Effects of text structure, reading goals and epistemic beliefs on conceptual change

Journal of Research in Reading

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 361-386

  Trevors, Gregory ^a   Muis, Krista R ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84944276170     PISSN: 01410423     EISSN: 14679817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9817.12031     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Anmarkrud, O., McCrudden, M.T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H.I. (2013). Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: Online comprehension processes and offline products. Instructional Science, 41, 873-894. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9263-8
2. Bohn-Gettler, C.M. & Rapp, D.N. (2011). Depending on my mood: Mood-driven influences on text comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 562-577. doi:10.1037/a0023458
3. Bråten, I. & Strømsø, H.I. (2010). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47, 1-31. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.001
4. van den Broek, P. & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335-351. doi:10.1002/acp.1418
5. van den Broek, P. & Kremer, K.E. (1999). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In B. Taylor, M. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning. (pp. 1-31). NY: Teacher's College Press.
6. Bromme, R., Pieschl, S., & Stahl, E. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: A functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 7-26. doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9053-5
7. Campbell, N. & Reece, J. (2005). Biology (7th ed.). San Fransico: Benjamin Cummings.
8. Chi, M.T.H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R.N. Giere (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science: Vol. XV. Cognitive models of science. (pp. 129-186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
9. Chi, M.T.H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change. (pp. 61-82). New York, NY: Routledge.
10. Chi, M.T.H., Kristensen, A.K., & Roscoe, R. (2012). Misunderstanding emergent causal mechanism in natural selection. In K. Rosengren, S. Brem, & G. Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution. (pp. 145-173). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11. Chi, M.T.H., Roscoe, R., Slotta, J., Roy, M., & Chase, M. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for 'emergent' processes. Cognitive Science, 36, 1-61. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01207.x
12. Dole, J.A. & Sinatra, G.M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109-128. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3302&3_5
13. Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, H.A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (rev. edn). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
14. Evans, E.M. (2008). Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: A developmental analysis. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change. (pp. 263-294). New York: Routledge.
15. Ferrari, M. & Chi, M.T.H. (1998). The nature of naive explanations of natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1231-1256. doi:10.1080/0950069980201005
16. Franco, G.M., Muis, K.R., Kendeou, P., Wang, X., Ranellucci, J., & Sampasivam, L. (2012). Examining the influences of epistemic beliefs and knowledge representations on cognitive processing and conceptual change when learning physics. Learning and Instruction, 22, 62-77. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.06.003
17. 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. doi:10.2307/747886
18. Hausknecht, J.P., Halpert, J.A., Di Paolo, N.T., & Moriarty Gerrard, M.O. (2007). Retesting in selection: A meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 373-385. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.373
19. Hofer, B.K. & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140. doi:10.3102/00346543067001088
20. Hynd, C.R. (2003). Conceptual change in response to persuasive messages. In G.M. Sinatra & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Ishiwa, K., Sanjosé, V. & Otero, J. (2013). Questioning and reading goals: Information-seeking questions asked on scientific texts read under different task conditions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 502-520. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02079.x
22. Kaakinen, J.K. & Hyönä, J. (2005). Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking, and recall. Discourse Processes, 40, 239-257. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp4003_4
23. Kendeou, P. & van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers' misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235-245. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.235
24. Kendeou, P. & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1567-1577. doi:10.3758/BF03193491
25. Kendeou, P., Muis, K.R., & Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors on reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365-383. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01436.x
26. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16-26. doi:10.2307/1177186
29. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309-328. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00030-7
30. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2
31. Linderholm, T. & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778-784. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.778
32. Magliano, J. & Graesser, A. (1991). A three-pronged method for studying inference generation in literary text. Poetics, 20, 193-232.
33. Mason, L. & Gava, M. (2007). Effects of epistemological beliefs and learning text structure on conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction. (pp. 165-196). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
