Topic Interest Text Representation Schiefele

JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 1 SESS: 114 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:30:17 1996
/xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/9pu
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 21, 3–18 (1996)

ARTICLE NO. 0002
Topic Interest, Text Representation, and Quality

of Experience
ULRICH SCHIEFELE
Department of Psychology and Sports, University of Bielefeld, Germany
This study investigated the relations among topic interest, prior knowledge, verbal abil-
ity, quality of experience, and text learning. A total of 107 12th-grade students had to read
two different texts. Prior to reading the texts, topic interest and prior knowledge were
assessed. Scores on the verbal subscale of a school-related ability test were used as indi-
cators of verbal ability. Quality of subjective experience was assessed on line during the
reading phase. Recognition and verification tests served to assess the verbatim, proposi-
tional, and situational text representations. Results of multiple regression analyses showed
that interest was negatively related to the verbatim representation and positively related to
the propositional representation. No relation between interest and the situational represen-
tation was found. Verbal ability was positively related to both the verbatim and the situ-
ational representation. Prior knowledge was only weakly related to any representational
component. Only interest, but neither verbal ability nor prior knowledge, could predict
quality of experience in the reading phase. © 1996 Academic Press, Inc.
Although cognitive psychology has often been criticized for neglecting moti-
vational variables (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1988b; Lepper, 1988; Pervin, 1992), it
has important implications for the study of motivation–cognition relations.
Among the most important implication is that cognitive psychology has devel-
oped more differentiated and more complex indicators of comprehension and
learning than were ever available before. As a consequence, it has become
possible to investigate the effects of motivation on learning in a very precise way.
An increasing number of educational psychologists have recognized this possi-
bility and have started to analyze the interplay of motivational and cognitive
processes of learning (e.g., Graham & Golan, 1991; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991;
Snow, 1989). Two major lines of research are to be distinguished. The first group
of studies refers to the relation between motivation and use of learning strategies
(e.g., Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Nolen, 1988; Pintrich & Garcia,
1991), whereas the second group deals with the impact of motivation on text
learning. Within the latter line of research, most studies examined the influence
of interest on learning from expository texts (see Hidi, 1990; Hidi & Baird, 1986;
Schiefele, 1991b, 1992; Wade, 1992).
This research was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Schi 283/2-1).
I thank Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi for his help in designing and conducting the study and Paul R.
Pintrich for his comments on an earlier draft of this article. Correspondence and reprint requests
should be addressed to Ulrich Schiefele, Universität Bielefeld, Fakultät für Psychologie und
Sportwissenschaft, Postfach 100131, 33501 bielefeld, Germany.
3
0361-476X/96 $18.00
Copyright © 1996 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
4 ULRICH SCHIEFELE
The research on interest and text learning has employed two different concepts
of interest: (1) individual or topic interest and (2) situational or text-based interest
(Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992). Topic interest is conceived of as a relatively
stable evaluative orientation toward certain topics, while text-based interest is an
emotional state aroused by specific text features. It is important to mention that
topic and individual interest are not exactly the same. Rather, topic interest is a
specific form of individual interest. Individual interests may refer not only to
topics, or domains of knowledge, but also to material objects and activities.
The present study refers to the relation between topic interest and learning.
The majority of previous studies found positive relations between topic interest
and measures of text learning (e.g., Alexander, Kulikowich, & Schulze, 1994;
Asher, 1980; Baldwin, Peleg-Bruckner, & McClintock, 1985; Entin & Klare,
1985; Renninger, 1989). In addition, evidence shows that the positive impact of
interest on text learning is largely independent of text difficulty, type of learning
test (e.g., multiple-choice vs recall), reading ability, and age or grade level.
In spite of these positive results, there are various deficiencies in prior re-
search. First, earlier studies did not examine differential effects of interest on
surface- and deep-level learning. Although a wide range of measures of text
learning was used (e.g., free recall, cued recall, sentence or word recognition,
cloze-procedure, open-ended and multiple-choice questions), most of the studies
determined a single indicator of learning. In our own studies (Schiefele, 1991a,
1992; Schiefele & Krapp, in press), we used open-ended questions and free recall
to derive different indicators of learning (e.g., answers to simple vs complex
questions, number of recalled propositions vs main ideas). The results suggest
that topic interest is more strongly related to indicators of deep-level learning
than to measures of surface-level learning. In addition, Benware and Deci (1984)
demonstrated that intrinsically motivated students exhibit greater conceptual
comprehension of a text than extrinsically motivated students, whereas no dif-
ferences between the two groups were obtained for the number of recalled details
(rote learning) (see also Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). However, a major problem of
these studies is that indicators of deep and surface levels of learning were mainly
based on intuitive considerations and not on an explicit theory of levels of
learning.
A second problem of earlier research concerns the explanation of interest
effects on learning. Although it is well documented that topic interest and learn-
ing from text are significantly related, almost no efforts were made to explain that
positive relation. Therefore, our knowledge of mediating processes, such as
attention or affective states, is rather limited. It was only recently that Hidi
(1990), for example, has discussed the role of attention as a mediating process in
the relation between situational interest and text learning.
The following goals were pursued in the present study: (1) to analyze the
effects of topic interest on different levels of text learning and (2) to explore the
mediating role of the quality of experience during reading. In addition, tests of
INTEREST AND TEXT REPRESENTATION 5
prior knowledge and cognitive ability were included in order to control for
differences between students on these variables.
The text processing theory of van Dijk and Kintsch (1983; Kintsch, 1986,
1988) was used as the basis for constructing a test that measures different levels
of learning. The theory differentiates between a verbatim, a propositional, and a
situational text representation. The verbatim representation contains the text’s
superficial structure, the propositional representation (or “textbase”) refers to the
meaning of the text, and the situational component is a model of the “situation”
(e.g., people, objects, actions) described by the text. The situational representa-
tion or model represents the deepest level of text comprehension. It was hypoth-
esized that high interest subjects build propositional and situational text repre-
sentations to a greater extent then low interest subjects, whereas the opposite was
expected with regard to the verbatim representation.
Quality of experience is a multidimensional construct that consists of emo-
tional, motivational, and cognitive aspects of experience (Csikszentmihalyi,
1988a; Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987). The core dimensions of this construct
include activation or arousal (e.g., feeling vigorous), affect (e.g., feeling happy),
and concentration. The distinction between these dimensions is in line with
theories of mood that have proposed similar dimensions (e.g., Thayer, 1989). In
the present study, quality of experience was assessed on line while the subjects
were reading the text. A large number of studies suggest that positive emotions,
activation, and concentration (as an aspect of attention) have a crucial role in the
learning process (e.g., Christianson, 1992; Eysenck, 1982; Hidi, 1990; Thayer,
1989). It was hypothesized that interest is significantly and positively related to
affect, activation, and concentration and that these variables mediate significant
parts of the presumed influence of interest on text representation.
METHOD
Overview
The study included two experimental sessions which were 1 week apart. In each session, the
subjects had to read an expository text (either on “Prehistoric People” or on “Television”). The
procedure was the same for the two sessions. Before reading the text, prior knowledge of and interest
in the topic of the text were assessed. During the reading phase, the subjects had to rate repeatedly
the quality of their subjective experience on the three dimensions of activation, affect, and concen-
tration. After reading the text, a recognition test was administered. For all students, scholastic ability
test scores were available.
Subjects
The subjects were 107 high school seniors from two high schools in the Chicago area. The average
age of the sample was 17.2. Seventy-six students were female and 31 were male. Sixty-five students
(16 boys, 49 girls) were of African-American origin. Only 46 students (10 male, 36 female) partici-
pated in Sessions 1 and 2 and therefore read both texts. All other students (n 4 61) were included
either in Sessions 1 or 2. Taken together, 72 students (18 male, 54 female) read the text on Prehistoric
People and 81 students (23 male, 58 female) read the text on Television.
6 ULRICH SCHIEFELE
Experimental Texts
The topics of the two texts were chosen in order to be potentially interesting for high school
students and, at the same time, allow for varying degrees of interest. The selection of thematically
distant texts, namely on Prehistoric People (PP) and on Television (TV), should provide evidence for
the generalizability of the findings for different learning materials. The text on PP deals with the way
of life and the development of prehistoric people. The text on TV describes the production of a
television show. Both texts were adapted from chapters of the World Book Encyclopedia (1989). The
texts were about eight pages long (2176 and 2173 words, respectively) and of the same level of
difficulty (10th grade, according to Fry’s, 1977, readability index).
Independent Variables
Verbal ability. All students in the sample have taken either the “Scholastic Ability Test” (SAT) or
the “American College Test” (ACT) within 3 months prior to the experiment. Each of these tests is
comprised of several parts. For purposes of the present study, only the verbal ability subscales were
selected. These subscales are designed to measure, for example, knowledge of grammar, understand-
ing of sentence structure, and rhetorical skills. The verbal subtests of the SAT and the ACT are highly
correlated (see Langston, 1987). With the help of an equivalence table (Langston, 1987) SAT scores
were transformed into ACT scores.
Prior knowledge. For each topic, a multiple-choice questionnaire was developed consisting of
either 12 (for the PP text) or 10 items (for the TV text). All items were directly related to key facts
of the text content.
The homogeneity of the multiple-choice tests was examined by means of Rasch analysis. Tradi-
tional reliability tests (e.g., Cronbach’s a) were not applied because the multiple-choice items
differed widely in difficulty and were not highly correlated. The Rasch analysis was performed by
using the statistical software “BIGSTEPS” (Wright & Linacre, 1991). BIGSTEPS provides the fit
statistic t for individual items which indicates how far an item deviates from the assumption that
“solving” difficult items implies solving less difficult items. The t values between −2 and +2 indicate
acceptable deviations (Wright & Masters, 1982). For the present scales, t values between −1.02 and
+2.03 (PP test; with only one item greater than +2) and between −1.94 and +1.49 (TV test) were
found. Therefore, it can be concluded that both tests form homogeneous scales. In addition, reliability
coefficients of .96 (PP test) and .97 (TV test) were obtained. The reliability coefficient computed by
BIGSTEPS expresses the amount of observed item variance that is not due to estimation error.
Topic interest. Topic interest is conceptualized as the relatively long-term orientation of an indi-
vidual toward a certain topic, or an area of knowledge (Schiefele, 1991, 1992b). Two aspects or
components of interest are distinguished: feeling-related and value-related valences. Feeling-related
valences refer to the feelings that are associated with a topic. Feelings of involvement or stimulation
are seen as most typical of interest. Value-related valences refer to the attribution of personal
significance to a topic. In addition, both feeling-related and value-related valences are of intrinsic
nature. This is to say that both types of valences are directly related to a certain topic and are not
based on the relation of this topic to other topics, objects, or events. For example, if a student
associates mathematics with high personal significance because mathematics helps him or her to get
a prestigious job, then we would not speak of interest.1
The interest scale is comprised of two parts which do not form independent factors (cf. Schiefele,
1990, 1991). In the first part, the subjects were asked to indicate how they expected to feel while
reading the actual text (feeling-related valences). Four items (“stimulated,” “engaged,” “bored”
1
For other definitions of individual interest, see Renninger (1989, 1990), for example. She dis-
tinguishes between interests (high value and high knowledge with regard to the interest object) and
noninterests (low value and high knowledge). In contrast to Renninger, the present conception of
interest does not include topic-related knowledge as a component.
[reversed coded], and “interested”) were used for this estimation. In the second part, the subjects were
asked to rate the topic’s personal meaning to them (value-related valences). Three scales were
employed here (“meaningful,” “useful,” and “worthless” [reversed coded]). All items had to be
answered on 8-point rating scales (ranging from “not at all” to “very”). Scores for topic interest were
determined by first adding up all answers to feeling-related and value-related items and then com-
puting the mean value. In the present study, a reliability coefficient (a) of .78 was obtained.
Dependent Variables
Quality of experience. The quality of the subjective experience while reading was assessed by
means of three 8-point rating scales that were inserted into the texts at four different points (on pages
2, 4, 6, and 8). These scales were designed to assess key dimensions of the students’ experience while
reading: activation (“I feel vigorou”), affect (“I feel happy”), and concentration (“I am concentrating
well”). Only one item per dimension was used in order to keep the interruption of the reading process
at a minimum.
Text comprehension. The strength of the different types of text representation is usually determined
by means of sentence recognition or sentence verification tests (e.g., Kintsch, Welsch, Schmalhofer,
& Zimny, 1990; Perrig & Kintsch, 1985; Schmalhofer & Glavanov, 1986). In the present study, the
same procedure was followed. For both texts, a recognition test consisting of 36 items was con-
structed. Nine of each of the following types of sentences were included in the test: original (O-
