Running head: READING, INTEREST, AND THE MDL

READING, INTEREST, AND THE MODEL OF DOMAIN LEARNING: A DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF INTEREST, KNOWLEDGE, AND STRATEGY USE IN TEXT COMPREHENSION Emily Fox Patricia A. Alexander University of Maryland

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 2 Reading, Interest, and the Model of Domain Learning As readers engage with a text, the affective element of interest comes into play. Interest plays a role in the decision to read, in the level of engagement with the text during reading, and thus also in the product the reader creates in terms of comprehension of the text and learning from the text (McKenna, 1994). Readers bring with them to reading situations different levels of interest in the activity of reading per se; in the activity of reading and learning about the particular topic at hand; and in the activity of reading and learning about the given subject matter in general. However, interest alone does not account for readers performance in a given reading situation. Among other influential variables are strategic processing and knowledge. Readers level of interest in reading and in the content of that reading will help shape the activity of text processing and development of comprehension in various ways. For example, interest contributes to the frequency and form of strategic processing in which readers engage (Paris & Winograd, 1990). In turn, readers levels of interest will be related to their knowledge of domain or topic under consideration, with greater knowledge being linked to stronger interest in the subject matter as content to read and learn about (Alexander & Judy, 1988). One view of the relation of interest, knowledge, and strategic processing in the activity of learning about an academic domain is reflected in the Model of Domain Learning or MDL (Alexander, 1997). The MDL describes the interacting and evolving roles of interest, knowledge and strategy use as learners progress from acclimation to competence and possibly to proficiency in an academic domain. In the MDL, interest is characterized as multifaceted, consisting of situational or temporary interest and individual or long-term interest in a particular domain. In the early stages of learning, reliance on situational interest is high, while the influence of individual interest is low. These roles become reversed by the point at which proficiency or

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 3 expertise in the domain is achieved. Similarly, the MDL views knowledge as dual in nature, with both breadth of topic knowledge and depth of domain knowledge becomingly increasingly active in learning across the stages of development. Finally, strategy use displays dual aspects for learning in the MDL. When the learning activity is reading, surface-level strategies aim at access to and initial comprehension of text, while deep-processing strategies move beyond to readers internalization or transformation of the text, in activities such as interpretation, comparison, or evaluation. In the acclimation stage of learning from text, surface-processing strategies play the predominant role. For proficient or expert learners, deep-processing strategies have become paramount, while surface-processing strategies may now function as fairly automated skills. A number of studies have used the framework of the MDL and explored the predicted relations among interest, strategic processing, and knowledge at the different levels of development. Academic domains investigated in these studies included physics, human immunology and biology, general psychology, educational psychology, educational technology, physical education, and special education (Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995; Alexander, Murphy, Woods, Duhon, & Parker, 1997; Alexander, Sperl, Buehl, Fives, & Chiu, 2002; Shen, Chen, Tolley, & Scrabis, 2003; Lawless & Kulikowich, 1998; Murphy & Alexander, 2002). With the exception of physical education, the empirical testing of the MDL in these domains involved the use of reading domain-related material as a learning activity and comprehension measured by recall of domain-related passages as a learning outcome. However, one domain within which the MDL has not yet been tested is that of reading. Investigating reading as a domain offers a unique standpoint by which to bring together under one roof the learning task, the learning outcome, domain knowledge, and individual interest. In

