Quality learning from texts we read: What does it take?

Enhancing the Quality of Learning: Dispositions, Instruction, and Learning Processes

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 251-275

  Kendeou, Panayiota ^a   Trevors, Gregory ^b  

^a NEAPOLIS UNIVERSITY PAFOS   (Cyprus)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893122910     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139048224.016     Document Type: Chapter

References (139)

1. Afflerbach, P. (2000). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 87–103). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Ainsworth, S., & Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by selfexplanation. Learning and Instruction, 17, 286–303.
3. Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and C ognition, 19, 1061–1070.
4. Alexander, P., & Jetton, T. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3 pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates.
5. Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to p roficiency. Educational Researcher, 32 (8), 10–14.
6. Alvermann, D. E., & Hague, S. A. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science t ext: Effects of prior knowledge and text structure. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 197–202.
7. Alvermann, D. E., & Hynd, C. R. (1989). Effects of prior knowledge activation modes and text structure on nonscience majors’ comprehension of physics. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 97–102.
8. Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
9. Anthony, J. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (2004). The nature of phonological sensitivity: Converging e vidence from four studies of preschool and early grade-school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 43–55.
10. Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought and action. Oxford: Oxford University P ress.
11. Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and M otivation, 8, 47–90.
12. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary i nstruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Reading Research Q uarterly, 17, 462–481.
14. Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 65–83.
15. Bower, G. H., & Morrow, D. G. (1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension. Science, 247, 44–48.
16. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology o n the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47, 1–31.
17. Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2004). Does the influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students’ topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 324–336.
18. Britton, B. K., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.) (1996). Models of understanding text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Britton, B. K., & Gülgöz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve i nstructional texts: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329–345.
20. Broughton, S. H., & Sinatra, G. M. (2010). Text in the science classroom: Promoting e ngagement to facilitate conceptual change. In M. G. McKeown (Ed.), Bringing r eading researchers to life: Essays in honor of Isabelle Beck (pp. 232–256). New York: The Guilford Press.
21. Budd, D., Whitney, P., & Turley, K. J. (1995). Individual differences in working memory s trategies for reading expository text. Memory and Cognition, 23, 735–748.
22. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2007). Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written l anguage: A cognitive perspective. New York: Guilford.
23. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
24. Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). Effects of tasks on integrating information from m ultiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 209–222.
25. Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Mart í nez, T., Gilabert, R., & Gil, L. (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 19, 13–27.
26. Chambliss, M. J. (2002). The characteristics of well-designed science textbooks. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1–15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shit. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research o n conceptual change (pp. 61–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Compton, D. L. (2000). Modeling the growth of decoding skills in i rst grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 219–258.
29. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22, 8–15.
30. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and r eading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
31. Diakidoy, I. N., & Kendeou, P. (2001). Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: A comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning and I nstruction, 11, 1–20.
32. Diakidoy, I. N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The e ffects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 335–356.
33. Dickson, S. V., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998). Text organization: Instructional and curricular bases and implications. In D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and b asics (pp. 279–294). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128.
35. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, i ndings, and issues. Scientii c Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.
36. Engle, R. W., Cantor, J., & Carullo, J. J. (1992). Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: A test of four hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 972–992.
37. Engle, R. W., & Conway, A. R. A. (1998). Working memory and comprehension. In R. H. Logie & K. J. Gilhooly (Eds.), Working memory and thinking (pp. 67–91). East S ussex: Psychology Press.
38. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
39. Ferstl, E. C., & Kintsch, W. (1999). Learning from text: Structural knowledge assessment i n the study of discourse comprehension. In H. Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental models during reading (pp. 247–277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Fletcher, C. R. (1986). Strategies for the allocation of short-term memory during comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 43–58.
41. Fox, E. (2009). The role of reader characteristics in processing and learning from informational t ext. Review of Educational Research, 79, 197–261.
42. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
43. Gilabert, R., Martinez, G., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2005). Some good texts are always better: Text revision to foster inferences of readers with high and low prior background k nowledge. Learning and Instruction, 15, 45–68.
44. Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
46. Graesser, A. C., & Bertus, E. L. (1998). The construction of causal inferences while reading e xpository texts on science and technology. Scientii c Studies of Reading, 2, 247–269.