sentences), paraphrased (P-sentences), meaning-changed (M-sentences), and correctness-changed
(C-sentences). P-sentences were constructed by changing the content words. M-sentences contained
correct and reasonable inferences from the text which could be recognized as correct only on the basis
of the situation model. C-sentences contradicted the corresponding original sentences and were false
in terms of the situation model (see Appendix for examples). Different sentence forms (O, P, M, and
C) were based on different sets of (nine) original sentences.
In each case, the subjects had to decide whether the sentence was presented verbatim in the original
text or not (recognition task). In case of a negative answer, the subjects were asked to indicate
whether the sentence was true or false (verification task). Recognition tests are more appropriate to
assess the verbatim representation, whereas verification tests are more sensitive to differences in
situational representations (Schmalhofer, 1986).
Based on the subject’s judgment as to whether a sentence was in the original text or not, it is
possible to compute scores for the extent of the verbatim (VERB), propositional (PROP), and
situational (SIT) representations. The strength of individual text representations was calculated by
means of d8 values (cf, Egan, 1975). The d8 value is a measure of the discriminability of two response
distributions. The strength of the verbatim representation is determined by the difference between the
number of “yes” answers for O-sentences (“hit rate”) and the number of “yes” answers for P-
sentences (“false alarm rate”). Similarly, the strength of the propositional representation is deter-
mined by the difference between “yes” answers for P-sentences and the false alarm rate for M-
sentences. Finally, the extent of the situational representation is determined by the difference between
“yes” answers for M-sentences and “yes” answers for C-sentences. The determination of these
differences is sensible because the sentence pairs O-P, P-M, and M-C differ only by the contribution
of one representational type (Schmalhofer & Glavanov, 1986, p. 285). All three representational
forms are involved in a “yes” answer to an O-sentence, only propositional and situational represen-
tations are involved in the case of P-sentences, and M-sentences involve only the situational repre-
sentation. In the case of the C-sentences, all three representational forms contribute to a negative
response.
Procedure
The two experimental sessions took place during regular classes. The sample was divided into six
groups each consisting of about 20 students. Teachers were not present. In each session, the subjects
8 ULRICH SCHIEFELE
had to respond first to a multiple-choice knowledge test. Then they were given a short abstract of the
text they were to read (PP: 71 words; TV: 66 words). Following this, the subjects had to indicate their
degree of interest in the topic and were given 30 min to read. They received written instructions
asking them to read the text carefully. Order of text presentation was determined randomly. After
reading the text, the subjects were presented with the recognition test. The second session took place
one week later and followed exactly the same procedure as the first session. However, a different text
was presented: Those students who first read the text on PP now had to read the text on TV, and vice
versa. All students were able to finish reading the texts within the given time.
RESULTS
This section is divided into three parts. The first section reports descriptive
statistics for the major variables. In the second section, results regarding the
relations between the independent variables (topic interest, verbal ability, and
prior knowledge) and the representation of text are presented. Finally, the rela-
tions between the independent variables and the quality of experience will be
analyzed.
Descriptive Statistics
Interest was measured on scales ranging from 0 to 7. The mean values for
interest in PP and in TV were 4.08 (SD 4 1.12, n 4 72) and 4.22 (SD 4 1.08,
n 4 81). Boys (PP: M 4 3.51, SD 4 1.08; TV: M 4 3.81, SD 4 1.41) reported
less interest in both topics than girls (PP: M 4 4.28, SD 4 1.07; TV: M 4 4.39,
SD 4 .89), although these differences were significant only for the text on PP
(PP: t 4 2.63, p < .05; TV: t 4 1.84, ns).
The test of prior knowledge about PP revealed that subjects answered correctly
on the average 5.54 out of 12 questions (SD 4 1.94). A better result (6.58 correct
answers out of 10 questions, SD 4 1.67) was obtained for the TV text. Boys
exhibited higher levels of knowledge on both topics (PP: M 4 6.11, SD 4 2.54;
TV: M 4 7.04, SD 4 1.61) than girls (PP: M 4 5.35, SD 4 1.67; TV: M 4
6.40, SD 4 1.66). However, these differences were not significant (PP: t 4 1.45,
ns; TV: t 4 1.59, ns).
As noted above, verbal ability measures were transformed into ACT scores
(lowest possible value: 1; highest possible value: 33). The average ACT score for
the total sample was 19.35 (SD 4 6.36) which corresponded to a percentile score
of 61% (based on a large sample of high school seniors). Thus, as a group, the
verbal aptitude of students in this study was above average. Boys exhibited
higher ACT scores (M 4 21.45, SD 4 7.61) than girls (M 4 18.49, SD 4 5.61),
but this difference was not significant (t 4 1.96, ns).
Correlational analyses revealed that verbal ability was negatively related to
interest in PP (r 4 −.26, n 4 72, p < .05) and in TV (r 4 −.27, n 4 81, p <
.05) and positively related to prior knowledge on PP (r 4 .38, n 4 72, p < .001)
and on TV (r 4 .40, n 4 81, p < .001). It seems as if students with higher verbal
ability were less interested in both topics than students with lower verbal ability.
Interest and prior knowledge were uncorrelated in both cases (PP: r 4 .06, n 4
72, ns; TV: r 4 −.09, n 4 81, ns).
Text Representation
Table 1 reports mean values and standard deviations for the recognition rates
of the four types of sentences that were used to derive measures of the verbatim,
propositional, and situational representations. The rank order of mean values was
according to expectations. Repeated measures ANOVAs and planned contrasts
revealed that recognition rates of O- and P-, P- and M-, and M- and C-sentences
differed significantly (p < .001) for each text. According to expectations, O-
sentences were more often recognized than all other sentence types, P-sentences
were more often recognized than either M- or C-sentences, and M-sentences
were more often recognized than C-sentences. This result lends support to the
validity of the recognition test.
The mean verification rates of the four sentence types were also in accordance
with expectations (see Table 1). Generally, O-, P-, and M-sentences differed only
slightly. However, a higher verification rate (p < .01, ANOVA, planned contrast)
was obtained for P- than for M-sentences in the case of the PP text, and for O-
than for P-sentences in the case of the TV text. For both texts, significant
differences (p < .001) between the verification of M- and C-sentences were
found. These results are in line with expectations since verification tests are more
sensitive to differences in situational representations than recognition tests.
TABLE 1
MEAN VALUES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR SENTENCE RECOGNITION AND VERIFICATION
Text PP Text TV
(n 4 72) (n 4 81)
Sentence category Ma SD Ma SD
Recognition
Original .70 (.17) .70 (.20)
Paraphrased .57 (.26) .52 (.25)
Meaning-changed .39 (.24) .41 (.25)
Correctness-changed .34 (.28) .28 (.27)
Verification
Original .86 (.13) .95 (.08)
Paraphrased .88 (.11) .85 (.14)
Meaning-changed .73 (.16) .87 (.12)
Correctness-changed .58 (.25) .50 (.26)
a
Mean values were computed by averaging for each person the answers (either “0” or “1”) to all
items within one category. Therefore, mean values represent the average percentage of sentences that
were recognized correctly.
b
A sentence was counted as verified (“1”) when it was either recognized as “old” or rated as
“true.”
10 ULRICH SCHIEFELE
Individual contributions of topic interest, prior knowledge, and verbal ability

