Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 228-242

  Ozuru, Yasuhiro ^a   Dempsey, Kyle ^a   McNamara, Danielle S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Reading skill; Science learning; Text cohesion; Text comprehension

Indexed keywords

EID: 60849127237     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Afflerbach P. The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' importance assignment process. In: Niles J.A., and Lalik R.V. (Eds). National reading conference yearbook. Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers and researchers Vol. 35 (1986), National Reading Conference, Rochester, New York 30-40
2. Anderson R.C. Schema-directed processes in language comprehension. In: Lesgold A., Pellegrino J., Forkkema S., and Glaser R. (Eds). Cognitive psychology and instruction (1978), Plenum, New York 67-82
3. Beck I.L., McKeown M.G., Sinatra G.M., and Loxterman J.A. Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly 26 (1991) 251-276
4. Bransford J.D., and Johnson M.K. Contextual prerequisites for understanding: some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11 (1972) 717-726
5. van den Broek P. Comprehension and memory of narrative texts: inferences and coherence. In: Gernsbacher M.A. (Ed). Handbook of psycholinguistics (1994), Academic, London 539-588
6. Brown J., Fishco V., and Hanna G. Nelson-Denny reading test: Manual for scoring and interpretation, Forms G&H (1993), Riverside Press, Chicago
7. Chi M., Feltovich P., and Glaser R. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science 5 (1981) 121-152
8. Daneman M., and Hannon B. Using working memory theory to investigate the construct validity of multiple choice reading comprehension tests such as the SAT. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130 (2001) 208-223
9. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 32 (1948) 221-233
10. Gernsbacher M.A. Group differences in suppression skill. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition 4 (1997) 175-184
11. Gernsbacher M.A., Varner K.R., and Faust M. Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16 (1990) 430-445
12. Gilabert R., Martínez G., and Vidal-Abarca E. Some good texts are always better: text revision to foster inferences of readers with high and low prior background knowledge. Learning and Instruction 15 (2005) 45-68
13. Graesser A., McNamara D., Louwerse M., and Cai Z. Coh-Metrix: analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36 (2004) 193-202
14. Graesser A.C., Leon J.A., and Otero J. Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In: Otero J., Leon J.A., and Graesser A.C. (Eds). The psychology of science text comprehension (2002), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 1-15
15. Graesser A.C., McNamara D.S., and Louwerse M.M. What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In: Sweet A.P., and Snow C.E. (Eds). Rethinking reading comprehension (2003), Guilford, New York 82-98
16. Guthrie J., and Wigfield A. How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading 3 (1999) 199-205
17. Hacker D.J. Self regulated comprehension during normal reading. In: Hacker J.D., Dunlosky J., and Graesser A.C. (Eds). Metacognition in educational theory and practice (1998), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 165-191
18. Halliday M.A.K., and Hasan R. Cohesion in English (1976), Longman, London
19. Hannon B., and Daneman M. A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 93 (2001) 103-128
20. Kalyuga S., Ayres P., Chandler P., and Sweller J. The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist 38 (2003) 23-31
21. Kintsch W. The use of knowledge in discourse processing: a construction-integration model. Psychological Review 95 (1988) 163-182
22. Kintsch W. Information accretion and reduction in text processing: inferences. Discourse Processes 16 (1993) 193-202
23. Kintsch W. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition (1998), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
24. Landauer T.K., and Dumais S.T. A solution to Plato's problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104 (1997) 211-240
25. Linderholm T., Everson M.G., van den Broek P., Mischinski M., Crittenden A., and Samuels J. Effects of causal text revision on more or less-skilled readers' comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction 18 (2001) 525-556
26. McKoon G., and Ratcliff R. Inference during reading. Psychological Review 99 (1992) 440-466
27. McNamara D.S. Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 55 (2001) 51-62
28. In: McNamara D.S. (Ed). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (2007), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
29. McNamara D., Kintsch E., Songer N., and 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 (1996) 1-43
30. McNamara D.S., and Kintsch W. Learning from text: effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes 22 (1996) 247-287
31. McNamara D.S., and McDaniel M. Suppressing irrelevant information: knowledge activation or inhibition?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 30 (2004) 465-482
32. McNamara D.S., O'Reilly T.P., Best R.M., and Ozuru Y. Improving adolescent students' reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research 34 (2006) 147-171
33. Magliano J.P., and Millis K.K. Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure. Cognition and Instruction 21 (2003) 251-283
34. Noordman L.G., Vonk W., and Kempff H.J. Causal inferences during the reading of expository texts. Journal of Memory and Language 31 (1992) 573-590
35. Oakhill J., and Yuill N. Higher order factors in comprehension disability: processes and remediation. In: Cornaldi C., and Oakhill J. (Eds). Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (1996), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 69-92
36. Oakhill J.V., Cain K., and Bryant P.E. Dissociation of single-word reading and text comprehension skills. Language and Cognitive Processes 18 4 (2003) 443-468
37. O'Reilly T., and McNamara D.S. Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes 43 (2007) 121-152
38. Ozuru Y., Best R., Bell C., Witherspoon A., and McNamara D.S. Influence of question format and text availability on assessment of expository texts comprehension. Cognition & Instruction 25 (2007) 399-438
39. Perfetti C.A. Reading ability (1985), Oxford University Press, New York
40. Shapiro A. How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal 41 (2004) 159-189
41. Sweller J. Instructional design in technical areas (1999), Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, Victoria, Australia
42. Voss J., and Silfies L. Learning from history text: the interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction 14 (1996) 45-68
43. Walker C.H. Relative importance of domain knowledge and overall aptitude on acquisition of domain related information. Cognition and Instruction 4 (1987) 25-42
44. Zwaan R.A., and Singer M. Text comprehension. In: Graesser A.C., Gernsbacher M.A., and Goldman S.R. (Eds). Handbook of discourse processes (2003), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 83-121