A handful of studies have claimed that error detection is improved by a proofreader’s prior encounter with the text to be scanned for errors. In these studies, however, the beneficial effect of text familiarity on proofreading has been obtained via surface encoding tasks (prior reading or proofreading). This raises the question of whether the effect is dependent on the type of encoding operations performed on the text prior to proofreading. In Experiment 1, familiarization required that subjects read an error-free passage and then either type the passage verbatim (surface encoding) or write an essay by relying on the information contained in the passage (deep encoding with generation). In Experiment 2, subjects generated sentences (deep encoding with generation), assessed whether sentences described drawings (deep encoding), or typed sentences (surface encoding). Familiarity, irrespective of the nature of the encoding operations, improved proofreading times but only surface encoding or deep encoding without generation made proofreading more accurate. In Experiment 3, text generation fostered greater subjective familiarity than either surface or deep encoding alone. It is argued that this form of enhanced familiarity may lead to expectancy effects in proofreading performance.
Reading and Writing – Springer Journals
Published: Mar 26, 2005
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud