Noticing and revising discrepancies as texts unfold

Discourse Processes

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-24

  Rapp, David N ^a   Kendeou, Panayiota ^b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60849084925     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01638530802629141     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477-487.
2. 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, 251-276,
3. Booth, W. C. (1983). The rhetoric of fiction (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Bower G. H., & Morrow D. G. (1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension. Science, 247, 44-48.
5. Brewer, W. E., Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2000). Explanations in scientists and children. In E C. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 279-298). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Chi, M. T. H., deLeeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self explanations inproves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). New York: Academic.
8. Daneman, M., Lennertz, T., & Hannon, B. (2007). Shallow semantic processing of text: Evidence from eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 83-105.
9. de Vega, M. (1995). Backward updating of mental models during continuous reading of narratives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 373-385.
10. de Vega, M., León, I., & Diaz, J. M. (1996). The representation of changing emotions in reading comprehension. Cognition and Emotion, 10, 303-323.
11. Diakidoy, I. N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 335-356.
12. Dole, J. A. (2000). Readers, texts and conceptual change learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16, 99-118.
13. Ellis, H. C., Ottaway, S. A., Varner, L. J., Becker, A. S., & Moore, B. A. (1997). Emotion, motivation, and text comprehension: The detection of contradictions in passages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 131-146.
14. Ferreira, E., Bailey, K.G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11-15.
15. Gámez, E., & Marrero, H. (2001). Interpersonal motives in comprehension of narratives. Discourse Processes, 31, 215-240.
16. Gernsbacher, M. A., Robertson, R. W., Palladino, P., & Werner, N. (2004). Managing mental representations during narrative comprehension. Discourse Processes, 37, 145-164.
17. Gerrig, R. I. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18. Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 601-613.
19. Glenberg, A., Meyer, M., & Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 26, 69-83.
20. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to leam in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York: Guilford.
21. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193-202.
22. Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189.
23. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
24. Guéraud, S., Harmon, M. E., & Peracchi, K. A. (2005). Updating situation models: The memorybased contribution. Discourse Processes, 39, 243-263.
25. Guzzetti, B. J., (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16, 89-98,
26. Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993), Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education, Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117-159.
27. Guzzetti, B. J., Williams, W O., Skeels, S. A., & Wu, S. M. (1997). Influence of text structure on learning counterintuitive physics concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 701-719.
28. Haberlandt, K. (1994). Methods in reading research. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 1-31). London: Academic.
29. Hakala, C. M. (1999). Accessibility of spatial information in a situation model. Discourse Processes, 27, 261-279.
30. Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1-13.
31. Jahn, G. (2004). Three turtles in danger: Spontaneous construction of causally relevant spatial situation models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 969-987.
32. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 20, 1420-1436.
33. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1998). Updating accounts following a correction of misinformation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420-1436.
34. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1999). Modifying mental representations: Comprehending corrections. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 303-318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
35. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1988). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
36. Kamalski, J., Lentz, L., Sanders, T., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). The forewarning effect of coherence markers in persuasive discourse: Evidence from persuasion and processing. Discourse Processes, 45, 545-579.
37. Kambe, G., Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Memory & Cognition, 29, 363-372.
38. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). Interactions between prior knowledge and text structure during comprehension of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567-1577.
39. Kintsch, W (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
40. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
41. Kintsch, W., & Vipond, D. (1979). Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory. In L. G. Nilsson (Ed.), Perspectives of memory research (pp. 325-266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
42. Klin, C. M., Guzmán, A. E., Weingartner, K., & Ralano, A. (2006). When anaphor resolution fails: Partial encoding of anaphoric inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 131-143.
43. Knott, A., & Sanders, T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 135-175.
44. Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
45. Levine, W., Guzmán, A., & Klin, C. (2000). When anaphor resolution fails. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 594-617.
46. Linderholm, T., Gernsbacher, M. A., van den Broek, P., Neninde, L., Robertson, R. W., & Sundermeier, B. (2004). Suppression of story character goals during reading. Discourse Processes, 37, 67-78.
47. Long, D. L., Wilson, J., Hurley, R., & Prat, C. S. (2006). Assessing text representations with recognition: The interaction of domain knowledge and text coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 816-827.
48. Louwerse, M. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2005). Coherence in discourse. In P. Strazny (Ed.), Encyclopedia of lingstuics (pp. 216-218). Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn.
