Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of prior knowledge and text structure on cognitive processes during comprehension of scientific texts. To investigate the processes online, we used a thinkaloud methodology in Experiment 1 and a reading time methodology in Experiment 2. In both experiments, we obtained offline comprehension measures and measures of individual differences in working memory and need for cognition. Across the two experiments, the results indicated that readers adjust their processing as a function of the interaction between prior knowledge and text structure. In particular, adjustments in the actual processes that take place during reading were observed for readers who had erroneous prior knowledge, but only when they read a text that was structured to explicitly refute this prior knowledge. Furthermore, the results showed that readers’ memory for the text was affected by differences in their prior knowledge, independently of text structure. These findings contribute to our understanding of the relation between different factors that are associated with comprehension of scientific texts and have implications for theories of comprehension and conceptual change.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Afflerbach, P. (2002). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 87–103). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Albrecht, J. E., &O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 1061–1069.
Alvermann, D. E., &Hague, S. A. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: Effects of prior knowledge and text structure.Journal of Educational Research,82, 197–202.
Alvermann, D. E., &Hynd, C. (1989). Effects of prior knowledge activation modes and text structure on nonscience majors’ comprehension of physics.Journal of Educational Research,83, 97–102.
Alvermann, D. E..Smith, L. C., &Readence, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly,20, 420–436.
Baddeley, A., &Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory.Psychology of Learning & Motivation,8, 47–90.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932).Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Budd, D..Whitney, P., &Turley, K. J. (1995). Individual differences in working memory strategies for reading expository text.Memory & Cognition,23, 735–748.
Cacioppo, J. T., &Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,42, 116–131.
Chambliss, M. J. (2002). The characteristics of well-designed science textbooks. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Thepsychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1–15). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. H. (1978). Knowledge structures and memory. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.),Children’s thinking: What develops? (pp. 73–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. H..Feltovich, P. J., &Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.Cognitive Science,5, 121–152.
Chiesi, H. L..Spilich, G. J., &Voss, J. F. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 257–273.
Coté, N., &Goldman, S. R. (1999). Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children’s think-aloud protocols. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.),The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 169–193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Diakidoy, I. N., &Kendeou, P. (2001). Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: A comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches.Learning & Instruction,11, 1–20.
Diakidoy, I. N..Kendeou, P., &Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change.Contemporary Educational Psychology,28, 335–356.
Dochy, F..Segers, M., &Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge.Review of Educational Research,69, 145–186.
Dole, J. A. (2000). Readers, texts and conceptual change learning.Reading & Writing Quarterly,16, 99–118.
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention.Current Directions in Psychological Science,11, 19–23.
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 Sussex, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Ericsson, K. A., &Simon, H. A. (1993).Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fletcher, C. R. (1986). Strategies for the allocation of short-term memory during comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,25, 43–58.
Glenberg, A. M..Wilkinson, A. C., &Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension.Memory & Cognition,10, 597–602.
Goldman, S. R., &Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a 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 (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goldman, S. R., &Varma, S. (1995). CAPing the construction-integration model of discourse comprehension. In C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. R. Fletcher (Eds.),Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 337–358). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A. C., Leon, J. A., &Otero, J. (2002). Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.),The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1–15). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A..Singer, M., &Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative comprehension.Psychological Review,101, 371–395.
Guthrie, J. T..McGough, K..Bennett, L., &Rice, M. E. (1996). Concept-oriented reading instruction: An integrated curriculum to develop motivations and strategies for reading. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.),Developing engaged readers in school and home communities (pp. 165–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Hakala, C. M., &O’Brien, E. J. (1995). Strategies for resolving coherence breaks in reading.Discourse Processes,20, 167–185.
Hannon, B., &Daneman, M. (2001). A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology,93, 103–128.
Hestenes, D., &Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory.The Physics Teacher,33, 502–506.
Hestenes, D..Wells, M., &Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory.The Physics Teacher,30, 141–158.
Hewitt, P. G. (2002).Touch this! Conceptual physics for everyone. Glenview, IL: Pearson Education.
Jenkins, J. J. (1979). Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model of memory experiments. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 429–446). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kardash, C. M., &Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of pre-existing beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues.Journal of Educational Psychology,88, 260–271.
Kendeou, P., Rapp, D. N., &van den Broek, P. (2004). The influence of readers’ prior knowledge on text comprehension and learning from text. In R. Nata (Ed.),Progress in education (Vol. 13, pp. 189–209). New York: Nova Science.