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 4 this paper, we plan first to revisit the findings from four earlier studies testing the MDL in physics, human immunology/human biology, general psychology, educational psychology, educational technology, and special education (Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995; Alexander et al., 1997; Alexander et al., 2002; Lawless & Kulikowich, 1998; Murphy & Alexander, 2002), highlighting situational interest and individual interest and their role in text processing and comprehension. Having those findings in hand, we will turn to a consideration of testing reading as a domain in the framework of the MDL. Possible meanings for situational and individual interest in this context will be discussed, and the expected evolving relations between interest, knowledge, and strategic processing detailed. A proposed study to test the MDL concurrently in reading and history will be described. Finally, the potential contribution of such a study to our understanding of the role of affect in text processing will be considered. Testing the MDL Situational Interest Situational interest is a transient arousal or heightened attention sparked by features of the proximal environment (Hidi, 1990; Schiefele, 1991). For readers, features that can trigger situational interest include reference to universal attention-getters such as sex, danger, death, and money (Schank, 1979). Strong visual images or perceived links to personal experience can also draw readers attention (Graves, Slater, Roen, Redd-Boyd, Duin, Furniss, & Haseltine, 1988; Sadoski, Goetz, & Fritz, 1993). Schraw, Bruning, and Svoboda (1995) identified six potential sources of situational interest in texts: ease of comprehension; coherence; vividness; engagement; emotiveness; and readers prior knowledge. They found that higher situational interest in a text tended to accompany better recall. On the other hand, situational interest was found to be a

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 5 distracter from learning under some conditions, as when the features that stimulate situational interest do not align with the important content of the text (Alexander & Jetton, 1996; Alexander & Kulikowich, 1994). In the studies investigating the MDL, situational interest, when addressed, was operationalized in a variety of ways. Situational interest during reading about physics and human immunology/human biology was assessed by having participants rate their level of interest in the passages being read, as well as in each paragraph of the passages (Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995). A passage on Stephen Hawking was viewed as likely to arouse more situational interest in readers than a passage on quarks. Segments of text in that passage were also considered to be more personally involving for readers, such as the discussion of Stephen Hawkings debilitating illness. In the study involving hypertext navigation, participants indicated their level of situational interest by their ratings of their interest in technology on a 20item Likert scale (Lawless & Kulikowich, 1998). With regard to the role of situational interest in text processing, Alexander, Jetton, and Kulikowich (1995) found that in the domains of physics and human immunology/human biology, there did appear to be relations among learners levels of knowledge, situational interest, and their performance in recalling a passage. In particular, learners with the least demonstrated knowledge of physics tended to have higher interest in the more situationally interesting of the two physics passages read (Stephen Hawking vs. quarks), and also to be able to recall more of what they had read from that passage than from the other passage. In their hypertext navigational profiles of participants, Lawless and Kulikowich (1998) identified three different modes of situational interest when the situation involved the use of educational technology. Readers with high situational interest, or feature explorers, tended to

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 6 be those with lower domain knowledge and also to be those with poorest recall scores. Their interactions with features of the computerized environment seemed to be distracting them from developing their comprehension of the psychology text being presented. Knowledge seekers, on the other hand, were those readers who tended to have high domain knowledge, low interest in technology, and intermediate recall scores. These readers appeared to be using the hypertext media efficiently in their pursuit of comprehension. Finally, apathetic hypertext users tended to have moderate interest in technology, but spent little time in navigation of the hypertext. Interestingly, the initial knowledge and final recall scores for those in the apathetic group were the highest of the three groups. From these findings, it appears that situational interest operates more strongly for readers with less domain knowledge. For those readers, the arousal afforded by situational interest can operate positively, resulting in more effective processing of the text, as measured by greater recall (Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995). However, situational interest can also distract the reader from the goal of comprehension, depending on the situation, as Lawless and Kulikowichs finding (1998) of lowest recall scores for feature explorers suggests. Individual Interest Individual interest refers to an abiding and deep-seated personal involvement with a given topic, domain, or activity (Hidi, 1990; Schiefele, 1991). An individual interest in a subjectmatter, by definition, implies the desire to learn more about it. Readers are therefore expected to be more highly engaged in reading about a content area in which they have an individual interest. This greater degree of engagement (along with the prior knowledge they have acquired about the content) is likely to result in more effective learning from such text (Alexander, 1998).

