The role of reader characteristics in processing and learning from informational text

Review of Educational Research

Volumn 79, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 197-261

  Fox, Emily ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Informational text; Learning from text; Think aloud research

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349602500     PISSN: 00346543     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0034654308324654     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Afflerbach, P (1990a). The influence of prior knowledge and text genre on readers' prediction strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 131-148.
2. Afflerbach, P (1990b). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 31-46.
3. Afflerbach, P (2000). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In ML Kamil, PB Mosenthal, PD Pearson and R Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 3 (pp. 163-179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Afflerbach, P, and P Johnston (1984). Research methodology: On the use of verbal reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 307-322.
5. Alexander, PA (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In ML Maehr and PR Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 10 (pp. 213-250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
6. Alexander, PA, and TL Jetton (1996). The role of importance and interest in the processing of text. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 89-121.
7. Alexander, PA, and JE Judy (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58, 375-404.
8. Anderson, RC (2004). Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In RB Ruddell and NJ Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5th ed (pp. 594-606). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
9. Azevedo, R, JT Guthrie, and D Siebert (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students' conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 87-111.
10. Barnett, JE (April, 1998). Self-regulation of textbook reading: A think-aloud study, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
11. Bråten, I, and HI Strømsø (2003). A longitudinal think-aloud study of spontaneous strategic processing during the reading of multiple expository texts. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 195-218.
12. Charney, D (1993). A study in rhetorical reading: How evolutionists read "The spandrels of San Marco.". In J Selzer (Ed.), Understanding scientific prose (pp. 203-231). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
13. Christopherson, SL, CB Schultz, and Y Waern (1981). The effect of two contextual conditions on recall of a reading passage and on thought processes in reading. Journal of Reading, 24, 573-578.
14. Cotí, N, and SR Goldman (1999). Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children's think-aloud protocols. In H van Oostendorp and SR Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 169-193). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Cotí N, SR Goldman, L Gjellstad, J Keeton, and C Millican (November, 1994). Children's use of prior knowledge and experience in understanding informational text on nutrition, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Nashville, TN.
16. Cotí N, SR Goldman, L Gjellstad, J Keeton, and C Millican (April, 1995). Children's use of prior knowledge and experience in making sense of informational text, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
17. Cotí N, SR Goldman, and EU Saul (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1-53.
18. Crain-Thoreson, C, MZ Lippman, and D McClendon-Magnuson (1997). Windows on comprehension: Reading comprehension processes as revealed by two think-aloud procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 579-591.
19. Deegan, DH (1995). Exploring individual differences among novices reading in a specific domain: The case of law. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 154-170.
20. Duke, NK (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 40-44.
21. Elshout-Mohr, M, and M van Daalen-Kapteijns (2002). Situated regulation of scientific text processing. In J Otero, JA Leon and AC Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 223-252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Ericsson, KA (1988). Concurrent verbal reports on text comprehension: A review. Text, 8, 295-325.
23. Ericsson, KA, and HA Simon (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Feltovich, PJ, MJ Prietula, and KA Ericsson (2006). Studies of expertise from psychological perspectives. In KA Ericsson, N Charness, PJ Feltovich and RR Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 41-67). New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Ferstl, EC, and W Kintsch (1999). Learning from text: Structural knowledge assessment in the study of discourse comprehension. In H van Oostendorp and SR Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 247-277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Fox, E, L Maggioni, and M Riconscente (August, 2005). Exploring expertise in reading and with reading: Characteristics and methodological issues, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
27. Garner, R, and MG Gillingham (1991). Topic knowledge, cognitive interest, and text recall: A microanalysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 310-319.
28. Goldman, SR, and JA Rakestraw (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In ML Kamil, PB Mosenthal, PD Pearson and R Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 3 (pp. 311-335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Goldman, SR, S Varma, and N Cotí (1996). Extending capacity-constrained construction integration: Toward "smarter" and flexible models of text comprehension. In BK Britton and AC Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 73-113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Graesser, AC (1981). Prose comprehension: Beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.
31. Graesser, AC, and BK Britton (1996). Five metaphors for text understanding. In BK Britton and AC Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 341-351). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Graesser, AC, KK Millis, and RA Zwaan (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189.
33. Guthrie, JT, and A Wigfield (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 199-205.
34. Haas, C, and L Flower (1988). Rhetorical reading strategies and the construction of meaning. College Composition and Communication, 39, 167-183.
35. Hartman, DK (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 520-561.
36. Jackson, NE, and HL Doellinger (2002). Resilient readers? University students who are poor recoders but sometimes good text comprehenders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 64-78.
37. Johnston, P, and P Afflerbach (1985). The process of constructing main ideas from text. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 207-232.
38. Kardash, CM, and KL Howell (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates' cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 524-535.
39. Kendeou, P, and P van den Broek (2005). The effects of readers' misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235-245.
40. Kintsch, W (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294-303.
