton, B. K., Fletcher, C. R., Kintsch, E., Mannes, S. M., &Nathan, M. J. (1993). A comprehension-based approach to learning and understanding. In D. L. Medin (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 30, pp. 165–211). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kintsch, W., &van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review,85, 363–393.
Kloster, A. M., &Winne, P. H. (1989). The effects of different types of organizers on students’ learning from text.Journal of Educational Psychology,81, 9–15.
Lee-Sammons, W., &Whitney, P. (1991). Reading perspectives and memory for text: An individual differences analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 1074–1081.
Loman, N. L., &Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose.Journal of Educational Psychology,75, 402–412.
Lorch, R., Lorch, E., &Matthews, P. (1985). On-line processing of the topic structure of a text.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 350–362.
Lorch, R., Lorch, E., &Mogan, A. (1987). Task effects and individual difference in on-line processing of a text.Discourse Processes,10, 63–80.
MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity.Cognitive Psychology,24, 56–98.
Mannes, S., &Kintsch, W. (1987). Knowledge organization and text organization.Cognition & Instruction,4, 91–115.
Marshall, N., &Glock, M. D. (1979). Comprehension of connected discourse: A study into the relationships between the structure of text and information recalled.Reading Research Quarterly,14, 10–56.
Mayer, R. E. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning?Review of Education Research,49, 371–383.
Mayer, R. E. (1980). Elaboration techniques that increase the meaningfulness of technical text.Journal of Educational Psychology,72, 770–784.
McDaniel, M. A., Einstein, G. O., Dunay, P. K., &Cobb, R. E. (1986). Encoding difficulty and memory: Toward a unifying theory.Journal of Memory & Language,25, 645–656.
McKoon, G., &Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading.Psychological Review,99, 440–466.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975).The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., &Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of toplevel structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninthgrade students.Reading Research Quarterly,16, 72–103.
Meyer, B. J. F., &Rice, E. (1982). The interaction of reader strategies and the organization of text.Text,2, 155–192.
Olson, G. M., Mack, R. L., &Duffy, S. A. (1981). Cognitive aspects of genre.Poetics,10, 283–315.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982).Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985).Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, C. A. (1989). There are generalized abilities and one of them is reading. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 307–335). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Raney, G. (1993). Monitoring changes in cognitive load during reading: An event-related brain potential and reaction time analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 51–69.
Reder, L. M. (1985). Techniques available to author, teacher, and reader to improve retention of the main ideas of a chapter. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & J. R. Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills: Vol. 2. Research and open questions (pp. 37–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reder, L. M., &Anderson, J. R. (1980). A comparison of texts and their summaries: Memorial consequences.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 121–134.
Risko, V. J., &Alvarez, M. C. (1986). An investigation of poor readers’ use of a thematic strategy to comprehend text.Reading Research Quarterly,21, 298–315.
Sanford, A. J., &Garrod, S. C. (1981).Understanding written language. New York: Wiley.
Smith, E. E., &Swinney, D. A. (1992). The role of schemas in reading text: A real-time examination.Discourse Processes,15, 303–316.
Trabasso, T., &Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through on-line inferences and mental operations in working memory.Discourse Processes,16, 3–34.
Turner, M. L., &Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory task dependent?Journal of Memory & Language,28, 127–154.
van Dijk, T., &Kintsch, W. (1983).Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Whitney, P., Ritchie, B., &Clark, M. (1991). Working memory and the use of elaborative inferences in text comprehension.Discourse Processes,14, 133–145.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by AFOSR Grant F49620-92-J-0243. The first two experiments were part of a master’s thesis submitted to Washington State University by D.B
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Budd, D., Whitney, P. & Turley, K.J. Individual differences in working memory strategies for reading expository text. Mem Cogn 23, 735–748 (1995). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200926
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200926