J. TECHNICAL WRITING AND COMMUNICATION, VOI. 19(3) 227-240, 1989
SIGNALING EFFECTS: A REVIEW
OF THE RESEARCH-PART I
JAN H. SPYRlDAKlS
Universl’ty of Washington
ABSTRACT
This article reviews previous research on the effects of certain structural cues,
called signals, that affect a reader’s comprehension of expository prose. It
concludes that the inconsistent results of many studies may be due to inadequate
methodologies that have failed to control for confounding variables, such as text
length and difficulty, reader familiarity with the topic, and timing of comprehension
tests. Further, accepted signal types (headings, logical connectives, and previews)
have not been sufficiently examined for their individual effects, perhaps creating
unidentified disordinal interactions that could preclude the possibility of researchers
identifying significant effects. This article concludes with recommendations for
more valid research methodology to be used in prose assessment studies. The next
issue of this journal will present Part I1 of this article, which details a new study
of signaling effects for readers of expository prose, a study that is based on the
refined methodology suggested in this article.
A reader’s comprehension of any document has been shown to be affected by
the interactive nature of the reader and the text. Many reading comprehension
studies have investigated reader variables, such as ability, age, prior knowledge,
and even motivation and purpose; other studies have investigated text variables,
such as passive voice, ambiguity, word length, or word frequency. Few studies,
though, have examined how the reader’s comprehension is affected when the
salience of a passage’s structure is changed.
Of interest here are some structural cues that may affect a reader’s selection
and retention of superordinate content and his or her ability to make inferences
from that content at the time of comprehension. These devices, frequently
called signals, attempt to pre-announce or emphasize content and/or reveal
content relationships. Signals are frequently categorized by their function.
Previews (frequently complete sentences) announce superordinate content and
227
0 1989. Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
doi: 10.2190/UA49-PQ9K-H 1 MN-DYK9
http://baywood.corn
228 / JAN H. SPYRlOAKlS
relationships among superordinate content before the reader encounters them.
Headings, which occur as short phrases, also announce superordinate content
before the reader encounters the actual content. Logical connectives, somewhat
like transitions, interrelate superordinate and subordinate content by adding in
words and phrases that emphasize the relationships, e.g., however, moreover, and
on the other hand. Signals should help the reader form a hierarchical framework
in memory that will facilitate the placement of incoming information. Although
many existing theories and studies support the notion of hierarchical formations
in memory and the retention of superordinate content as an organizer of
subordinate content, few studies consistently support the effect of signals in this
process.
If, in fact, a consistent role for the effect of signaling on reading
comprehension can be identified, then document designers would be more able
to construct comprehensible documents with well placed and carefully worded
signals. Yet at present, technical communicators, who rely heavily on these
signalling devices, have only a small and contradictory body of empirical support
for using signals. This article, the first of two on the effects of signals in
technical prose, critiques the methodologies employed to date, pointing out
some of the reasons why the current literature is contradictory, and suggesting a
strategy for better isolating the effects of headings, logical connectives, and
previews. The second of these two articles (which will appear in the next issue
of this journal) elaborates on the methodological concerns and illustrates the
efficacy of applying this methodology, finally suggesting additional steps that
we can take to improve our knowledge about the effects of signals in the
comprehension of technical prose. To set the context for these discussions, this
article reviews the theoretical underpinnings for this work.
COMPREHENSION PROCESSES A N D SIGNALING
A brief review of the comprehension process is critical to understanding the
way in which signals theoretically should work. Kintsch and van Dijk contend
that a reader selects a set of propositions from a given text to hold in short-term
memory (STM), then processes another set of propositions, and finally attempts
to find shared arguments between the old set and the new set [ 11 . When t h s
reader cannot find any shared propositions, he or she must search long-term
memory (LTM) for a relevant stored propositions; if he or she can find no such
links there, he or she must make an inference. At this point, the new
information is linked into LTM.
