ERIC Number: ED294140
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1988-Apr
Reference Count: N/A
Conceptual versus Perceptual Text Processing Strategies: Differences between Good and Poor Readers.
Shepard, Charlene R.; Reynolds, Ralph E.
Investigating the selective attention strategy, a study examined the type of attention allocated to important information by good and poor readers. Also tested was the methodological validity of using a conceptual (word recognition) perceptual (tachistoscopic word flash) task as a means of investigating the types of information processing that may occur during reading. Based on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Scholastic Achievement Test scores, and teacher rating, subjects--75 tenth grade students--were assigned to average or below average reading ability groups. In the first of two experiments, 43 students read an experimental passage and were then given a perceptual identification task to perform on selected words from the story. In the second experiment, 32 different students read the same passage and were given a conceptual recognition task to perform on the same list of words. Before reading the passage, each subject was assigned the perspective of either a home buyer or a burglar, and told to rate the relative importance of each story segment according to their perspective. Results indicated that both good and poor readers spent more time on text items that were important to their assigned perspective than on unimportant items. Poor readers consistently outperformed good readers on the perceptual identification task, and good readers outperformed poor readers on the conceptual identification task. These results supported the hypothesis that good readers outperform poor readers on selective attention tasks primarily because they employ a greater degree of conceptual attention. (Four tables of data are included, and 20 references are appended.) (MM)
Publication Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers; Reports - Research
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers: Conceptual Attention; Perceptual Attention; Selective Attention; Text Processing (Reading)
Note: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameri