RESOLV: Readers' Representation of Reading Contexts and Tasks

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 200-215

  Rouet, Jean François ^a,b   Britt, M Anne ^c   Durik, Amanda M ^c  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE POITIERS   (France)

^c NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85020741261     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Anmarkrud, Ø., 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9263-8
2. Armbruster, B. B., & Armstrong, J.O., (1993). Locating information in text:A focus on children in the elementary grades. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 139–161.
3. Baillet, S. D., & Keenan, J. M., (1986). The role of encoding and retrieval processes in the recall of text. Discourse Processes, 9, 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538609544643
4. Black, A., Freeman, P., & Johnson-Laird, P. N., (1986). Plausibility and the comprehension of text. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1986.tb01980.x
5. Britt, M. A., & Gabrys, G., (2000). Teaching advanced literacy skills for the world wide web. In C., Wolfe (Ed.), Webs we weave:Learning and teaching on the world wide web (pp. 73–90). New York, NY:Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012761891-3/50007-2
6. Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Durik, A., (in press). Literacy beyond text comprehension:A theory of purposeful reading. New York, NY:Routledge.
7. Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E., (2011). Selecting information to answer questions:Strategic individual differences when searching texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.007
8. Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E., (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.209
9. Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Gilabert, R., & Gil, L., (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 19, 13–27. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.12.003
10. Dreher, M. J., & Guthrie, J. T., (1990). Cognitive processes in textbook chapter search tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 323–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/747694
11. García-Arista, E., Campanario, J. M., & Otero, J., (1996). Influence of subject-matter setting on comprehension monitoring. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11, 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173282
12. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I., (2010). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents:Which is better for whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.002
13. Goldman, S. R., (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N., Shuart-Ferris & D. M., Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 313–347). Greenwich, CT:Information Age.
14. Goldman, S. R., & Durán, R. P., (1988). Answering questions from oceanography texts:Learner, task and text characteristics. Discourse Processes, 11, 373–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544710
15. Johnson-Laird, P. N., (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.
16. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., & 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. 10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.447
17. Kaakinen, J. K., Lehtola, A., & Paattilammi, S., (2015). The influence of a reading task on children's eye movements during reading. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 640–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1005623
18. Kendeou, P., Muis, K. R., & Fulton, S., (2011). Reader and text factors in reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365–383. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01436.x
19. Kintsch, W., (1998). Comprehension:A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.
20. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A., (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.85.5.363
21. Kopp, K., (2013). Selecting and using information from multiple documents for argumentation (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1459216967
22. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J., (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2
23. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W., (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B., Ruddell & N. J., Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1568–1611). Newark, DE:International Reading Association. https://doi.org/10.1598/0872075028.54
24. Lewis, M. R., & Mensink, M. C., (2012). Prereading questions and online text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 49, 367–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2012.662801
25. List, A., & Alexander, P. A., (2015, April). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
26. List, A., Grossnickle, E. M., & Alexander, P. A., (2016). Undergraduate students' justifications for source selection in a digital academic context. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54, 22–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115606659
27. Lorch, R. F., Jr., Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A., (1993). College students' conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.85.2.239
28. Macedo-Rouet, M., Braasch, J. G. L., Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F., (2013). Teaching fourth and fifth graders to evaluate information sources during text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 204–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769995
29. McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.12.001
30. McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G., (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
31. Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A., (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 488–496. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.91.3.488
32. Perfetti, C. A., (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
33. Pichert, D. E., & Anderson, R. C., (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.69.4.309
34. Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D., (1985). Increasing students' awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 217–235. https://doi.org/10.2307/1162841
35. Rouet, J.-F., (2006). The skills of document use:from text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203820094
36. Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A., (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T., McCrudden, J. P., Magliano, & G., Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT:Information Age.
37. Rouet, J.-F., & Coutelet, B., (2008). The acquisition of document search strategies in grade school students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1415
38. Rouet, J.-F., & Le Bigot, L., (2007). Effects of academic training on metatextual knowledge and hypertext navigation. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 157–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9011-z
39. Rouet, J.-F., Rupp, K., Lescarret, C., Steciuch, C., & Britt, M. A., (2017, April). What to read and how to read it:Students' context models determine their information-seeking strategies. Paper presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Association for Educational Research. San Antonio, TX.
40. Rouet, J.-F., Vidal-Abarca, E., Bert-Erboul, A., & Millogo, V., (2001). Effects of information search tasks on the comprehension of instructional text. Discourse Processes, 31, 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3102_03
41. Salmerón, L., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Mañá, A., Gil, L., & Naumann, J., (2015). Strategic decisions in task-oriented reading. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18, E102. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.101
42. Snow, C. E., & the RAND Reading Group. (2002). Reading for understanding. Toward a R&D program for reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA:RAND.
43. van den Broek, P., Bohn-Gettler, C. M., Kendeou, P., Carlson, S., & White, M. J., (2011). When a reader meets a text:The role of standards of coherence in reading comprehension. In M. T., McCrudden, J. P., Magliano, & G., Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 123–140). Greenwich, CT:Information Age.
44. van den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C. R., & Thurlow, R., (1996). A “landscape” view of reading:Fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. In B.K., Britton & A.C., Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165–187). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
45. van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husbye-Hartmann, E., (1995). The role of readers' standards of coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F., Lorch, Jr. & E. J., O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in text comprehension (pp. 353–373). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
46. Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L., (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 817–826. doi:10.1037/a0020062.
47. Vidal Abarca, E., Salmerón, L., & Mañá, A., (2011). Individual differences in task-oriented reading. In M. T., McCrudden, J. P., Magliano, & G., Schraw (Eds.), Relevance instructions and goal focusing in text learning (pp. 267–293). Greenwich, CT:Information Age.
48. White, S., Chen, J., & Forsyth, B., (2010). Reading-related literacy activities of American adults:Time spent, task types, and cognitive skills used. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 276–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/1086296x.2010.503552
49. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F., (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D., Hacker, J., Dunlowsky, & A., Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.