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 7 In the studies investigating the MDL, individual interest in the domain under investigation has generally been assessed by asking participants to rate their interest in either the domain itself compared to other domains (Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich. 1995) or in concepts relating to the domain (Alexander, Murphy, Woods, Duhon, & Parker, 1997; Lawless & Kulikowich, 1998; Murphy & Alexander, 2002). In a study of special education involving members from four educational communities (i.e., undergraduate non-majors, and undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty in special education), participants rated the frequency of their involvement in a range of domain-related activities as an indicator of individual interest (Alexander et al., 2002). A further refinement in the measures of individual interest was evidenced in the two studies explicitly mentioning the relation of the domain concepts being rated to the participants long-term interests or goals (Alexander et al., 1997; Murphy & Alexander, 2002). Those two studies involved determining changes in participants interest, knowledge and strategy use over the course of a period of instruction in an academic domain, as determined by their pre- and posttest performance on a learning activity involving reading passages related to that domain (Alexander et al, 1997; Murphy & Alexander, 2002). The MDL predicts that individual interest should increase as learners progress towards greater proficiency, which was the finding in both of these studies. With regard to the relations among individual interest, knowledge, and strategic processing, the findings were more nuanced, as would be expected from the complexity of the predicted interrelations. The predicted shift from greater influence of situational interest in the earlier stages of domain learning to a stronger role for individual interest, in particular, was not clearly seen in these findings.

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 8 Alexander, Kulikowich and Jetton (1995) found that individual interest appeared to be involved in producing higher recall scores in several different configurations of individual interest, situational interest, and knowledge; they did not include strategic processing among their variables. Those participants with higher knowledge of the domain of human immunology/human biology also tended to have higher situational (passage-related) and higher individual (domain-related) interest, and to have higher recall scores. Conversely, those participants with least knowledge also tended to have least situational and individual interest, and also lowest recall scores. However, there were two groups at an intermediate level of knowledge, characterized primarily by their differences in individual and situational interest. One group had higher individual interest in the domain, while the other showed greater interest in the passages to be read. The recall scores tended to be higher for the second group, which would argue that their text-level or situational interest was effective in promoting their active efforts at comprehension and hence greater facility at recall of the passages. Without the boost of situational interest, the group with higher individual interest was not processing the text as well. Somewhat similar findings emerged from Lawless and Kulikowichs study (1998) of hypertext-based learning in the domain of psychology, factoring in domain knowledge as well. The optimal combination in terms of recall performance appeared to be high domain knowledge of psychology and relatively high situational interest in technology, as demonstrated by the apathetic hypertext users. The use of technology may have made the learning task moderately more interesting for them, although it did not lead them to spend more time engaging with the technology. The knowledge seekers had equally high domain knowledge of psychology, and similar individual interest in psychology, but lower situational interest in technology, and lower

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 9 recall scores as well. However, interest without knowledge did not appear to be associated with higher recall scores, as evidenced by the performance of the feature explorers, who had lowest domain knowledge of psychology, high individual and situational interest, and lowest recall scores. Structural equation modeling was used by Alexander et al. (1997) to illuminate the changes in the interrelations among individual interest, knowledge, and strategic processing and their contributions to recall performance as participants progressed in the domain of educational psychology. At the end of the semester-long course in introductory educational psychology, the undergraduates post-test individual interest was not directly related to their post-test recall, but did appear to have an indirect effect through its contribution to the variability in strategic processing. Readers with higher individual interest appeared to be among those reporting more strategy use, as well as more effective strategy use, while reading the assigned text, and were consequently also among those with higher recall scores. In a secondary analysis of the Alexander et al. 1997 study, Murphy and Alexander (2002) used cluster analysis to look at development in the domain of educational psychology, focusing on domain knowledge, strategic processing, and individual interest and their contributions to subject-matter knowledge. Subject-matter knowledge was divided into domain knowledge, assessed by performance on a multiple-choice test on key concepts in educational psychology, and topic knowledge, assessed by reading comprehension in the form of recall performance after reading passages related to educational psychology. However, the Murphy and Alexander (2002) investigation focused on the predictive and long-range contribution of pre-test interest and knowledge to post-test subject-matter knowledge rather than the more immediate interactions of interest, knowledge, and strategy use during the

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 10 activity of reading and learning from a text. The researchers did not find a significant correlation between pre-test individual interest and post-test subject-matter knowledge. In other words, undergraduates level of interest in concepts in educational psychology as related to their personal interests and long-term goals at the beginning of the semester did not predict their performance in the domain at the end of the semester. From these findings it appears that as learners progress in an academic domain, their level of individual interest in that domain increases, as predicted by the MDL (Alexander et al., 1997; Murphy & Alexander, 2002). It also appears that higher levels of individual interest, when associated with higher knowledge, contribute to better learning from reading, possibly as a result of more effective or more engaged strategic processing, also as predicted by the MDL (Alexander et al., 1997; Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995). The picture as far as the relation of individual and situational interest is not clearsome forms of situational interest appear to interact positively with individual interest (Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995), while others may act as distracting influences, interfering with the readers attention to processing, comprehension, and ultimately, recall of the text (Lawless & Kulikowich, 1998). The findings with regard to the predicted change over time in the roles of situational and individual interest for the reader engaged in learning from text in a domain are also not clear-cut. A more specific formulation of the findings concerning interest in terms of domain stages and changes across developmental transitions will be of value in understanding this issue. Interest and Stages of Learning in the MDL The MDL is a three-stage model of domain learning: acclimation, competence, and proficiency (Alexander, 1997). Each of these stages manifests a unique profile in terms of

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 11 interest, strategic processing, and knowledge. Learners in the stage of acclimation do not yet have much breadth or depth of knowledge in the domain. Their individual interest in the domain is correspondingly low. When they engage in the activity of learning in the domain, such as in reading domain-related material, their strategic processing tends to be superficial, aiming more at local coherence of the text rather than integration of the text with their own understanding. They may respond to surface features of the learning situation with interest, but this may or may not result in more effective processing and greater comprehension. Over time and with practice, however, in the process of learning more in the domain, their individual interest increases, their knowledge increases, and their ability to engage in deeper processing increases, resulting in a transition to the stage of competence. Competent learners have amassed a respectable body of organized knowledge in the domain, have developed a more enduring individual interest in the domain, and are willing and able to bring to bear processing strategies that more fully integrate the meaning of the text with their own knowledge. Should the learner be strongly enough interested to pursue learning further, the progression to proficiency in the domain can occur. Proficient learners in an academic domain are likely to be those who have made it their profession. Their identity is bound up with the study of the domain, and their interest is clearly enduring and internal. Their body of principled knowledge has grown and will continue to grow, and their strategic processing is deep, efficient, and engaged. The use of relational terms such as more and increase suggests that there are no absolute levels of knowledge, interest, or strategic processing by which to identify the stage of a particular learner. Distinguishing the stage of a learner in a given domain depends in part on where they stand in relation to other learners, and in part on their position in an instructional

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 12 trajectory. Undergraduates taking an introductory course in educational psychology are most likely to be in the stage of acclimation, while graduate students might be in the stage of competence, or even edging towards proficiency. With the exception of the special education study (Alexander et al., 2002), investigations of the MDL primarily involved learners in the stage of acclimation or competence. In the crosssectional studies, profiles emerged that tended to validate the predictions of the MDL in terms of the learners knowledge and interest in the domain of human immunology/human biology (Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995) and their knowledge, interest, and strategic processing in the domain of psychology (Lawless & Kulikowich, 1998). Lower knowledge tended to be linked to lower individual interest, greater effect of situational interest, and less effective processing, as would be expected in the stage of acclimation. Greater knowledge tended to accompany greater individual interest, less situational interest, and more effective processing, indicating a move into the stage of competence. In the two longitudinal analyses of the domain of educational psychology, the undergraduate participants were assumed to begin the semester in the stage of acclimation and move towards competence as they learned more about the domain (Alexander et al., 1997; Murphy & Alexander, 2002). The expected increase in individual interest was observed, although participants in both studies started with fairly high levels of individual interest, given their fairly low level of initial domain knowledge. The expected increase in domain knowledge also emerged. However, neither analysis included the assessment of situational interest, so that the predicted diminished role for situational interest over the course of development could not be evaluated. The special education study also did not include a dedicated measure of situational interest (Alexander et al., 2002).