to the prediction of the three components of text representation were determined
by means of multiple regression analyses (see Table 2). The predictors were
entered simultaneously into the regression equation. Gender was included as an
additional predictor in order to control for gender differences. Because gender
effects were not of major interest in the present study and did not yield significant
results, statistics referring to gender are not reported in Table 2.
The results revealed that interest significantly affects the verbatim and propo-
sitional representations. Obviously, highly interested readers developed a weak
verbatim and a strong propositional representation of the text. As such, it seems
justified to conclude that interest fosters mainly the processing of meaning. In
contrast to expectations, interest could not predict the situational representation
significantly. There were no significant interactions between predictors.
The relation between prior knowledge and the propositional representation
was significant only for the TV text. Verbal ability predicted significantly the
strength of the verbatim representation for both texts.
As was mentioned above, verification tests are more appropriate than recog-
nition tests to measure the situational representation. Therefore, alternative d8
values for the situational representation, based on verification responses, were
computed. The results of a multiple regression analysis (including gender as the
fourth predictor) revealed that interest and prior knowledge could not signifi-
cantly predict the strength of the situational representation (see Table 3). How-
ever, a significant and strong relation between verbal ability and the situational
representation was observed.
As reported above, 46 students read both texts. From this group, we selected
those students who were more interested in one topic than the other. Differences
larger than one standard deviation (about 1.1; interest in PP: SD 4 1.12, interest
in TV: SD 4 1.08) were considered as sufficient. Only 24 out of 46 students met
this criterion. For this group, intraindividual analyses were performed. In order
to compare means within individuals, raw scores were converted into z scores.
The results revealed that students built significantly stronger propositional rep-
resentations when they were more interested (PROP: M 4 .57) than when they
were less interested (PROP: M 4 −.07, t 4 2.28, p < .05). No such effects for
either the verbatim (higher interest: M 4 −.20; lower interest: M 4 −.13; t 4
−.28, ns) or the situational representation (higher interest: M 4 −.15; lower
interest: M 4 −.06; t 4 −.28, ns) were obtained.
Quality of Experience
In the present study, three different dimensions of experience (activation,