49. Lucas, M. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1990). Levels of representation in the interpretation of anaphoric inference and instrument inference. Memory & Cognition, 18, 611-631.
50. Maria, K., & MacGinitie, W. (1987). Learning from texts that refute the reader's prior knowledge. Reading Research and Instruction, 26, 222-238.
51. Maury, P., & Teisserenc, A. (2005). The role of connectives in science text comprehension and memory. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 489-512.
52. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1988). Contextually relevant aspects of meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 331-343.
53. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1989). Assessing the occurrence of elaborative inference with recognition: Compatibility checking vs. compound cue theory. Journal of Memory & Language, 28, 574-563.
54. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
55. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62.
56. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1-30.
57. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
58. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
59. McNamara, D. S., & Shapiro, A. M. (2005). Multimedia and hypermedia solutions for promoting metacognitive engagement, coherence, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 1-29.
60. McNamara, T. P. (2005). Semantic priming: Perspectives from memory and word recognition. New York: Psychology Press.
61. Millis, K. K., Golding, J. M., & Barker, G. (1995). Causal connectives increase inference generation. Discourse Processes, 20, 29-49.
62. Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147.
63. Morrow, D. G., Bower, G. H., & Greenspan, S. (1989). Updating situation models during narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 292-312.
64. Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25, 227-236.
65. O'Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200-1210.
66. O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121-152.
67. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T Gilbert, S. T Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill.
68. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982), Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
69. Potts, G., Keenan, J., & Golding, J. (1988), Assessing the occurrence of elaborative inferences: Lexical decision versus naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 399-415.
70. Potts, G., St, John, M. F., & Kirson, D. (1989). Incorporating new information into existing world knowledge. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 303-333.
71. Pressley, M. (2000), What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L., Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds,), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545-586). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
72. Rapp, D. N., & Gerrig, R. J. (2006). Predilections for narrative outcomes: The impact of story contexts and reader preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 54-67.
73. app, D. N., Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (2001). Readers' trait-based models of characters in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 737-750.
74. Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2007). Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2019-2032,
75. Rapp, D. N., & Taylor, H. A. (2004), Interactive dimensions in the construction of mental representations for text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 988-1001,
76. Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 276-279.
77. Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000), The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37-60.
78. Sanford, A. J., & Graesser, A. (2006), Shallow processing and underspeeification. Discourse Processes, 42, 99-108.
79. Seifert, C. M. (2002). The continued influence of misinformation in memory: What makes a correction effective. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 265-292.
80. Singer, M., & Ritchot, K. F. M. (1996). The role of working memory capacity and knowledge access in text inference processing. Memory & Cognition, 24, 733-743.
81. Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1997), Indexing events in memory: Evidence for index dominance. Memory, 5, 509-542.
82. Trabasso, T., & Suh, S. (1993), Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through on-line inferences and mental operations in working memory. Discourse Processes, 16, 3-34.
83. Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612-630.
84. Uleman, J. S., Hon, A., Roman, R. J., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). On-line evidence for spontaneous trait inferences at encoding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 377-394.
85. van den Broek, P. (1994). Comprehension and memory of narrative texts: Inferences and coherence. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 539-588). San Diego, CA: Academic,
86. van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335-351.
87. van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers' goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081-1087.
88. van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299-316.
89. van den Broek, P., Tzeng, Y., Risden, K., Trabasso, T., & Basche, P. (2001). Inferential questioning: Effects on comprehension of narrative texts as a function of grade and timing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 521-529.
90. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic,
91. van Oostendorp, H. (2002). Updating mental representations during reading scientific text. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 309-329). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
92. van Oostendorp, H., & Bonebakker, C. (1999). Difficulties in updating mental representations during reading news reports. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 319-339). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
93. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Review of Educational Research, 57, 51-67.
94. Whitney, P., Ritchie, B. G., & Crane, R. S. (1992). The effect of foregrounding on readers' use of predictive inferences. Memory & Cognition, 20, 424-432.
95. 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'.
96. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.
97. Zwaan, R. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2006). Discourse comprehension. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 725-764). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.