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 13 The findings thus far with regard to the stages of learning portrayed in the MDL have been limited by the samples and by the measures. In order to fully explore the predictions of the MDL with regard to the development of learning, the entire spectrum of learning stages must be sampled. In addition, capturing the evolving nature of the interaction of interest, knowledge and strategy use at these different stages requires the measurement of both individual and situational interest. The framework of the MDL has been applied in the domains of physics, human immunology and biology, general psychology, educational psychology, educational technology, and special education ((Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995; Alexander, Murphy, Woods, Duhon, & Parker, 1997; Alexander, Sperl, Buehl, Fives, & Chiu, 2002; Lawless & Kulikowich, 1998; Murphy & Alexander, 2002). In particular, studies of the MDL as applied in these domains have shed light on the role of situational and individual interest in affecting readers processing of domain-related texts, as determined by differential strategy use as well as by differential learning outcomes. Although the task of reading was integral to these investigations, reading itself as a source of personal interest or a domain-related subject-matter was not considered as a factor. One way to address this gap is to position reading as the domain to be investigated. In such an investigation, the learning task, interest, and domain will all be aligned, providing an opportunity to observe more clearly the interrelations of reader response to the task and the text at different stages of development in the domain. The Domain of Reading Interest, Knowledge, and Strategic Processing In order to investigate reading as a domain within the framework of the MDL, an understanding of the meaning of individual and situational interest in that context must be

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 14 renegotiated. In the aforementioned studies, individual interest was viewed as interest in the domain itself, while situational interest was associated with features of the given situation, which could include reading a more or less interesting text passage related to the domain. The activity of reading was an accessory to learning in the domain proper, operating as a typical learning task in which interest, strategy use and knowledge came into play. Participants were not asked about their personal interest in reading per se, either as a vocational or avocational pursuit. However, investigations of attitudes toward reading have characterized interest in reading as an enduring, positive stance towards the activity of reading itself, often measured by amount of leisure reading (e.g., Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; Hansen, 1969; Moffit & Wartella, 1992; Neuman, 1986; Shapiro & Whitney, 1997). In addition, interest in reading can involve interest in studying the activity of reading, which is closer to personal interest as investigated previously in the MDL. With regard to considering reading itself as the domain under investigation, an appropriate formulation for individual interest will consist of two strands, one related to interest in reading as an activity in which to engage in general, and one related to interest in reading as an object of thought or study. Individual interest in reading can mean enjoying reading and choosing to read; it can equally mean the deliberate pursuit of the investigation of reading as a human activity. Both are enduring forms of interest in reading; the second is more likely to be critical to learners progression toward proficiency in the study of reading as an academic subject. Situational interest, on the other hand, will be related to features of the particular reading situation, and will be analogous to situational interest as operationalized in the studies testing the MDL in other academic domains. For example, a given reading-related text could be about a controversial or stimulating topic such as high-stakes testing of reading, and thus spark situational interest during reading.

