ETAT: Expository Text Analysis Tool

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 93-107

  Vidal Abarca, Eduardo ^a   Reyes, Héctor ^a   Gilabert, Ramiro ^a   Calpe, Javier ^a   Soria, Emilio ^a   Graesser, Arthur C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; AUTOMATION; COMPUTER LANGUAGE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; INFORMATION SERVICE; INSTRUMENTATION; MICROCOMPUTER; OBSERVER VARIATION; WRITING;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; INFORMATION SERVICES; MICROCOMPUTERS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; SOFTWARE; WORD PROCESSING; WRITING;

EID: 0036480306     PISSN: 07433808     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03195428     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. BECK, I. L., MCKEOWN, M. G., SINATRA, G. M., & LOXTERMAN, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 251-275.
2. 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: Erlbaum.
3. BRITTON, B. K., & BLACK, J. B. (1985). Understanding expository text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. BRITTON, B. K., & GÜLGÖZ, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329-345.
5. 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: Academic Press.
6. COULTHARD, M. (1994). Advances in written text analysis. London: Routledge.
7. COULTHARD, M. (1997). An introduction to discourse analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
8. FERSTL, E. C., & KINTSCH, W. (1998). Learning from text: Structural knowledge assessment in the study of discourse. In H. Van Oostenderp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 247-277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. GERNSBACHER, M. A. (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23, 265-304.
10. GOLDEN, R. M. (1998). Knowledge digraph contribution analysis of protocol data. Discourse Processes, 25, 179-210.
11. GOLDMAN, S. R., VARMA, S., & COTÉ, N. (1996). Extending capacity-constrained construction integration: Toward "smarter" and flexible models of text comprehension. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 73-113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. GRAESSER, A. C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.
13. GRAESSER, A. C., & GOODMAN, S. H. (1985a). How to construct conceptual graph structures. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 363-383). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. GRAESSER, A. C., & GOODMAN, S. H. (1985b). Implicit knowledge, question answering, and the representation of expository text. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 109-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. GRAESSER, A. C., GORDON, S., & BRAINERD, L. E. (1992). QUEST: A model of question answering. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 23, 733-745.
16. GRAESSER A. C., & HEMPHILL, D. (1991). Question answering in the context of scientific mechanism. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 186-209.
17. GRAESSER, A. C., LANG, K. L., & ROBERTS, R. M. (1991). Question answering in the context of stories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 254-277.
18. GRAESSER, A. C., SINGER, M., & TRABASSO, T. (1994). Constructing inference during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
19. GRAESSER, A. C., WIEMER-HASTINGS, P., & WIEMER-HASTINGS, K. (2001). Constructing inferences and relations during text comprehension. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 249-271). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
20. KINTSCH, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. KINTSCH, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. KINTSCH, W., & VAN DIJK, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
23. LINDERHOLM, T., EVERSON, M. G., VAN DEN BROEK, P., MISCHINSKI, M., CRITTENDEN, A., & SAMUELS, J. (2001). Effects of causal text revisions on more- and less-skilled reader's comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition & Instruction, 18, 525-556.
24. LINN, M., SONGER, N. B., & EYLON, B.-S. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 438-490). New York: Macmillan.
25. MACNEALLY, M. S., & HEDGES, K. (1996). The effects of line length on the psychological reality of the paragraph. In R. J. Kreuz & M. S. MacNeally (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 99-123). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
26. MANDLER, J. M., & JOHNSON, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-151.
27. MANNES, S., & GEORGE, M. S. (1996). Effects of prior knowledge on text comprehension: A simple modeling approach. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 115-139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. MCNAMARA, D. S., KINTSCH, E., SONGER, N. S., & KINTSCH, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition & Instruction, 14, 1-43.
29. MEYER, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
30. MEYER, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures and problems. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 11-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. MILLER, J. R., & KINTSCH, W. (1980). Readability and recall for short passages: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 335-354.
32. NAUGHTON, P., & SCHILDT, H. (1997). JAVA: The complete reference. Berkeley, CA: Osborne McGraw-Hill.
33. POLANYI, L. (1988). A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 601-638.
34. RUMELHART, D. E. (1977). Understanding and summarizing brief stories. In D. Laberge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Perceptions and comprehensions (pp. 265-304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. RUMELHART, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. SANDERS, T., & VAN WIJK, C. (1996). PISA: A procedure for analyzing the structure of explanatory texts. Text, 16, 91-132.
37. SCHANK, R. C., & ABELSON, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. STEIN, N. L., & GLENN, G. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
39. THORNDYKE, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
40. TRABASSO, T., VAN DEN BROEK, P. W., & SUH, S. Y. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1-25.
41. TURNER, A., BRITTON, B. K., ANDRAESSEN, P., & MCCUTCHEN, D. (1996). A predication semantic model of text comprehension and recall. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 33-71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. VAN DIJK, T. A., & KINTSCH, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. San Diego: Academic Press.
43. VIDAL-ABARCA, E., GILABERT, R., & ABAD, N. (2001). Context variables must be considered when replicating text coherence studies. Manuscript in preparation.
44. VIDAL-ABARCA, E., MARTINEZ, G., & GILABERT, R. (2000). Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 107-116.
45. VIDAL-ABARCA, E., & SANJOSÉ, V. (1998). Levels of comprehension of scientific prose: The role of text variables. Learning & Instruction, 8, 215-233.
46. VIDAL-ABARCA, E., SANJOSÉ, V., GILABERT, R., & ABAD, N. (2001). Improving text coherence to enhance readers' inferences. Manuscript in preparation.
47. WINEBURG, S. S. (1996). The psychology of learning and teaching history. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 423-437). New York: MacMillan.
48. ZWAAN, R. A., LANGSTON, M. C., & GRAESSER, A. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6, 292-297.
49. ZWAAN, R. A., MAGLIANO, J. P., & GRAESSER, A. C. (1994). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 21, 386-397.