Kendeou, P., &van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers’ misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text.Journal of Educational Psychology,97, 235–245.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.Psychological Review,95, 163–182.
Kintsch, W. (1998).Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langston, M. C., &Trabasso, T. (1999). Modeling causal integration and availability of information during comprehension of narrative texts. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.),The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 29–69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Linderholm, T..Virtue, S..Tzeng, Y., &van den Broek, P. (2004). Fluctuations in the availability of information during reading: Capturing cognitive processes using the Landscape Model.Discourse Processes,37, 165–186.
Lipson, M. Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability.Journal of Reading Behavior,14, 243–261.
Lorch, R. F., Jr., &van den Broek, P. (1997). Understanding reading comprehension: Current and future contributions to cognitive science.Contemporary Educational Psychology,22, 213–246.
Magliano, J. P., &Graesser, A. C. (1991). A three-pronged method for studying inference generation in literary text.Poetics,20, 193–232.
Magliano, J. P., &Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis.Cognition & Instruction,21, 251–283.
Magliano, J. P..Trabasso, T., &Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processes during comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology,91, 615–629.
Maria, K., &MacGinitie, W. (1987). Learning from texts that refute the reader’s prior knowledge.Reading Research & Instruction,26, 222–238.
McKoon, G., &Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading.Psychological Review,99, 440–466.
McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,55, 51–62.
McNamara, D. S., &Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence.Discourse Processes,22, 247–288.
McNamara, D. S..Kintsch, E..Songer, N. B., &Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text.Cognition & Instruction,14, 1–43.
Means, M. L., &Voss, J. F. (1985). Star Wars: A developmental study of expert and novice knowledge structures.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 746–757.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975).The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
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: MIT Press.
Meyer, B. J. F., &Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall.American Educational Research Journal,21, 121–143.
Myers, J. L., &O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading.Discourse Processes,26, 131–157.
Myers, J. L..O’Brien, E. J..Albrecht, J. E., &Mason, R. A. (1994). Maintaining global coherence during reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 876–886.
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: Erlbaum.
Peeck, J., van den Bosch, A. B., &Kreupeling, W. J. (1982). Effect of mobilizing prior knowledge on learning from text.Journal of Educational Psychology,74, 771–777.
Posner, G..Strike, K..Hewson, P., &Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change.Science Education,66, 211–227.
Pressley, M., &Afflerbach, P. (1995).Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies.Reading Research Quarterly,24, 273–295.
Rapp, D. N..Gerrig, R. J., &Prentice, D. A. (2001). Readers’ traitbased models of characters in narrative comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,45, 737–750.
Rapp, D. N., &van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic text comprehension.Current Directions in Psychological Science,14, 276–279.
Recht, D. R., &Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text.Journal of Educational Psychology,80, 16–20.
Singer, M..Andrusiak, P..Reisdorf, P., &Black, N. L. (1992). Individual differences in bridging inference processes.Memory & Cognition,20, 539–548.
Trabasso, T., &Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through on-line inferences and mental operations in working memory.Discourse Processes,16, 3–34.
Tukey, J. W. (1977).Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
van den Broek, P..Fletcher, C. R., &Risden, K. (1993). Investigations of inferential processes in reading: A theoretical and methodological integration.Discourse Processes,16, 169–180.
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). New York: Teacher’s College Press.
van den Broek, P..Rapp, D. N., &Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension.Discourse Processes,39, 299–316.
van den Broek, P..Risden, K., &Husebye-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 reading (pp. 353–373). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., &Linderholm, T. (1999). The Landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of memory representation. In H. van Oosterndorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.),The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zwaan, R. A. (1999). Five dimensions of narrative comprehension: The events indexing model. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.),Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence (pp. 93–110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zwaan, R. A., &Brown, C. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation-model construction.Discourse Processes,21, 289–327.
Zwaan, R. A., &Singer, M. (2003). Text comprehension. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.),Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 83–121). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This project was supported by a Robert and Corrie Beck Fellowship from the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota and by a dissertation research grant from the Graduate School at the University of Minnesota to P. K., by a Golestan and Lorentz fellowship at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences to P. v. d. B., and by the Center for Cognitive Sciences at the University of Minnesota through Grant HD-07151 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. We thank Joe Magliano, David N. Rapp, and two anonymous reviewers for their advice and comments on the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P. The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition 35, 1567–1577 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193491
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193491