Leo Lentz / Menno de Jong Limerick 20051/15 Anticipating reader problems Leo Lentz - Utrecht University Menno de Jong - University of Twente

Leo Lentz / Menno de Jong Limerick 20052/15 Presentation outline Introduction Three cognitive shortcuts Focus on: anchoring and adjustment Design of project Case analysis Conclusion

Introduction Lentz & De Jong3/15 Writing and the curse of expertise A key issue in professional writing is: anticipating the readers’ needs Results of usability studies: professional writers fail to predict reader problems Why is it so difficult to anticipate the problems readers will experience?

Theory Lentz & De Jong4/15 Three cognitive shortcuts Availability: –experts rely on a failing memory of their own novice performance Oversimplification: –experts have automated the process and lose sight of complexity Anchoring and adjustment: –experts anchor on their own performance and fail to adjust adequately for differences in skills

Theory Lentz & De Jong5/15 Mobile phones / Lego Focus on acting with objects Predicting time performance Recall of past performance Task can be decomposed Writing and reading Focus on cognitive processes Predicting specific reader problems No recall of past performance Reading process can not be decomposed

Theory Lentz & De Jong6/15 Anchoring and adjustment Predicting reader problems implies: –reading the text with a high level of metacognition –assessing every problem detection using two criteria: –Will readers really experience this problem (chance)? –What damage will this problem do (severity)? Question: How do anchoring and adjusting come manifest in expert reflections on reader problems?

Desing Lentz & de Jong7/15 Focus on part of writing process planning / structuring writing and revision editing or proofreading predicting reader problems assessing problem detections

Design Lentz & De Jong8/15 Experts assess reader problems A government brochure for young adults on alcohol was evaluated (N= 30 / ~ 200) We made a selection of ten reader problems Experts in communication (N=18) read: –the text –and these ten reader problems They assessed every problem on chance and severity and provided arguments

Analysis Lentz & DeJong9/15 Anchoring On personal reading experience –I did have problems in understanding this fragment On the document –This text clearly says that… On professional knowledge –The style of this fragment is rather elaborate and wordy –A heading should always… On the producer of the text –I think the author did a good job On the editing role –I should not know how to say it more clearly…

Analysis Lentz & De Jong10/15 Adjustment Reflection on possible interpretations of a fragment –The first sentence may lead to the interpretation that … Reflection on readers’attitudes or world knowledge –Readers might lose confidence in the author, having made this interpretation Reflection on the function of the document –This document does not convince the readers Reflection on audience segments –Some readers might think so, but most readers will…

Results Lentz & De Jong11/15 Anchoring problems (1): False consensus The expert refers to a problem experienced and claims that readers will also experience it. –In earlier research we demonstrated that experts use other evaluation standards than readers. More focus on correctness and structure (Lentz/De Jong, 1997) –Experts produce lots of false alarms and do not agree on problem detections (De Jong/Lentz 1996) The expert did not experience a problem and thus claims that readers will have no problem. –Experts miss problems regarding reader attitudes

Results Lentz & De Jong12/15 Anchoring problems (2): The knowledge effect Experts mix up text editing with anticipating reader problems: They rely on knowledge of professional guidelines They reframe reader comments in terms of these guidelines They concentrate on stylistic issues as if proof reading a draft of the document They tend to detect only problems they know how to solve and neglect problems they can’t solve.

Results Lentz & De Jong13/15 Adjustment problems (1) Experts do not adjust their own reading experience to other readers: –They are unable to switch from a text production perspective to a reception perspective. –They do not relate their comments to the functions of the document.

Results Lentz & De Jong14/15 Adjustment problems (2) Experts overestimate the readers: –They fail to adjust to readers with lower education and less topic knowledge –They fail to adjust to readers with negative attitudes –They sometimes blame the readers for not understanding or not accepting

Conclusion Lentz & De Jong15/15 Conclusion Experts experience problems in assessing reader problems, caused by anchoring and adjusting inadequately. Two main anchoring problems: experts overgeneralise their own experience and suffer from the knowledge effect. Two adjustment problems: experts stick to a text production perspective and fail to adjust to readers’ knowledge and attitudes.