happiness, and concentration) were distinguished. These dimensions were mea-
sured at four different points during the reading phase. The measurements were
aggregated over the four time points because they were highly correlated (all
TABLE 2
REGRESSION OF COMPONENTS OF TEXT REPRESENTATION (RECOGNITION TEST) ON INTEREST, PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, AND VERBAL ABILITYa
Interest Prior knowledge Verbal ability

Text
representation R2 r b F r b F r b F
Text PP (n 4 72)
Verbatim .24 −.36** −.30 6.74* .22 .15 1.56 .38** .24 3.79b
Propositional .16 .33** .42 11.61** .09 −.03 .05 .09 .17 1.77
Situational .09 −.16 −.07 .32 .10 .00 .00 .28* .24 3.22c
Text TV (n 4 81)
Verbatim .17 −.29** −.20 3.19d .02 −.14 1.44 .33** .33 7.54**
Propositional .13 .23* .25 4.73* .25* .27 5.26* .06 .02 .03
Situational .01 −.03 −.02 .03 −.05 −.09 .47 .06 .09 .52
a
This table presents multiple regression results along with zero-order correlations.
b
p 4 .057.
c
p 4 .077.
INTEREST AND TEXT REPRESENTATION
d
p 4 .078.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
11
12
TABLE 3
REGRESSION OF COMPONENTS OF TEXT REPRESENTATION (VERIFICATION TEST) ON INTEREST, PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, AND VERBAL ABILITYa

