Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Thus, in this subsection we focus on research that explored aspects of the input
stream that have been shown to affect comprehension. While this research relied on
a variety of tasks and assessment measures, ranging from referential communication
measures to knowledge applications, each study attempted to improve comprehen-
sion while varying facets of the input stream by manipulating such variables as
number of perspectives and voice style. Research that focused on learning per se
will be considered in the next subsection.
Schober and Clark (1989) reported research in which participants either partic-
ipated in referential communication dialog or overheard audio recordings of that
dialog. In one condition, a conversational participant, called a matcher , attempted to
place randomly arranged sets of abstract shapes, called tangrams, into an order that
was described by a second conversational participant, called a director . The dialogs
between the matchers and directors were audio recorded and presented to partici-
pants, called overhearers , in a second condition. The overhearers, who listened to
dialogs, attempted to place the tangrams in the orders described in the audiotape.
The matchers who participated in the dialogs by conversing with directors, while
placing the tangrams in order, significantly outperformed the matchers who simply
overheard the tapes. Much of the same results were obtained in a second study in
which vicarious matchers directly overheard dialogs between directors and match-
ers. Schober and Clark (1989, p. 211) suggested that the matchers who participated
in the dialogs outperformed overhearers because “the very process of understanding
is different for addressees and overhearers.”
Fox Tree (1999) used a similar referential communication task to explore the
roles of overhearing dialog and monolog in facilitating vicarious comprehension. In
order to obtain audio tapes for use in the vicarious comprehension experiment, pairs
of college students were divided into directors and matchers, as in the Schober and
Clark studies (1989). Directors in the dialog condition conversed freely with match-
ers, but in the monolog condition directors only gave instructions while matchers
listened and attempted to place the tangrams in the correct order. All sessions were
audio recorded. Eight audio tapes of monologs and eight tapes of dialogs (of about
the same length), in which matchers flawlessly placed the tangrams (Fox Tree, 1999,
p. 43) in the correct order, were selected for use in the main vicarious comprehension
experiment.
Results revealed that vicarious comprehenders who overheard dialogs evidenced
superior performance, in that they made significantly fewer errors in placing the
tangrams in the correct order when compared with those in the vicarious monolog
condition. In more recent research, Fox Tree and Mayer (2008) reported two exper-
iments contrasting single versus multiple perspectives overheard in either monolog
or dialog discourse. Several other variables, including discourse markers, were
explored in correlational analyses. Participants listened to auditory descriptions
of tangrams (Fox Tree, 1999; Schober & Clark, 1989) and attempted to identify
specific exemplars from an array of tangrams located on a monitor.
In both studies, those who overheard discourse that included multiple perspec-
tives correctly identified significantly more tangrams than those who overheard only
Search WWH ::




Custom Search