41. Kintsch, W (1998). Comprehension. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Kintsch, W, and E Kintsch (2005). Comprehension. In SG Paris and SA Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43. Kintsch, W, and KA Rawson (2005). Comprehension. In MJ Snowling and C Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209-226). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
44. Kucan, L (December, 1993). Uncovering cognitive processes in reading, Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC.
45. Kucan, L, and I Beck (1996). Four fourth graders thinking aloud: An investigation of genre effects. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 259-287.
46. Kucan, L, and I Beck (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271-299.
47. Langer, J (1993). Approaches toward meaning in low- and high-rated readers. Albany, NY: National Research Center on Literature Teaching & Learning. (Report Series 2.20).
48. Linderholm, T, and P van den Broek (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778-784.
49. Lundeberg, MA (1987). Metacognitive aspects of reading comprehension: Studying understanding in legal case analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 407-432.
50. Martin, SH (1988). A description of cognitive processes during reading and writing. Reading Psychology, 9, 1-15.
51. McMackin, MC, and S Lawrence (2001). Investigating inferences: Constructing meaning from expository texts. Reading Horizons, 42, 117-137.
52. Moore, PJ, and JJ Scevak (1997). Learning from texts and visual aids: A developmental perspective. Journal of Research in Reading, 20, 205-223.
53. National Assessment Governing Board (2004). Reading framework for the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
54. Neutelings, R, and HP Maat (1997). Investigating the processes of reading-to-assess among Dutch legislators. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 47-71.
55. Olson, GM, SA Duffy, and RL Mack (1984). Thinking-out-loud as a method for studying real-time comprehension processes. In DE Kieras and MA Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 253-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56. Olson, GM, RL Mack, and SA Duffy (1981). Cognitive aspects of genre. Poetics, 10, 283-315.
57. Perfetti, CA, J Rouet, and MA Britt (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H van Oostendorp and SR Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58. Perrig, W, and W Kintsch (1985). Propositional and situational representations of text. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 503-518.
59. Pressley, M, and P Afflerbach (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
60. Pressley, M, and K Hilden (2004). Verbal protocols of reading. In NK Duke and MH Marlette (Eds.), Literary research methodologies (pp. 308-321). New York: The Guilford Press.
61. Pritchard, R (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 273-295.
62. RAND Reading Study Group (RRSG) (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Author.
63. Royer, JM, MS Carlo, R Dufresne, and J Mestre (1996). The assessment of levels of domain expertise while reading. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 373-408.
64. Saul, EW, and D Dieckman (2005). Choosing and using information trade books. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 502-513.
65. Scardamalia, M, and C Bereiter (1991). Literate expertise. In KA Ericsson and J Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise (pp. 172-194). New York: Cambridge University Press.
66. Schellings, G, C Aarnoutse, and J van Leeuwe (2006). Third-graders' think-aloud protocols: Types of reading activities in reading an expository text. Learning and Instruction, 16, 549-568.
67. Schiefele, U (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257-279.
68. Schooler, T, J Kennet, J Wiley, and JF Voss (1996). On the processing of political editorials. In RJ Kreuz and MS MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 447-459). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
69. Schwegler, RA, and LK Shamoon (1991). Meaning attribution in ambiguous texts in sociology. In C Bazerman and J Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions (pp. 216-234). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
70. Shearer, BA, MA Lundeberg, and C Coballes-Vega (1997). Making the connection between research and reality: Strategies teachers use to read and evaluate journal articles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 592-598.
71. Snow, CE, MS Burns and P Griffin (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
72. Steinberg, I, G Bohning, and F Chowning (1991). Comprehension monitoring strategies of nonproficient college readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 30, 63-75.
73. Steinke, J (1995). Reaching readers: Assessing readers' impressions of science news. Science Communication, 16, 432-453.
74. Striømsø HI, and I Bri̊ten (2002). Norwegian law students' use of multiple sources while reading expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 208-227.
75. Striømsø HI, I Bri̊ten, and MS Samuelstuen (2003). Students' strategic use of multiple sources during expository text reading: A longitudinal think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 113-147.
76. Tapiero, I (2007). Situation models and levels of coherence: Toward a definition of comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
77. Tapiero, I, and J Otero (1999). Distinguishing between textbase and situation model in the processing of inconsistent information: Elaboration versus tagging. In H van Oostendorp and SR Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 341-365). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
78. van den Broek, P, M Young, Y Tzeng, and T Linderholm (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In H van Oostendorp and SR Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71-98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
79. VanSledright, BA (2002). Fifth graders investigating history in the classroom: Results from a researcher-practitioner design experiment. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 131-160.
80. Wade, SE, WM Buxton, and M Kelly (1999). Using think-alouds to examine reader-text interest. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 194-216.
81. Wade, SE, W Trathen, and G Schraw (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 147-166.
82. Weaver, CA, and W Kintsch (1991/1996). Expository text. In R Barr, ML Kamil, P Mosenthal and PD Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (pp. 230-245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
83. Wigfield, A (1997). Reading motivation: A domain-specific approach to motivation. Educational Psychologist, 32, 59-68.
84. Wineburg, S (1991a). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73-87.
85. Wineburg, S (1991b). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495-519.
86. Wineburg, S (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22, 319-346.
87. Wolfe, MBW, and SR Goldman (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467-502.
88. Wyatt, D, M Pressley, PB El-Dinary, S Stein, P Evans, and R Brown (1993). Comprehension strategies, worth and credibility monitoring, and evaluations: Cold and hot cognition when experts read professional articles that are important to them. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 49-72.
89. Zwaan, RA, and GA Radvansky (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.