If, in fact, a writer can use structural cues to signal a reader about the
importance of a piece of content and show its relationship to other content, then
the reader will more easily and appropriately identify and link proposition sets.
In turn, the reader will be able to organize information stored in LTM, and hence
can access the information more easily. Readers who rely on signals for such
SIGNALING EFFECTS-PART I / 229
hierarchical cues about text-based information should form clearer hierarchical
representations of text in LTM and thus perform better on comprehension tests
that measure retention of superordinate content and formation of inferences.
SIGNALING STUDIES
In light of the assumption that signals can help in the comprehension process,
it is informative to look a t the somewhat contradictory findings of many
signaling studies. Twenty-five recent signaling studies are delineated in the
Appendix, revealing the current research in this area. These studies have
examined different signal types, sometimes singularly and sometimes in
combination. They have used a variety of text bases, differing in length,
difficulty, familiarity, and structure. Subjects have ranged from elementary
school students to adults. Testing methods (dependent measures) have varied
from immediate and delayed recall, to problem-solving, short answer tests, to
forced choice tests, to recognition tests, to cloze tests (where every nth word is
deleted and the reader is asked to fill in the blanks in the text), and finally to
secondary task reaction-time measurement. The following discussion focuses on
some of the major studies; the reader is encouraged to examined the Appendix
for further information about these and other studies.
Single Signal Studies
Before a discussion of studies of multiple signals, it is enlightening to look at
some of the groundwork laid by studies of only one signal type. By this, I mean,
specifically, headings; topic sentences and text titles; previews and recall
sentences; and conjunctions. Ware, Shuford, and Nichols, examining the effect
of headings, found n o content retention differences on multiple choice tests
among Air Force personnel reading headed versus non-headed Aircraft mechanics
manuals [2]. Interestingly, they noted stronger effects from headings in
question-form on less able comprehenders. Hartley and his colleagues found that
headings aided recall for all subjects [3-51.However, with a short expository
text (300 words), only headings phrased as questions improved recall scores;
with a somewhat longer text (400 words), both question and statement headings
improved recall, yet question headings aided low ability readers more than
statement headings. With a considerably longer text (1,000 words), the presence
of headings improved recall while the phrasing of headings (statement versus
questions) had no effect. Holley, Dansereau, Evans, Collins, Brooks, and Larson,
using a 2,500 word expository text, found that headings improved immediate
recall slightly and delay recall greatly [ 6 ] . Others have also found
comprehension effects for headings [7,8], while some have identified reader
preference for headings [S]. The nature and length of the text as well as the
type and timing of the test appears to influence the findings; positive effects for
230 / JAN H. SPYRlDAKlS
headings are found for expository texts of greater length, particularly in delayed,
factual recall tests.
Other studies have tested the presence and absence of topic sentences and
text titles. Topic sentences can function in a similar way to previews, while titles
tend to resemble headings. Aulls found that topic sentences improved recall more
than titles with short (90 to 120 words), easy expository texts [lo] ;Schwarz and
Flammer found that titles improved recall of short narrative passages (247 words)
with both good and poor structures [ 111; Kozminsky found that different titles
created a selection effect in terms of what information a subject recalled from
short expository texts (approximately 300 words) [ 121. Note that these three
studies were conducted only with relatively short texts and immediate recall tests.
Glover, Dinnel, Halpain, McKee, Corkill, and Wise assessed the effect of
preview sentences or recall sentences (a form of backward signaling) inserted in
one chapter on the recall, inspection, and secondary reaction-times in the
realng of a related second chapter [ 131 . Using college student subjects, they
found that the readers of signaled texts (either preview or recall sentences)
showed increased and better organized recall of content across chapters, and
longer inspection and secondary reaction-times in their reading of the second
chapter. They interpreted the longer inspection and reaction-time data as
supporting the selective attention hypothesis of encoding, which holds that
certain textual features can selectively guide a reader’s attention.
One last related area is research on conjunctions (somewhat akin to logical
connectives, which are defined as words or phrases that link subordinate or
superordinate content to content of similar or different hierarchical levels).
Researchers have studied the comprehension effects of explicitly versus
implicitly stated conjunctive relationships. Geva and Ryan noted that the
explicit condition improved comprehension more than the implicit condition
[ 141 . Although Irwin found no recall differences, she did find faster reading
times for texts with explicitly stated conjunctions [ 151 . Marshall and Glock
found that community college students exhibited better recall in sentences with
explicitly stated conjunctions, while university students did not, thus revealing a
differential effect based on a reader’s ability [ 161 . Finally, Garner and McCaleb
assessed the value of graphic, lexical, and semantic cues by having readers write
a summary of a three-page Scientific American article; they found that semantic
and lexical cues led to a greater number of ideas being presented in the summary
[ 171 . Explicitly stated conjunctive relationships appear to shorten reading time
and aid comprehension, particularly with less able readers and longer texts.
MamOPipk?Sigma! Studies
Meyer was one of the first to examine multiple signals in combination
(structural cues, previews, summary statements, and pointer words) in expository
texts [ 181. She found no significant results for signals as a comprehension aid on
SIGNALING EFFECTS-PART I /
231
recall tests with college subjects; however, her study used relatively short
expository texts (400 to 641 words), which, in their signaled versions, were
sometimes more syntactically complex than in their nonsignaled versions. This
syntactic variation could have confounded the resul-ts. Specifically, one signal
type could perhaps have impeded the value of another signal type; hence,
positive comprehension effects might not have surfaced. Meyer’s work
continued in conjunction with others [ 19, 201 ; these studies generally found no
positive effects for signals except with poor or underachieving comprehenders.
Many of these studies used relatively short texts. Furthermore, in many cases,
investigators added signals in such a way that the signaled texts were syntactically
different from the nonsignaled texts, thereby bringing in an uncontrolled
variable. Britton, Glynn, Meyer, and Penland, using two of Meyer’s texts to
assess structural cues, again found no recall differences between signaled and
nonsignaled conditions [21] . However, they did find faster reaction-times for
readers of signaled texts, indicating that readers may have had more attention
available while reading signaled passages.
Although they did not find positive comprehension effects for all readers,
Walker and Meyer did note different reading strategies between good and poor
comprehenders-what they termed structure and list strategies, respectively [22].
Good comprehenders tend to read with a structure strategy whereby they
identify superordinate content by themselves; hence, signals were seen to be of
little additional value for such readers. On the other hand, poor comprehenders
tend to use a listing strategy whereby they list all content in memory as being
equal. These subjects did benefit from the inclusion of signals. With the aid of
signals, they theoretically were able to use a structure strategy; as a result,
incoming content was identified hierarchically and in relation to other content.
Meyer, in attempting to create a model of reading strategies and their
interactions with text variables, created a beginning model for signaling effects
[23]. She states that signals have the potential to help less skilled readers in
difficult unfamiliar texts. She points out, however, that skilled readers, who
possess adequate text organizational skills to generate most of the implicit
logical structure of a text, can use their structure strategy in reading a difficult
text, even in the absence of signals. Other studies that have found signaling
effects even for good readers have shown this model to be limited (these studies
are cited below). One must question the standard definitions of good and poor
comprehenders; more than likely if a good comprehender is faced with a
sufficiently difficult text, he or she will function like a poor comprehender. If
this is so, then signals could aid good comprehenders who have become poor
comprehenders due to textual difficulties.
Loman and Mayer also noted a difference in processing strategies of readers
encountering signaled and non-signaled texts, although they termed the
strategies as “meaningful” and “rote” reading strategies [24] (akin to Walker
and Meyer’s structure and list strategies, respectively). They conducted studies
232 / JAN H. SPYRlDAKlS
with good and poor tenth-grade readers and found that readers (both good and
poor comprehenders) of signaled texts (previews, logical connectives, headings)
performed better on comprehension tests than readers of nonsignaled texts.
They assessed comprehension qualitatively (problem-solving test) as well as
quantitatively (amount of content recalled). Mayer, Dyck, and Cook assessed
the value of preview sentences and headings; using recall, recognition, linking,
and problem-solving tests, they found significantly higher scores on the recall,
linking, and problem-solving tests for readers of the signaled versions [25].
Kintsch and Yarbrough also found significant effects for signals in combination
with good rhetorical form on a problem-solving test; however, these results are
difficult to interpret since both’signals and rhetorical form were manipulated
simultaneously [26].
In a vein similar to Loman and Mayer’s qualitative testing, Spyridakis, and
Standal ran studies on signaled expository texts with college students [27,28].
Texts varied in length, and content complexity and familiarity; forced choice
tests assessed subordinate, superordinate, and inferential subordinate and
superordinate content. Additionally, while previous studies had tested multiple
signals together, Spyridakis and Standal isolated headings, previews, and logical
connectives into singular and additive conditions and found positive
comprehension effects for all three signal types with the longer, more difficult
passages. Signals aided sophisticated readers in identifying and retaining
content and in making inferences from it-only with the longer, less familiar
passages. These studies were the first studies to assess signal types individually
and in combination; however, these studies suggested the need’for a refined
research design.
Summary of Previous Research Studies
These studies illustrate the contradictory results that may well be a product
of methodological problems. It is apparent that the results of the studies
reviewed may depend on the difficulty, familiarity, and length of a text; the type
and timing of the comprehension test; and confounds resulting from the
uncontrolled interactions of signal types, syntactic structure, and rhetorical form.
When used singularly and in combination, headings, logical connectives, and
previews appear to aid readers in their comprehension of expository prose, yet
the measurement of their effect involves factors beyond the signals alone.
It appears that the likelihood of demonstrating strong and consistent results
for signaling increases when one uses passages of some length and difficulty about
unfamiliar topics. Also a qualitative test combined with a quantitative test
appears to best measure comprehension as it is affected by signals. In the next
issue of this journal, I present a study that implements these methodological
suggestions: it examines considerably longer passages; investigates effects of texts
with single and combined signal types; uses delay as well as immediate testing;
and assesses and controls for content familiarity and text difficulty.
0
0
N
Remedial second
graders. Expository
text: (300)
Fourteen to fifteen
year-olds. Expository
text: TV Viewing
Habits (1 000)
College students
Expository text: Plate
Tectonics (240@2500)
Headings: question or
statement ,form
Heading position: margin/
embedded. Phrasing:
question or statement
Training in heading use;
addition/deletion of
healngs
Hartley and
Trueman [ 5 ]
Holly, Dansereau,
et al. [ 6 ]
Primary students: low,
medium, and high
ability. Text: (400)
Titles, Headings in statement or question form
Hartley, Kenely,
Owen, and
Trueman (31
Hartley, Morris,
and Trueman [ 41
Air Force men
Aircraft mechanics
manual
Dependent
Measures
Free recall, five day
delay recall
Short answer test,
search in unfamiliar
text, retrieve information in familiar text
Short answer recall:
immediate and delay
test
Short answer factual
recall; same test with
two week delay
Fifty-question multiple
choice test
SINGLE SIGNAL STUDIES
Subjec tsl Tex ts
(Number of Words)
Headings: question or
statement form
Conditions
Klare, Shuford,
and Nichols [ 21
Author/
[Refetence]
Summary Table of Signaling Research
APPENDIX
No effect for training;
heads increased recall by
11 percent, delay recall
by 44 percent
Significant effects for
headings; position and
phrasing had no effect
Question headings aided
recall; effect held for one
week
Heads helped/ titles didn’t;
low ability readers did
better with question heads
N o retention difference;
preference for heading
version
Results
P
0
h)
Headings: standardized or
none
Topic sentence/title :
present/absent
Text structure: different
organization. Titles:
present/absent
Title biasing: present one
of three titles
Aulls [ 101
Schwarz and
Flammer [ 1 1 ]
Kozminsky [ 121
Topic sentence and
headings: delete/add and
learner or text generated.