47. Graesser, A. C., & Clark, L. F. (1985). Structures and procedures of implicit knowledge. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
48. Graesser, A. C., Leon, J. A., & Otero, J. (2002). Introduction to the psychology of science t ext comprehension. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1–15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates.
49. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn 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 Publications.
50. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative t ext comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
51. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigield, 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.
52. Guzzetti, B. J. (1990). Effects of textual and instructional manipulations on concept a cquisition. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 11, 49–62.
53. Guzzetti, B. J. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16, 89–98.
54. 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 f rom reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117–159.
55. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self regulated comprehension during normal reading. In J. D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165–191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
56. Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1984). The role of conceptual conl ict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1–13.
57. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
58. Hynd, C., & Guzzetti, B. J. (1998). When knowledge contradicts intuition: Conceptual change. In C. Hynd (Ed.), Learning from text across conceptual domains (pp. 139–164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
59. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual d ifferences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
60. Kaakinen, J. K., & Hy ö nä, J. (2005). Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking, and recall. Discourse P rocesses, 40, 239–257.
61. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2002). Perspective effects on online text processing. Discourse Processes, 33, 159–173.
62. Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C. & Fulton, S. (2011). What we have been missing: The r ole of goals in reading comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. Magliano & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 375–394). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
63. Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., White, M. J., & van den Broek, P. (2008). Children’s i nference generation across different media. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 259–272.
64. Kendeou, P., Muis, K., & Fulton, S. (2011). The effects of epistemic beliefs and text structure o n reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365–383.
65. Kendeou, P., Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2004). The influence of reader’s prior k nowledge on text comprehension and learning from text. In R. Nata (Ed.), Progress in education (Vol. 13, pp. 189–209). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
66. Kendeou, P., Savage, R., & van den Broek, P. (2009). Revisiting the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 353–370.
67. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The role of readers’ misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235–245.
68. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes d uring reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567–1577.
69. Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral l anguage and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765–778.
70. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructionintegration m odel. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
71. Kintsch, W. (1994). Psycholinguistics and reading ability. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 721–739). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
72. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
73. Kintsch, W. & Van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
74. Kirby, J. R. & Savage, R. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42, 75–82.
75. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Towards a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
76. Lawson, M. J., & Chinnappan, M. (2000). Knowledge connectedness in geometry problem s olving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 26–43.
77. Lee-Sammons, W. H., & Whitney, P. (1991). Reading perspectives and memory for text: An individual differences analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 1074–1081.
78. Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working m emory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational P sychology, 94, 778–784.
79. Lipson, M. Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 243–261.
80. Long, D. L., Wilson, J., Hurley, R., & Prat, C. S. (2006). Assessing text representations w ith recognition: The interaction of domain knowledge and text coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 816–827.
81. Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College students’ conditional knowledge a bout reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 239–252.
82. Lorch, R. F., Jr., Lorch, E. P., & Morgan, A. M. (1987). Task effects and individual differences i n on-line processing of the topic structure of a text. Discourse Processes, 10, 63–80.
83. Lorch, R. F. Jr., & van den Broek, P. (1997). Understanding reading comprehension: Current and future contributions of cognitive science. Contemporary Educational P sychology, 22, 213–246.
84. Louwerse, M. M., & Mitchell, H. H. (2003) Toward a taxonomy of a set of discourse m arkers in dialog: A theoretical and computational linguistic account. Discourse P rocesses, 35, 199–239.
85. Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1991). A three-pronged method for studying inference g eneration in literary text. Poetics, 20, 193–232.
86. Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 251–283.
87. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615–629.
88. Maria, K., & MacGinitie, W. (1987). Learning from texts that refute the reader’s prior knowledge. Reading Research and Instruction, 26, 222–238.
89. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University P ress.
90. Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73.
91. Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning f rom multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643.
92. McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance i nstructions on shallow and deeper learning and reading time. The Journal of E xperimental Education, 74, 293–310.
93. McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Kambe, G. (2005). The effect of relevance instructions o n reading time and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 88–102.
94. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 218–253.
95. McKoon, G., & Ratclif, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.
96. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental P sychology, 55, 51–62.
97. McNamara, D. S. (Ed.) (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
98. McNamara, D. S., & Kendeou, P. (2011). Translating advances in reading comprehension r esearch to educational practice. International Electronic Journal in Elementary Education, 4, 33–46.
99. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always b etter? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.
100. McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297–384). New York: Academic Press.
101. Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.
102. Meyer, B. J. F. (1999). Importance of text structure in everyday reading. In A. Ram & K. Moorman (Eds.), Understanding language understanding: Computational models of reading (pp. 227–252). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
103. Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 121–143.
104. Meyer, B. J. F., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of the structure strategy and signaling on r ecall of the text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 141–159.
105. Millis, K. K., & Graesser, A. C. (1994). The time-course of constructing knowledgebased i nferences for scientific texts. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 583–599.
106. Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. McKeown & M. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum A ssociates.
107. Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (1992). Readers’ knowledge and the control of inferences i n reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 373–391.
108. O’Brien, E. J. (1995). Automatic components of discourse comprehension. In R. F. Lorch, Jr. & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 159–176). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
109. O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation m odel: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.
110. Ouellette, G. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 554–566.
111. Perfetti, C. A. (1988). Verbal ei ciency in reading ability. In M. Daneman & G. E. Mackinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 6, pp. 109–143). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
112. Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309–315.
113. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively r esponsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
114. Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2007). Revising what readers know: The effectiveness of refutations as a function of task and content. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2019–2032.
115. Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2009). Noticing and revising discrepancies as texts unfold. Discourse Processes, 46, 1–24.
116. Rapp, D. N., Taylor, H. A., & Crane, G. (2003). The impact of digital libraries on cognitive p rocesses: Psychological issues of hypermedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 609–628.
117. Rawson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (2004). Exploring encoding and retrieval effects of background i nformation on text memory. Discourse Processes, 38, 323–344.
118. Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 159–189.
119. Sindelar, P. T., Monda, L. E., & O’Shea, L. J. (1990). Effects of repeated readings on instructional- and master-level readers. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 220–226.
120. Singer, M., & Ritchot, K. F. M. (1996). The role of working memory capacity and k nowledge access in text inference processing. Memory and Cognition, 24, 733–743.
121. Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to r eading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934–947.
122. Surber, J. R., & Schroeder, M. (2007). Effect of prior domain knowledge and headings o n processing of informative text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 485–498.
123. Swanson, L. H., Zheng, X., & Jerman, O. (2009). Working memory, short-term memory, and reading disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 260–287.
124. Tan, A., & Nicholson, T. (1997). Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers to read words f aster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 276–288.
125. Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Relationships between w ord knowledge and reading comprehension in third-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 381–398.
126. Trabasso, T., & Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence t hrough online inferences and mental operations in working memory. Discourse P rocesses, 16, 3–34.
127. 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 Press.
128. van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of s cience texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied C ognitive Psychology, 22, 335–351.
129. van den Broek, P., & Kremer, K. E. (1999). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend d uring reading. In B. Taylor, M. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning (pp. 1–31). New York: Teacher’s College Press.
130. van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. E. J., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory and Cognition, 29, 1081–1087.
131. van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and c onstructionist approaches in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse P rocesses, 39, 299–316.
132. van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of reader’s standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 353–373). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
133. Vloedgraven, J. M. T., & Verhoeven, L. (2007). Screening of phonological awareness in t he early elementary grades: An IRT approach. Annals of Dyslexia, 57, 33–50.
134. Vosniadou, S. (2003). Exploring the relationships between conceptual change and intentional learning. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Printrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 377–406). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
135. Vosniadou, S. (Ed.) (2008). International handbook for research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge.
136. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.
137. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123–183.
138. Voss, J. F., & Bisanz, G. L. (1985). Knowledge and the processing of narrative and expository t exts. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 173–198). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
139. Wylie, J., & McGuinness, C. (2004). The interactive effects of prior knowledge and text s tructure for cognitive psychology texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 497–514.