Exploring How Relevance Instructions Affect Personal Reading Intentions, Reading Goals and Text Processing: A Mixed Methods Study.

By Matthew T. McCrudden, Joseph P. Magliano, Gregory Schraw. 2010

155 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/490c0bedbaa063241476eee0053ca2f451a1cc2a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Labo
2. Patricia A. Alexander
3. Lauren M. Singer
4. P. Schutz
5. Gwen C. Marchand
6. Matthew T. McCrudden
7. Emily M. Grossnickle
8. Kathryn S. McCarthy

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Lauren M. Singer
2. Patricia A. Alexander
3. Gwen C. Marchand
4. P. Schutz
5. Matthew T. McCrudden
6. Suzanne Hidi
7. Andrew J. Martin
8. Reinhard Pekrun

Citations in the corpus

• Reading on Paper and Digitally: What the Past Decades of Empirical Research Reveal (2017, background): “This is surprising given that research suggests that task demands influence both the processes and the products of text engagement (McCrudden, 2011; McCrudden, Magliano, & Schraw, 2010).”
• Joint displays for mixed methods research in psychology (2021, methodology): “Adapted from McCrudden et al. (2010, p. 236, Table 3).”
• Reading Into the Future: Competence for the 21st Century (2012, background): “print; Pang & Kamil, 2002), the tasks assigned (McCrudden et al., 2010), peer involvement (Wigfield et al.”