Related/unrelated facts
Dee-Lucas and
Di Vesta [8]
Charrow and
Redish [ 91
Headings: misleading/
accurate. Clear/unclear
prose
Conditions
Swarts, Flower,
and Hayes [ 71
Author1
[Reference]
Read and predict
content heading, match
content, search, and
retrieve
Dependent
Measures
Questionnaire
Free recall
Free recall
Free recall
Seventh graders
Expository text:fifth
grade level (90-120)
University students
Narrative text:
Norwegian tale (247)
College students. Two
expository texts
(-300)
Generate deletions, free
recall, matching, recall
into tree structure
hierarchy
~~
Adult consumers
TV set warranties
College students
Expository text:
Minerals ( 5 22)
Adults (22-60 years)
Two passages from
Small Business Administration Rules
Subjects/Texts
(Number of Words)
APPEND I X (Cont'd. )
Title created selection
effect; no difference in
amount recalled
Titles > recall with good
and poor structure; Good
structure > recall
Topic sentence > recall
than title
No difference in number
correct or time; Ss
preferred headings
Text heads aid free recall
and matching; hierarchy
recall not significant
Accurate heads best:
> number of predictions,
> number of matches;
clear prose good with/
without heads
Results
Explicit/implicit cues: add,
delete, highlight. Intra- or
int er-sentential
conjunctions
Explicit/implicit
conjunctions
Explicit/implicit
conjunctions [ If/then]
Graphic cues, Lexical
cues, Semantic cues
Geva and Ryan
1141
Irwin [ 151
Marshall and
Garner and
McCaleb [ 171
College students
Expository text:
Physics
Written summary
Recall
Free recall and reading
time
College students
Expository text: tenth
grade level (500)
University students/
Community college
students. Sentences
All Ss scored higher in
explicit condition on
structure questions than
on detail questions
Twenty-item T/F test:
structure and detail
questions
Low/medium ability
fifth and seventh
graders. Eight
expository texts (25 0)
Semantic and lexical cues
led to > number of ideas
in summary
University Ss-no effect;
Community college Ss >
recall with expl
N o recall difference;
implicit condition slower
reading time
Increased and better
organized recall, longer
inspection and RT for
signaled information
Free recall, inspection
time, reaction time
(RT)
College students
Two chapters (600
each); Two chapters
(4,200-5 ,000)
Meyer [ 181
Structural cues, Previews
Summary statements,
Pointer words
College students.
Expository texts:
Reactors, Parakeets,
Schizophrenia ( 4 10641)
Free recall, free and
cued delay recall
MULTIPLE SIGNAL STUDIES
N o significant results for
signals
................................................................................................................................................................................
2 Glock [ 161
Previews; Summary
sentences
Glover et al. [ 131
Q)
hl
0
Dependent
Measures
Significant group recalled
> concepts, higher quality
problem solving answers;
fact recall-equal for both
groups
Signaled group recalled
more; > number correct on
problem solving and on
linking test
Recall, problem solving,
fact retention, verbatim
retention
Recall, problem solving,
solving, linking
Tenth grade good/poor
Readers. Expository
texts: Red Tides (223-
College students.
Expository text:
Nitrogen cycle (670821)
Previews, Headings,
Logical connectives
Previews, Headings
Loman and
Mayer [ 241
Mayer, Dyck,
and Cook [ 251
286); How Cities
Began (155-212)
No recall differences with
signal condition;
Nonsignaled passages
slowed RT
Free recall, secondary
task reaction time
College good/poor
comprehenders.