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 15 Domain knowledge for reading will be exactly that, knowledge about the domain of reading. Topics in the domain of reading include comprehension, affect, attention, motivation, and so on. A distinction may be made here that parallels the distinction in types of individual interest. Readers may have knowledge about reading derived from their own practice of the activity of reading. Examples of such personally-developed and practice-related knowledge could include knowing that different purposes for reading call for different levels of effort and attention to different features of the text, or that the meaning of elements of the text that are initially unclear or unfamiliar can often be derived from context. Readers may also have knowledge about reading as a result of participation in learning about and investigating the activities of readers in general. For example, such knowledge could include the varieties of graphic organizers and what research shows about when they are effective in promoting learning from text. This second form of domain knowledge is more closely bound to development in the academic domain of reading. Strategic processing will also operate similarly as in other domains, with surface-level and deep-level text processing presumed to be active as readers process domain-specific text. Development in Reading The development of reading is a long-term process (RAND Reading Study Group, 2002) that is presumed to unfold in particular stages (Alexander, 1997) in which interest, knowledge, and strategy use play interacting, evolving roles. The beginning of development in the domain of reading is beginning to learn to read. However, this entry-level stage of acclimation is not complete once learners have broken the code and are able to engage in the construction of meaning from extended texts. Extended practice in reading is necessary for the changes in knowledge, interest and strategy use that characterize developmental transitions to occur. As

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 16 readers move along in acclimation, they are likely to develop some degree of interest in reading as an activity and as an object of study; they will begin to form some knowledge of reading from their own metacognitive and self-regulatory activities as readers as well as from instruction about reading (Paris & Winograd, 1990). Their strategic processing will, at this stage, be centered on getting at the meaning of the text, and will require effort and attention in order to accomplish that. The potential for situational interest to affect their processing is high. An example of a fully acclimated reader might be an able middle-school student. The move into competence in the domain of reading comes over time and as a result of continued practice of reading and learning about reading. Competent readers value reading as an activity and are interested in knowing more about it (Jetton & Alexander, in press). They are engaged readers who process text fairly automatically in terms of comprehension, so that they are able to devote attention and resources to integration, interpretation or evaluation of what they have read. Situational interest is less likely to drive their response to a text. The stage of competent reading in terms of the MDL appears to be close to the idea of proficient reading in the literature on reading considered as an activity that operates across domains (Alexander & Jetton, 2000). An example of a competent reader could be an able undergraduate student. Finally, the move to proficient reading or reading expertise in terms of the MDL is engendered by the continued deliberate pursuit of reading as an object of study. At this stage, the reader has invested considerable time and effort in learning about reading and has developed, as a consequence, a large body of domain knowledge about the activities, behaviors, and capabilities of readers. Individual interest in reading as an object of study has continued to grow. The proficient reader processes texts related to the study of reading using deep-level strategies, resulting in effective learning from the texts, as well as generating higher-level responses such as

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 17 interpretation, criticism, and cross-textual evaluation. An example of a proficient reader in these terms could be a faculty member committed to a career in the study of reading. Having proposed these characterizations of development in the domain of reading, using the framework of the MDL, we turn our consideration to a proposed study that will allow us to investigate the effectiveness and accuracy of such characterizations. Developing Expertise in the Domain of Reading Participants It is our plan to test the MDL in reading by using a cross-sectional sample tapping into readers at the levels of acclimation, competence, and proficiency. We expect acclimated readers to be found among able middle-school students, grades six to eight. That they are able readers will be ensured by drawing our sample from a program for gifted students that targets verbal ability. We assume that the competent readers will be represented by upper-level undergraduates representing diverse majors. The proficient readers will be represented by faculty members specializing in reading. Because we want to compare performance for the reading of both reading-specific and history-specific texts, our participants will also include advanced doctoral students and faculty members specializing in history, who will represent learners at the stage of proficiency in history. The middle-school and undergraduates students will be assumed to represent learners in acclimated and competent, respectively, in history. All participants will be administered all measures. Measures and Procedures Testing the MDL involves the participation of learners in some form of learning activity, usually learning from a domain-related text. In the study of reading as a domain, the learning

