Levels of comprehension of scientific prose: The role of text variables

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 215-233

  Vidal Abarca, Eduardo ^a   Sanjose, Vicente ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032085742     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-4752(97)00020-0     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Beck I. L., McKeown M. G., Worthy J. Giving a text voice can improve students' understanding. Reading Research Quarterly. 30:1995;220-238.
2. Beck I. L., McKeown M. G., Sinatra G. M., Loxterman J. A. Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: evidence of improved comprensibility. Reading Research Quarterly. 26:1991;251-275.
3. Bovair, S., & Kieras, D. E. (1985). A guide to propositional analysis for research on technical prose. In B. K. Britton, & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 315-362). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Bransford J. D., Barclay J. R., Franks J. J. Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach. Cognitive Psychology. 3:1972;193-209.
5. Britton, B. K., Glynn, & Smith, J. W. (1985). Cognitive demands of processing of expository text: A cognitive workbench model. In B. K. Britton, & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 227-248). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Britton B. K., Gülgöz S. Using Kinstch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology. 83(3):1991;329-345.
7. Britton, B. K., Van Dusen, L., Glynn S. M., & Hemphill, D. (1990). The impact of inferences on instructional text. In A. C. Graesser & G. H. Bower (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 25; pp. 53-70). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8. Driver R. Un enfoque constructivista para el desarrollo del curr'culo en ciencias [A constructivist view for Science curriculum development]. Ense-anza de las ciencias. 6:1988;109-120.
9. Duit R. On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education. 75:1991;649-672.
10. Duppin J. J., Joshua S. Analogies and modeling analogies in teaching: some examples in basic electricity. Science Education. 73:1989;207-224.
11. Garnham A. Mental models as representations of text. Memory & Cognition. 9:1981;560-565.
12. Goldsmith T. E., Johnson P. J., Acton W. H. Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology. 83:1991;88-96.
13. Halpern D. F., Hansen C., Riefer D. Analogies as an aid to understanding and memory. Journal of Educational Psychology. 82(2):1990;298-305.
14. Kieras, D. E. (1985). Thematic processes in the comprehension of technical prose. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 91-107). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Kintsch W. The role of Knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review. 95(2):1988;163-182.
16. Kintsch, W. (1992). A cognitive architecture for comprehension, In H. L. Pick Jr., P. Van Den Broek, & D. C. Knill (Eds.), Cognition: Conceptual and methodological issues (pp. 143-163). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17. Kintsch W. Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist. 49(4):1994;294-303.
18. Kintsch W., van Dijk T. A. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review. 85:1978;363-394.
19. Kintsch W., Yarbrough J. C. Role of rhetorical structure in prose comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 74:1982;828-834.
20. McNamara D. S., Kintsch E., Songer N. S., Kintsch W. Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction. 14(1):1996;1-43.
21. Meyer B. J. F., Brandt D. M., Bluth G. J. Use of top level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly. 1:1980;72-102.
22. Perrig W., Kintsch W. Propositional and situational representations of text. Journal of Memory and Language. 24:1985;503-518.
23. Roth, K., & Anderson, Ch. (1989). Promoting conceptual change learning from science textbooks. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning (pp. 109-141). London: Kogan Page.
24. Schvaneveldt, R. W., Durso, F. T., & Dearholt, D. W. (1989). Network structures in proximity data. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 24, pp. 249-284).
25. van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. (1983): Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
26. Vosniadou S., Schommer M. Explanatory analogies can help children acquire information from expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology. 80(4):1988;524-536.