Expository texts:
Schizophrenia, Breeder
Reactors (41 0-641)
Structural cues, Summary
statements, Previews
Pointer words
Expert readers recalled
more; signals produced
levels effect
Britton, Glynn,
Meyer, and
Penland [21]
Free recall, free delay
recall, twenty-eight
question objective test
Sixty-nine year-old
expert and nonexpert
readers, Expository
texts: Supertankers;
Railroads (388)
Signals of top or low level
information
Signals helped underachievers with immediate
recall on Supertanker
passage
R esu Its
Meyer [ 201
Ninth grade good/under- Immediate and cued
delay recall
achiever readers.
Expository texts: Dehydration ( 169-1 87),
Tankers (2 16-242)
Su bjectslTex ts
(Number o f Words)
Structural cues, e.g., A
problem of vital concern
is. ..
Conditions
Meyer, Brandt,
and Bluth [ 191
Author1
[Reference]
APPENDIX (Cont'd.)
Positive effect for good
rhetorical form and
signals on structure
test; cloze not significant
Previews improved comprehension with Biomedical (< difficult than
corrosion). No effect for
heads and logical
conne ctives
No effects for short and
simple texts (Nitrate and
Corrosion); previews,
logical connectives, and
heads aided comprehension
of other longer, more
difficult texts (Algae and
Biomedical)
Two question test on
topic structure; cloze
test
Multiple choice: subordinate and
superordinate content.
Only total scores
calculated
Multiple choice:
subordinate and
superordinate content,
inferential relationships.
Total and subscores
calculated
College students
Eight expository texts:
(240-25 0)
College readers.
Expository texts:
Corrosion (3 62-444)
Biomedical Research
(6 00-7 66)
College readers.
Expository texts:
Nitrates (562-679)
Corrosion (362-444)
Algae (405-766)
Biomedical Research
(600-7 66)
Good/poor rhetorical
form, Structural cues,
Pointer words
Headings, Previews, Logical
Connectives
Headings Previews, Logical
Connectives
[ 261
and
1
and
1
238 / JAN H. SPYRlDAKlS
REFERENCES
1. W. A. Kintsch and T. A. van Dijk, Toward a Model of Text Comprehension
and Production, Psychological Review, 85, pp. 363-394, 1978.
2. G. R. Klare, E. H. Shuford, and W. H. Nichols, The Relation of Format
Organization to Learning, Educational Research Bulletin, 37, pp. 39-45,
1958.
3. J. Hartley, J. Kenely, G. Owen, and M. Trueman, The Effect of Headings on
Children’s Recall from Prose Text, British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 50, pp. 304-307, 1980.
4. J. Hartley, P. Morris, and M. Trueman, Headings in Text, Remedial
Education, 16, pp. 5-7, 1980.
5. J. Hartley and M. Trueman, The Effects of Headings in Text on Recall,
Search, and Retrieval, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53,
pp. 205-214, 1983.
6. C. D. Holley, D. F. Dansereau, S. H. Evans, K. W. Collins, L. Brooks, and
D. Larson, Utilizing Intact and Embedded Headings as Processing Aids with
Nonnarrative Text, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, pp. 227-236,
1981.
7. H. Swarts, L. S. Flower, and J. R. Hayes, How Headings in Documents Can
Mislead Readers (Technical Report No. 9, Document Design Project),
DHEW, Washington, D.C., 1980.
8. D. Dee-Lucas and F. F. Di Vesta, Learner-Generated Organizational Aids:
Effects on Learning from Text, Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,
pp. 304-31 1, 1980.
9. V. R. Charrow and J. C. Redish, A Study of Standardized Headings for
Warranties (Technical Report No. 6, Document Design Project), National
Institute of Education, Washington, D.C., 1980.
10. M. W. Aulls, Expository Paragraph Properties that Influence Literal Recall,
Journal of Reading Behavior, 7, pp. 391-400, 1975.
11. M. N. K. Schwarz and A. Flammer, Text Structure and Title-Effects on
Comprehension and Recall, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
20, pp. 61-66, 1981.
