Expert revisers' improvements are inconsistent across texts, with only signaling-structure strategies reliably corresponding to improved retention¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 1991 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In Britton et al.'s (1989) revisions of army training manual passages, only three of revisers' eight strategies corresponded to improved texts, all relating to signaling structure and together accounting for 50% of the variance in performance. → Mary H. Sawyer 1991

Evidence¶

Mary H. Sawyer 1991¶

Mary H. Sawyer. (1991). A Review of Research in Revising Instructional Text. Journal of Reading Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969109547744

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review reports Britton et al.'s (1989) studies of expert revisers, where the dependent variable was a 24-hour delayed recall protocol; only the signaling-structure strategies corresponded to improved texts, accounting for "50% of the variance in performance".

"in revisions of 10 army training manual passages, only three of revisers' eight strate- gies actually corresponded to improved texts. The three strategies all related to signaling structure and together accounted for 50% of the variance in performance"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Interest-evoking text revision strategies raised fourth and sixth graders' recall of a history passage but not acquisition of abstract, general information — related
• Structural signals show no consistent recall benefits but can aid deeper understanding measured by problem-solving tests — reports the opposite
• Training in text structure improves college students' summaries, but summarizing has not been shown here to improve recall or writing more than rereading or other active reading — related