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 18 activity will be to read a naturally-occurring passage from the reading research literature. Because of the wide ranges of knowledge and ability being included in this cross-sectional sample, it will be important to select a passage that is not completely beyond the acclimated readers, nor completely below the level of the proficient readers. While reading this passage, participants will be asked to think aloud and verbalize their mental monologue. The analysis of the think-alouds will provide a measure of strategy use, as well as possibly shedding light on how interest is acting during the process of reading. After completing the reading, the level of performance of the readers will be assessed. Here it may be of interest to determine whether readers were processing at the level of direct comprehension or were also able to interpret or critically evaluate the content of the passage. Although previous studies of the MDL used recall as their learning outcome measure, that may not be adequate to discriminate type as well as level of performance across the three stages. The measure of individual interest in the domain of reading will be a rating scale that will tap into interest in concepts and specific activities pertaining to the domain of reading and interest in the domain of reading compared to other domains. We propose to assess situational interest in terms of readers specific comments during the reading, their rating of text segments (Alexander, Kulikowich, & Schultz, 1994), and completion of article reactions that assess certain text features considered to be indicative of text appeal (e.g., coherence and personally-interesting content, Murphy & Alexander, in press). The participants status in terms of domain knowledge will be determined by their performance on a multiple-choice assessment addressing both breadth and depth of knowledge in the domain of reading. Again, it will be important and informative to include questions sampling from the levels of knowledge about reading likely to be expected from acclimated readers,

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 19 competent readers, and proficient readers. Further, because we will be asking participants to process both texts about reading and about history, we will also administer comparable knowledge and interest measures for the history domain. A pilot study testing the proposed measures is planned for this spring. Data Analyses The diversity of the data sources in this investigation means that multimethod analyses will be conducted that incorporate both qualitative and quantitative data-analytic methods. The evidence provided by these analyses will be used to determine whether readers manifest characteristics predicted by the MDL in the domain of reading. After addressing the parallel question of the validation of the predicted learner profiles from the MDL, the question of comparison of cross-domain performance can be addressed. This should be of special interest with regard to the stages of competence and proficiency. Reading and history are closely related domains, so that any differences observed are likely to be tapping into essential characteristics of learners and development of learning in these domains. Potential Contributions Important contributions of such a study to the literature on affect and text processing include the expanded understanding of individual interest provided by considering reading as a domain. Individual interest in reading is here seen as involving both interest in reading as a personal activity and interest in reading as a subject-matter. Both forms of individual interest are likely to affect readers domain-related text processing. The use of think-alouds to capture strategic processing during reading will also presumably provide an informative window into the interaction of interest and processing at different stages of reading development. The planned assessment of different types of reading performance as learning outcomes should also shed light

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 20 on how readers interests are related to the effectiveness and direction of their engagement with the text. Finally, the planned comparison between the domain of history and the domain of reading may help to clarify possible differing roles for interest in reading as an activity and interest in reading as a subject-matter. A further contribution to the reading research literature in general will be the extended scope of the developmental trajectory in reading to be explored. To our knowledge, this will be one of the first studies to investigate the full range of development of expertise in reading, albeit by means of a cross-sectional design. Conclusion Learning in academic domains often involves learning from text. When considering the effect of interest on readers processing of text during learning tasks, researchers have concentrated primarily on two forms of interest, situational and individual. Individual interest has been considered to function in terms of the readers committed involvement with the domain or subject-matter. This identification of individual interest with the subject-matter may have links to the well-established finding of the strong contribution of readers prior subject-matter knowledge to the effectiveness of their text-based learning (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 1999; Chiesi, Spilich, & Voxx, 1979; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Spilich, Vesonder, Chiesi, & Voss, 1979). However, readers bring with them another form of individual interest that operates during text-based learning. They can also be more or less interested in the activity of reading itself, which may be likely to affect their approach to and participation in a text-based learning task. When we want to know how students learn from reading and how best to maximize their learning potential in these situations, it is important also to consider where they stand in the domain of reading, and where they stand with regard to interest in reading itself. The learning activity of reading is one in which they will be engaging throughout their academic career, and

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 21 possibly throughout their life. A better understanding of how learners operate in the domain of reading and of how expertise in reading develops will inform our efforts to enhance students learning from text.