12. E. Kozminsky, Altering Comprehension: The Effect of Biasing Titles on
Text Comprehension, Memory and Cognition, 5, pp. 482-490, 1977.
13. J. A. Glover, D. L. Dinnel, D. R. Halpain, T. K. McKee, A. J. Corkill, and
S. L. Wise, Effects of Across-Chapter Signals on Recall of Text, Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80: 1, pp. 3-1 5, 1988.
14. E. Geva and E. B. Ryan, Use of Conjunctions in Expository Texts by Skilled
and Less Skilled Readers, Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, pp. 331-345,
1985.
15. J. W. Irwin, The Effects of Coherence Explicitness on College Readers’ Prose
Comprehension, Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, pp. 275-284, 1982.
16. N. Marshall and M. D. Glock, Comprehension of Connected Discourse: A
Study into the Relationships between the Structure of Text and Information
Recalled, Reading Research Quarterly, 14, pp. 10-56, 1978-1979.
S I G N A L I N G EFFECTS-PART 1 /
239
17. R. Garner and J. L. McCaleb, Effects of Text Manipulations on Quality of
Written Summaries, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, pp. 139-149,
1985.
18. B. J. F. Meyer, The Organization of Prose and Its Effects on Memory, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1975.
19. B. J. F. Meyer, D. M. Brandt, and G. J. Bluth, Use of Top-Level Structure in
Text: Key for Reading Comprehension of Ninth-Grade Students, Reading
Research Quarterly, 16, pp. 72- 101, 1980.
20. B. J. F. Meyer, Text Dimensions and Cognitive Processing, in Learning and
Comprehension of Text, H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, and T. Trabasso (eds.),
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, 1984.
21. B. K. Britton, S . M. Glynn, B. J. F. Meyer, and M. J. Penland, Effects of
Text Structure o n Use of Cognitive Capacity during Reading, Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, pp. 5 1-61, 1982.
22. C. H. Walker and B. J. F. Meyer, Integrating Different Types of Information
in Text, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, pp. 263-275,
1980.
23. B. J. F. Meyer, Organizational Aspects of Text: Effects on Reading
Comprehension and Applications for the Classroom, in Promoting Reading
Comprehension, J. Flood (ed.), International Reading Association, Newark,
1984.
24. N. L. Loman and R. E. Mayer, Signaling Techniques that Increase the
Understandability of Expository Prose, Journal of Educational Psychology,
75, pp. 402-412, 1983.
25. R. E. Mayer, J. L. Dyck, and L. K. Cook, Techniques that Help Readers
Build Mental Models from Scientific Text: Definitions of Pretraining and
Signaling, Journal o f Educational Psychology, 76, pp. 1089-1 105, 1984.
26. W. A. Kintsch and J. C. Yarbrough, Role of Rhetorical Structure in Text
Comprehension, Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, pp. 828-834, 1982.
27. J. H. Spyridakis and T. C. Standal, Headings, Previews, and Logical
Connectives: Effects on Reading Comprehension, Journal of Technical
Writing and Communication, 16, pp. 343-354, 1986.
28. -,The Effects of Signals in Expository Prose on Reading
Comprehension, Reading Research Quarterly, 22:3, pp. 285-298, 1987.
Other Articles On Communication By This Author
C. Isakson and J. H. Spyridakis, A Study of Survey Methodology, International
Technical Communications Proceedings, forthcoming in May 1989.
J. H. Spyridakis and T. Standal, Signals in Expository Prose: Effects on Reading
Comprehension, Reading Research Quarterly, 12, September 1987.
J. Spyridakis, Authors’ Plans Meet Readers’ Plans, International Technical
Communication Conference Proceedings, May 1987.
J. H. Spyridakis and T. Standal, Headings, Previews, Logical Connectives:
Effects on Reading Comprehension, Journal o f Technical Writing and
Communication, December 1986.
240 / JAN H. SPYRIDAKIS
Direct reprint requests to:
Professor Jan H. Spyridakis
Program in Scientific and Technical Communication
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195