Text
2
representation R r b F r b F r b F
Text PP (n 4 72)
Verbatim .05 .01 −.08 .36 .06 .14 1.78 −.07 −.09 .43
Propositional .10 −.08 .04 .12 −.03 −.16 1.56 .26* .30 5.17*
Situational .27 −.07 .09 .62 .22 .01 .01 .51*** .51 18.21***
Text TV (n 4 81)
Verbatim .11 −.25* −.30 6.59* −.08 −.08 .45 .06 .03 .07
ULRICH SCHIEFELE
Propositional .11 .24* .28 5.88* .08 .10 .64 −.09 −.07 .37
Situational .21 −.12 −.01 .01 .13 −.05 .22 .45*** .48 17.19***
a
* p < .05.
*** p < .001.
correlations >.74). Multiple regression analyses (including gender as the fourth

predictor) were applied to analyze the relation between interest, prior knowledge,
verbal ability, and the three dimensions of experience (see Table 4).
The results suggest that only interest facilitates positive experience during
reading. Surprisingly, verbal ability was negatively correlated with all indicators
of experience (significant only for happiness/TV text).
None of the dimensions of experience was significantly correlated with any of
the components of text representation. Thus, quality of experience seems to be an
epiphenomenon of interest and most likely does not have a causal role in the
process of text learning.
DISCUSSION
The results of the present study suggest that highly interested readers develop
weak verbatim and strong propositional representations of instructional texts.
Consequently, the representation of high interest readers is best characterized as
a representation of the text’s meaning. On the other hand, low interest readers
assimilate the text in a superficial manner and, therefore, develop strong verbatim
representations of text. These relations are independent of the students’ levels of
prior knowledge and verbal ability.
Verbal ability exhibited effects that were in contrast to those of topic interest.
Accordingly, highly able readers formed strong verbatim and situational text
representations. Similar to low interest readers, their representations of text were
strongly verbatim. At the same time, however, they exhibited a more pronounced
situational understanding than low ability readers.
In contrast to expectations, prior knowledge was not significantly related to
any component of text representation (with one exception, see Table 2). We
assume that this negative result may be due to the nature of the texts used in the
present study. Both texts were somewhat below the subjects’ grade level. There-
fore, it might be that understanding them did not depend on topic-specific knowl-
edge (see also Tobias, 1994). Vidal-Abarca, Sanjose, and Solaz (1992) report
evidence that effects of prior knowledge are to be expected only when comparing
groups with largely different levels of prior knowledge (e.g., novices and ex-
perts). In addition, Valencia, Stallman, Commeyras, Pearson, and Hartman
(1991) suggest that interviews are more appropriate (in terms of validity) to
assess prior knowledge than multiple-choice tests. Thus, low correlations be-
tween prior knowledge and learning may result when multiple-choice tests are
used to measure knowledge.
The present results are only partly in line with prior studies that have revealed
significant effects of topic interest and intrinsic motivation on deep-level learning
(e.g., Benware & Deci, 1984; Schiefele, 1992). In these studies, indicators of
learning were based on intuitive considerations. The present findings suggest that
although interest affects the propositional representation, it is not significantly
related to the deepest level of text learning, viz., the situational representation.
14
TABLE 4
REGRESSION OF DIMENSIONS OF EXPERIENCE ON INTEREST, PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, AND VERBAL ABILITYa

Dimension
2
of experience R r b F r b F r b F
Text PP (n 4 72)
Activation .27 .47*** .48 18.11*** .22 .18 2.57 −.06 −.03 .08
Happiness .21 .42*** .40 11.20** .10 .12 1.02 −.14 −.20 1.77
Concentration .27 .52*** .51 20.25*** .02 .00 .00 −.17 −.05 .17
Text TV (n 4 81)
Activation .06 .24* .26 4.69* −.07 −.08 .38 −.05 .04 .13
Happiness .16 .26* .18 2.70 .07 .23 3.82b −.28* −.32 7.05**
ULRICH SCHIEFELE
Concentration .18 .40*** .39 12.55*** .11 .17 2.29 −.11 −.07 .41
a
b
p 4 .054.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.
This finding was unexpected and needs explanation. A possible interpretation

