Processing and memor yo fi nformation presented in narrativ eo re xpositor yt exts

Background. Previous research suggests that narrative and expositor yt exts differ in the extent to which they prompt students to integrate to-be-learned content with relevant prior knowledge during comprehension. Aims. We expand on previous research by examining on-line processing and representation in memor yo ft o-be-learned content that is embedded in narrative or expositor yt exts. We ar ep articularly intereste di nh ow differences in the use of relevant prior knowledge leads to differences in terms of levels of discourse representation (textbase vs. situation model). Samples. At otal of 61 university undergraduates in Expt 1, and 160 in Expt 2. Methods. In Expt 1, subjects thought out loud while comprehending circulator y system content embedded in an arrative or expositor yt ext, followed by free recall of text content. In Expt 2, subjects read silently and completed as entence recognition task to assess memory. Results. In Expt 1, subjects made more associations to prior knowledge while reading the expositor yt ext, and recalled more content. Content recall was also correlated with amount of relevant prior knowledge for subjects who read the expositor yt ext but not the narrative text. In Expt 2, subjects reading the expositor y text (compared to the narrative text) had aw eaker textbase representation of the to-be-learned content, but am arginally stronger situation model. Conclusions. Results suggest that in terms of to-be-learned content, expositor y texts trigger students to utilize relevant prior knowledge more than narrative texts. Ac ontinuing question in comprehension researc hi nvolves the extent to which reader s vary their comprehensio ns trategie su nder differen tc ircumstances ,a nd what consequence st hese strategies have in terms of how information is remembered and used. Previous researc hs uggests that one of the factors that influences comprehension strategies is the genr ei nw hich information is presented (Alvermann, Hynd, Q Hartley, 1986; McDaniel E Wolfe, 2005; Wolf e& Mienko, 2007). Much of this researc hs uggests that narrative processing tend st ob em ore focused on