Prereading Questions and Online Text Comprehension

Discourse Processes

Volumn 49, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 367-390

  Lewis, Mark Rose ^a   Mensink, Michael C ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863603286     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2012.662801     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Albrecht, J. E. and O'Brien, E. J. 1993. Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19: 1061-1070.
2. Alexander, P. A. and Jetton, T. L. 1996. The role of importance and interest in the processing of text. Educational Psychology Review, 8: 89-121.
3. Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R. and Vidal-Abarca, E. 2011. Selecting information to answer questions: Strategic individual differences when searching texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 21: 201-205.
4. Cerdán, R. and Vidal-Abarca, E. 2008. The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100: 209-222.
5. Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Gilabert, R. and Gil, L. 2009. Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 19: 13-27.
6. Cook, A. E. and Guéraud, S. 2005. What have we been missing? The role of general world knowledge in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 39: 265-278.
7. Cook, A. E., Halleran, J. G. and O'Brien, E. J. 1998. What is readily available during reading? A memory-based view of text processing. Discourse Processes, 26: 109-129.
8. Goldman, S. R. and Varma, S. 1995. "CAPping the Construction-Integration Model of Discourse Comprehension.". In Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch Edited by: Weaver, C., Mannes, S. and Fletcher, C. R. 337-358. New York, NY: Routledge.
9. Hamaker, C. 1986. The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56: 212-242.
10. Hamilton, R. J. 1985. A framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of adjunct questions and objectives. Review of Educational Research, 55: 47-85.
11. Kaakinen, J. K. and Hyönä, J. 2005. Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking, and recall. Discourse Processes, 40: 239-257.
12. Kaakinen, J. K. and Hyönä, J. 2008. Perspective-driven text comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22: 319
13. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J. and Keenan, J. M. 2002. Perspective effects on online text processing. Discourse Processes, 33: 159-173.
14. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J. and Keenan, J. M. 2003. How prior knowledge, WMC, and relevance of information affect eye fixations in expository text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29: 447-457.
15. Kaplan, R. and Rothkopf, E. Z. 1974. Instructional objectives as directions to learners: Effect of passage length and amount of objective-relevant content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66: 448-456.
16. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W. and Laham, D. 1998. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25: 259-284.
17. Lorch, R. F. and Myers, J. L. 1990. Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(1): 149-157.
18. McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P. and Schraw, G. 2010. Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35: 229-241.
19. McCrudden, M. T. and Schraw, G. 2007. Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19: 113-139.
20. McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G. and Kambe, G. 2005. The effect of relevance instructions on reading time and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97: 16
21. McKoon, G., Gerrig, R. J. and Greene, S. B. 1996. Pronoun resolution without pronouns: Some consequences of memory-based text processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22: 919-932.
22. Metzler, D., Bernstein, Y., Croft, W., Moffat, A. and Zobel, J. 2005. "Similarity measures for tracking information flow.". In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management Edited by: Herzog, O., Schek, H., Fuhr, N., Chowdhury, A. and Teiken, W. 517-524. New York, NY: ACM.
23. Myers, J. L. and O'Brien, E. J. 1998. Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26: 131-157.
24. Myers, J. L. and O'Brien, E. J. 1999. "Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up.". In Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso Edited by: Graesser, A., Goldman, S. and van den Broek, P. 35-53. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P. and Ruiz, A. 1999. The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91: 488-496.
26. Newsome, G. L. 1986. The effects of reader perspective and cognitive style on remembering important information from texts. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18: 117-133.
27. O'Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E. and 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.
28. Peshkam, A., Mensink, M. C., Putnam, A. L. and Rapp, D. N. 2011. Warning readers to avoid irrelevant information: When being vague might be valuable. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36: 219-231.
29. Pichert, J. W. and Anderson, R. C. 1977. Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69: 309-315.
30. Reynolds, R. 1992. Selective attention and prose learning: Theoretical and empirical research. Educational Psychology Review, 4: 345-391.
31. Reynolds, R. and Anderson, R. C. 1982. Influence of questions on the allocation of attention during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74: 623-632.
32. Rothkopf, E. Z. and Billington, M. J. 1979. Goal-guided learning from text: Inferring a descriptive processing model from inspection times and eye movements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71: 310-327.
33. Rothkopf, E. Z. and Bisbicos, E. E. 1967. Selective facilitative effects of interspersed questions on learning from written materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58: 56-61.
34. Rouet, J. 2002. What was I looking for? The influence of task specificity and prior knowledge on students' search strategies in hypertext. Interacting With Computers, 15: 409-428.
35. Rouet, J., Vidal-Abarca, E., Erboul, A. B. and Millogo, V. 2001. Effects of information search tasks on the comprehension of instructional text. Discourse Processes, 31: 163-186.
36. Schmidt, R. A. and Bjork, R. A. 1992. New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3: 207-217.
37. Schraw, G., Wade, S. and Kardash, C. 1993. Interactive effects of text-based and task-based importance on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85: 652-661.
38. van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. Jr., Linderholm, T. and Gustafson, M. 2001. The effects of readers' goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29: 1081-1087.
39. van den Broek, P., Risden, K. and Husebye-Hartmann, E. 1995. "The role of readers' standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading.". In Sources of coherence in reading Edited by: Lorch, R. and O'Brien, E. 353-373. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.