Toward a unified theory of reading

Scientific Studies of Reading

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 337-356

  Sadoski, Mark ^a   Paivio, Allan ^b  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35548994451     PISSN: 10888438     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10888430701530714     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 2, 203-231.
2. Anderson, J. R. & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Anderson, R. C. (1984). Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in America's schools (pp. 243-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Britton, B. K., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (1996). Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Bronowski, J. (1978). The origins of knowledge and imagination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6. Brothers, L. (2002). The trouble with neurobiological explanations of mind. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 22, 857-870.
7. Carver, R. P. (1978a). Another look at rauding theory. Reading Research Quarterly, 13, 116-132.
8. Carver, R. P. (1978b). Toward a theory of reading comprehension and rauding. Reading Research Quarterly, 13, 8-63.
9. Carver, R. P. (1993). Merging the simple view of reading with rauding theory. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 439-455.
10. Carver, R. P. (2000). The causes of high and low reading achievement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Chali, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.
12. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204-256.
13. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167-188.
14. Ehri, L. C., & McCormick, S. (2004). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.; pp. 365-389). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
15. Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (2004). Exploring Vygotskyian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 163-186). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
16. Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K. E. Patterson, J. C. Marshall, & M. Coltheart (Eds.), Surface dyslexia: Neuropsychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading (pp. 301-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Gödel, K. (1931). Uber formal unentscheidbare Satz der Principia Mathematica undverwandter Systeme I [On formally undecidable propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems]. Monatshefte fur Mathematic und Physik, 38, 173-198.
18. Goetz, E. T., & Sadoski, M. (1996). Imaginative processes in literary comprehension. In R. J. Kreuz & M. S. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 221-240). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19. Goodman, K. S. (2005). Making sense of written language: A lifelong journey. Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 1-24.
20. Goswami, U. (1988), Orthographic analogies and reading development. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 239-268.
21. Gough, P. B. (1985). One second of reading: Postscript. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 687-688). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
22. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
24. Hill, W. (1978). Concerning reading theory: A reaction to Carver's 'Toward a theory of reading comprehension and rauding'. Reading Research Quarterly, 13, 64-91.
25. Holmes, J. A. (1970). The substrata-factor theory of reading: Some experimental evidence. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 187-197). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
26. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160.
27. Judson, H. F. (1980). The search for solutions. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
28. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
29. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
30. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31. Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270-1328). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
32. Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
33. Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Krasny, K. A., Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2007). A response to McVee, Dunsmore, & Gavelek's "Schema Theory Revisited." Review of Educational Research, 77, 239-244.
36. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
38. Maleske, R. T. (1995). Foundations for gathering and interpreting behavioral data. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
39. Many, J. E. (1990). The effect of reader stance on students' personal understanding of literature. In J. Zuteil & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms (39th yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 51-63). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
40. Mathewson, G. C. (2004). Model of attitude influence upon reading and learning to read. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1431-1461). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
41. McVee, M., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational Research, 75, 531-566.
42. Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1995). Aspects of literary response: A new questionnaire. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 37-58.
43. Miall, D., S., & Kuiken, D. (1999). What is literariness? Three components of literary reading. Discourse Processes, 28, 121-138.
44. Millis, K., Magliano, J., & Todaro, S. (2006). Measuring discourse-level processes with verbal protocols and latent semantic analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 225-240.
45. Newell, A. (1973). You can't play 20 questions with nature and win: Prospective comments on the papers of this symposium. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 463-526). New York: Academic Press.
46. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
47. Norris, D. (2005). How do computational models help us develop better theories? In A. Cutler (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 331-346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
49. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
50. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255-287.
51. Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery (K. Popper, J. Freed, & L. Freed, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.
53. Reichle, E., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125-157.
54. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, and the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
55. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1983). Literature as exploration (4th ed.). New York: Modern Language Association.
56. Rosenblatt, L. M. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1363-1398). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
57. Ruddell, R. B. (1970). Psycholinguistic implications for a systems of communication model. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 239-258). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
58. Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau N. J. (Eds.). (2004). Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
59. Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 573-603). New York: Academic Press.
60. Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 99-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
61. Sadoski, M. (1992). Imagination, cognition, and persona. Rhetoric Review, 10, 266-278.
62. Sadoski, M. (1999). Comprehending comprehension [Essay review of the book Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition]. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 493-500.
63. Sadoski, M. (2004). Conceptual foundations of teaching reading. New York: Guilford.
64. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (1994). A dual coding view of imagery and verbal processes in reading comprehension. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 582-601). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
65. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
66. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1329-1362). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
67. Sadoski, M., Paivio, A., & Goetz, E. T. (1991). A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 463-484.
68. Sadoski, M., Willson, V., Holcomb, A., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2005). Verbal and nonverbal predictors of spelling performance. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 461-478.
69. Samuels, S. J. (1977). Introduction to theoretical models of reading. In W. Otto, C. Peters, & N. Peters (Eds.), Reading problems: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 7-41). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
70. Samuels, S. J. (2004). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading, revisited. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1127-1148). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
71. Samuels, S. J. (2007). Looking backward: Reflections on a career in reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 327-344.
72. Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257-279.
73. Searle, J. R. (1987). Minds, brains, and programs. In R. Born (Ed.), Artificial intelligence: The case against (pp. 18-40), New York: St. Martin's Press.
74. Seidenberg, M. (2005). Connectionist models of word reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 238-242.
75. Seidenberg, M., & McClelland J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-586.
76. Singer, H., & Ruddell, R. B. (1970). Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
77. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
78. Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 418-452). New York: Longman.
79. Stuart, M., & Coltheart, M. (1988). Does reading develop in a series of stages? Cognition, 30, 139-181.
80. Utall, W. R. (2005). Neural theories of mind: Why the mind-brain problem may never be solved. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
81. Van Dalen, D. B. (1979). Understanding educational research: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
82. van den Broek, P. W. (1990). The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 423-446). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
83. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
84. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.