may be that motivational effects on learning have certain limits. Beyond these
limits, learning depends more on ability factors than on motivation. Further
studies are needed to test this assumption.
According to expectations, the analysis of indicators of experience revealed
that only interest was positively related to the experience of activation, happi-
ness, and concentration. The results also show that quality of experience did not
mediate the effects of interest on text learning. No significant relations between
quality of experience and the indicators of text representation were found. As a
consequence, positive experience while learning a text seems to be a side effect
of interest and does not have a causal role in the process of learning.
Prior knowledge and verbal ability did not facilitate positive experience during
reading. Verbal ability was even negatively related to the dimensions of expe-
rience. It is likely that the texts were somewhat easy for highly able readers and,
as a consequence, they felt less enjoyment when reading them.
A number of tasks for future research ensue from the present study. (1) Future
studies should use samples with varying prior knowledge and intelligence and
text materials with different difficulty levels. Thus, it should be possible to get a
more generalizable account of the independence of the effects of interest, knowl-
edge, and ability. (2) The present study employed a very restricted learning
situation in which the learner had only limited time to study a certain text. Future
studies should use a more flexible learning situation where the student is allowed
to study the text repeatedly and over an extended period of time. Under these
circumstances stronger effects of motivation are to be expected (see also Mannes,
1988). (3) It would be useful to clarify the relation between the verbatim, propo-
sitional, and situational representations of text and other indicators of surface- vs
deep-level learning. This could help to explain the discrepancies between the
present findings and those studies that have suggested that interest has significant
effects on deep-level learning, without distinguishing between different types of
deep-level learning. (4) The present study involved only short-term learning
results. Therefore, future studies should test the stability of learning effects over
time. (5) Finally, it seems desirable to compare the effects of interest with those
of other motivational variables, such as extrinsic motivational orientations (e.g.,
Nolen, 1988).
APPENDIX
Examples for Recognition Test Items (PP Text)
Paraphrased sentences. “Because prehistoric people could not write, scientists
study fossils and other objects that remained from prehistoric times” (original
sentence: “Because early people kept no written records, scientists search for
bones, tools, and other prehistoric remains”).
Meaning-changed sentences (inferences). “Before people were able to make
16 ULRICH SCHIEFELE
blades they used ‘flake tools’ ” (original passage: “About 200,000 years ago,
most groups of people began making special tools for such different tasks as
cutting, chopping, and scraping. Most toolmakers used chips called ‘flakes’ they
struck from stones to make ‘flake tools’. . . . Later in the Stone Age, many people
shaped long, thin ‘blades’ of stone. They used these blades as tools, and they also
made blades into knives and spearpoints”).
Correctness-changed sentences. “Scientists believe that it is very unlikely that
humans and apes had common ancestors” (original passage: “The scientists took
this approach because fossils indicate that humans and apes had a common
ancestor”).
REFERENCES
ALEXANDER, P. A., KULIKOWICH, J. M., & SCHULZE, S. K. (1994). The influence of topic knowledge,
domain knowledge, and interest on the comprehension of scientific exposition. Learning and
Individual Differences, 6, 379–397.
ASHER, S. R. (1980). Topic interest and children’s reading comprehension. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce,
& W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 525–534). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
BALDWIN, R. S., PELEG-BRUCKNER, Z., & MCCLINTOCK, A. H. (1985). Effects of topic interest and
prior knowledge on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 497–504.
BENWARE, C. A., & DECI, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational
set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755–765.
CHRISTIANSON, S. A. (Ed.). (1992). The handbook of emotion and memory: Research and theory.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. (1988a). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In
M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.). Optimal experience: Psychological studies
of flow in consciousness (pp. 15–35). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. (1988b). Motivation and creativity: Towards a synthesis of structural and
energistic approaches to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 6, 159–176.
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling
method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 526–536.
EGAN, J. P. (1975). Signal detection theory and ROC analysis. New York: Academic Press.
ENTIN, E. B., & Klare, G. R. (1985). Relationships of measures of interest, prior knowledge, and
readability to comprehension of expository passages. Advances in Reading/Language Research,
3, 9–38.
EYSENCK, M. W. (1982). Attention and arousal. Berlin: Springer.
FRY, E. (1977). Fry’s readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of
Reading, 21, 242–252.
GRAHAM, S., & GOLAN, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement, ego
involvement, and depth of information processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,
187–194.
GROLNICK, W. S., & RYAN, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and
individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890–898.
HIDI, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational
Research, 60, 549–571.
HIDI, S., & BAIRD, W. (1986). Interestingness—A neglected variable in discourse processing. Cog-
nitive Science, 10, 179–194.
KINTSCH, W. (1986). Learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 87–108.
KINTSCH, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration

model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
KINTSCH, W., WELSCH, D. M., SCHMALHOFER, F., & ZIMNY, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theo-
retical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 133–159.
KRAPP, A., HIDI, S., & RENNINGER, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning and development. In K.A. Ren-
ninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3–25).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
LANGSTON, I. W. (1987). SAT-ACT equivalents. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois, Ur-
bana-Champaign, IL.
LEPPER, M. R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Cognition and Instruc-
tion, 5, 289–309.
MANNES, S. (1988). A theoretical interpretation of learning vs. memorizing text. European Journal
of Psychology of Education, 3, 157–162.
MEECE, J. L., BLUMENFELD, P. C., & HOYLE, H. R. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive
engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.
NOLEN, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition
and Instruction, 5, 269–287.
PERRIG, W. J., & KINTSCH, W. (1985). Propositional and situational representations of text. Journal
of Memory and Language, 24, 503–518.
PERVIN, L. A. (1992). The rational mind and the problem of volition. Psychological Science, 3,
162–164.
PINTRICH, P. R., & GARCIA, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college
classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol.
7, pp. 371–402). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
RENNINGER, K. A. (1989, March). Interests and noninterests as context in reading. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
RENNINGER, K. A. (1990). Children’s play interests, representation, and activity. In R. Fivush & J.
Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 127–165). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
SCHIEFELE, U. (1990). Thematisches Interesse, Variablen des Leseprozesses und Textverstehen
[Topic interest, variables of text processing, and text comprehension]. Zeitschrift für Experi-
mentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 37, 304–332.
SCHIEFELE, U. (1991a). Interesse und Textrepräsentation [Interest and text representation]. Zeitschrift
für Pädagogische Psychologie, 5, 245–259.
SCHIEFELE, U. (1991b). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299–323.
SCHIEFELE, U. (1992). Topic interest and levels of text comprehension. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi,
& A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 151–182). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
SCHIEFELE, U., & KRAPP, A. (in press). Topic interest and free recall of expository text. Learning and
Individual Differences.
SCHMALHOFER, F. (1986). Verlaufscharakteristiken des Informationsabrufs beim Wiedererkennen und
Verifizieren von Sätzen [Time-course characteristics for recognition and verification of sen-
tences]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 33, 133–149.
SCHMALHOFER, F., & GLAVANOV, D. (1986). Three components of understanding a programmer’s
manual: Verbatim, propositional, and situational representations. Journal of Memory and Lan-
guage, 25, 279–294.
SNOW, R. E. (1989). Cognitive-conative aptitude interactions in learning. In Kanfer, R., Ackerman,
P. L., & Cudeck, R. (Eds.), Abilities, motivation, and methodology (pp. 435–474). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
THAYER, R. E. (1989). The biopsychology of mood and arousal, New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
18 ULRICH SCHIEFELE
TOBIAS, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64,
37–54.
VALENCIA, S. W., STALLMAN, A. C., COMMEYRAS, M., PEARSON, P. D., & HARTMAN, D. K. (1991).
Four measures of topical knowledge: A study of construct validity. Reading Research Quarterly,
26, 204–233.
VAN DUK, T. A., & KINTSCH, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
VIDAL-ABARCA, E., SANJOSE, V., & SOLAZ, J. J. (1992, November). Effects of study strategies,
previous knowledge, and textual manipulations on recall, comprehension, and learning from
scientific texts. Paper presented at the 2nd work conference of the Special Interest Group
“Comprehension of Verbal and Pictorial Information” of the European Association for Research
on Learning and Instruction, Nijmegen.
WADE, S. E. (1992). How interest affects learning from text. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp
(Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 255–277). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1989). Chicago: World Book, Inc.
WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA (1989). Chicago: World Book, Inc.
WRIGHT, B. D., & LINACRE, J. M. (1991). A user’s guide to BIGSTEPS. Chicago: Mesa Press.
WRIGHT, B. D., & MASTERS, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: Mesa Press.

Topic Interest Text Representation Schiefele

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic Interest Text Representation Schiefele

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 1 SESS: 114 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 17:30:17 1996

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 21, 3–18 (1996)

Topic Interest, Text Representation, and Quality

INTEREST AND TEXT REPRESENTATION 5

INTEREST AND TEXT REPRESENTATION 7

INTEREST AND TEXT REPRESENTATION 9

Individual contributions of topic interest, prior knowledge, and verbal ability

In the present study, three different dimensions of experience (activation,

Interest Prior knowledge Verbal ability

Interest Prior knowledge Verbal ability

INTEREST AND TEXT REPRESENTATION 13

correlations >.74). Multiple regression analyses (including gender as the fourth

Interest Prior knowledge Verbal ability

INTEREST AND TEXT REPRESENTATION 15

This finding was unexpected and needs explanation. A possible interpretation

INTEREST AND TEXT REPRESENTATION 17

KINTSCH, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration

You might also like