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 22 References Alexander, P. A., (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M. L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 213-250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Alexander, P. A. (1998). The nature of disciplinary and domain learning: The knowledge, interest, and strategic dimensions of learning from subject-matter text. In C. Hynd (Ed.), Learning from text across conceptual domains (pp. 263-287). Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (1996). The role of importance and interest in the processing of text. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 89-121. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. III (pp. 285-310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Alexander, P. A., Jetton, T. L., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, interest, and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 559-575. Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58, 375-404. Alexander, P. A. & Kulikowich, J. M. (1994). Learning from physics text: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching (Special Issue on Print Based Learning Arts and Science Learning), 31, 895-911.

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 23 Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 313-337. Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., Woods, B. S., Duhon, K. E., & Parker, D. (1997). College instruction and concomitant changes in students knowledge, interest, and strategy use: A study of domain learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 125-146. Alexander, P. A., Sperl, C. T., Buehl, M. M., Fives, H., Chiu, S. (2002, June). Modeling domain learning: Profiles from the field of special education. Manuscript submitted for publication. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1999). Comprehension: The sine qua non of reading. Teaching and Change, 6, 197-211. Chiesi, H. L., Spilich, G. J., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Acquisition of domain related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 257-273. Graves, M. F., Slater, W. H., Roen, D., Redd-Boyd, T., Duin, A. H., Furniss, D. W., & Haseltine, P. (1988). Some characteristics of memorable expository writing: Effects of revisions by writers with different backgrounds. Research on Teaching English, 22, 242-265. Greaney, V., & Hegarty, M. (1987). Correlates of leisure-time reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 10, 3-20. Hansen, H. S. (1969). The impact of the home literacy environment on reading attitude. Elementary English, 46, 17-24. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549-571.

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 24 Jetton, T. L, & Alexander, P. A. (in press). Domains, pedagogy, and literacy. In T. L. Jetton & J. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice. New York: Guilford. Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1998). Domain knowledge, interest, and hypertext navigation: A study of individual differences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(1), 51-70. McKenna, M. C. (1994). Toward a model of reading attitude acquisition. In E. H. Cramer & M. Castle (Eds.), Fostering the love of reading: The affective domain in reading education (pp. 18-40). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Moffitt, M. A. S., & Wartella, E. (1992). Youth and reading: A survey of leisure reading pursuits of female and male adolescents. Reading Research & Instruction, 31, 1-17. Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2002). What counts?: The predictive power of subject-matter knowledge, strategic processing, and interest in domain-specific performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 197-214. Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (in press). Persuasion as a dynamic, multidimensional process: A viewfinder for individual and intraindividual differences. American Educational Research Journal. Neuman, S. B. (1986). The home environment and fifth-grade students leisure reading. Elementary School Journal, 86, 333-343. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). Dimension of thinking and cognitive instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reading, Interest, and the MDL 25 RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Sadoski, M. Goetz, E. T., & Fritz, J. B. (1993). Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 1-15. Schank, R. (1979). Interestingness: Controlling variables. Artificial Intelligence, 12, 273-297. Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychology, 26, 229-323. Schraw, G., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 1-17. Shapiro, J., & Whitney, P. (1997). Factors involved in the leisure reading of upper elementary school students. Reading Psychology, 18, 343-370. Shen, B., Chen, A., Tolley, H., & Scrabis, K.A. (2003). Gender and interest-based motivation in learning dance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education., 22, 369-409. Spilich, G. J., Vesonder, D., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Text processing of domainrelated information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Behavior, 18, 275-291.