34. Mason, L., Gava, M. & Boldrin, A. (2008). On warm conceptual change: The interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 291-309. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.291
35. McCrudden, M.T. & Kendeou, P. (2014). Exploring the link between cognitive processes and learning from refutational text. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 116-140. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01527.x
36. McCrudden, M.T. & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113-139. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
37. McNamara, D.S. & Magliano, J.P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed), The psychology of learning and motivation. (Vol. 51, pp. 297-384). New York, NY, US: Elsevier Science.
38. Moore, R., Mitchell, G., Bally, R., Inglis, M., Day, J., & Jacobs, D. (2002). Undergraduates' understanding of evolution: ascriptions of agency a problem for student learning. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 65-71. doi:10.1186/1936-6434-6-23
39. Muis, K.R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 173-190. doi:10.3102/00346543074003317
40. Muis, K.R. & Franco, G. (2010). Epistemic profiles and metacognition: Support for the consistency hypothesis. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 27-45. doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9041-9
41. Muis, K.R., Bendixen, L.D., & Haerle, F. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3-54. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9003-6
42. Muis, K.R., Kendeou, P., & Franco, G.M. (2011). Consistent results with the consistency hypothesis? The effects of epistemic beliefs on metacognitive processing. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 45-63. doi:10.1007/s11409-010-9066-0
43. Nehm, R.H. & Reilly, L. (2007). Biology majors' knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. Bioscience, 57, 263-272. doi:10.1641/B570311
44. Nehm, R.H. & Schonfeld, I. (2008). Measuring knowledge of natural selection: a comparison of the CINS, and open-response instrument, and oral interview. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 1131-1160. doi:10.1002/tea.20251
45. Nisbett, R.E. & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
46. Nussbaum, E.M. & Sinatra, G.M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3
47. Ozgungor, S. & Guthrie, J.T. (2004). Interactions among elaborative interrogation, knowledge, and interest in the process of constructing knowledge from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 437-443. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.437
48. Pichert, J.W. & Anderson, R.C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309-315. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.69.4.309
49. Ranellucci, J., Muis, K.R., Duffy, M., Wang, X., Sampasivam, L., & Franco, G.M. (2012). To master or perform? Exploring relations between achievement goals and conceptual change learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02072.x
50. Rapp, D.N. & Kendeou, P. (2007). Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2019-2032. doi:10.3758/BF03192934
51. Rapp, D.N. & Kendeou, P. (2009). Noticing and revising discrepancies as texts unfold. Discourse Processes, 46, 1-24. doi:10.1080/01638530802629141
52. Rapp, D.N. & Mensink, M.C. (2012). Methodological demands provide insight into reader focus and comprehension. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Colombia.
53. Settlage, J. (1994). Conceptions of natural selection: A snapshot of the sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 449-457. doi:10.1002/tea.3660310503
54. Settlage, J. (1996). Investigating the inconsistencies in college student responses to natural selection test questions. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 1. Retrieved 14 October 2012 from http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/7553/5320
55. Sheskin, D.J. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
56. Sinatra, G.M. & Pintrich, P. (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
57. Sinatra, G.M. (2005). The warming trend in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 107-115. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4002_5
58. Sinatra, G.M. & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Intentional conceptual change: The self-regulation of science learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Shunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. (pp. 203-216). New York, NY: Routledge.
59. Slotta, J.D. & Chi, M.T.H. (2006). The impact of ontology training on conceptual change: Helping students understand the challenging topics in science. Cognition and Instruction 24, 261-289.
60. Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2013) Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
61. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
62. Tilstra, J. & McMaster, K.L. (2013). Cognitive processes of middle grade readers when reading expository text with an assigned reading goal. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 66-74. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.011
63. Tippett, C.D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 951-970. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9203-x
64. Tzeng, Y., van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Lee, C. (2005). The computational implementation of the landscape model: Modeling inferential processes and memory representations of text comprehension. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 277-286. doi:10.3758/BF03192695
65. Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W.F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Review of Educational Research, 57, 51-67. doi:10.3102/00346543057001051
66. Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W.F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90018-W