Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education
- The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- How Cognitive Psychology Can Inform Evidence-Based Education Reform
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Science and Math
- Part III Reading and Writing
- Part IV General Learning Strategies
- Part V Metacognition
- Index
- References
Part III - Reading and Writing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 February 2019
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education
- The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- How Cognitive Psychology Can Inform Evidence-Based Education Reform
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Science and Math
- Part III Reading and Writing
- Part IV General Learning Strategies
- Part V Metacognition
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education , pp. 235 - 408Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
References
Albrecht, J. E. & Myers, J. L. (1995). Role of context in accessing distant information during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1459–1468.Google Scholar
Albrecht, J. E. & Myers, J. L. (1998). Accessing distant text information during reading: Effects of contextual cues. Discourse Processes, 26, 87–107.Google Scholar
Albrecht, J. E. & O’Brien, E. J. (1991). Effects of centrality on retrieval of text-based concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 932–939.Google Scholar
Albrecht, J. E. & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1061–1070.Google Scholar
Albrecht, J. E. & O’Brien, E. J. (1995). Goal processing and the maintenance of coherence. In Lorch, R. F. & O’Brien, E. J. (eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 263–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105(1), 158.Google Scholar
Cook, A. E. & Guéraud, S. (2005). What have we been missing? The role of general world knowledge in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 39, 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, A. E., Halleran, J. G., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). What is readily available during reading? A memory-based text processing view. Discourse Processes, 26, 109–129.Google Scholar
Cook, A. E., Lassonde, K. A., Splinter, A. et al. (2014). The role of relevance in the activation and instantiation of predictive inferences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 29, 244–257.Google Scholar
Cook, A. E., Limber, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (2001). Situation-based context and the availability of predictive inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 220–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, A. E. & Myers, J. L. (2004). Processing discourse roles in scripted narratives: The influences of context and world knowledge. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 268–288.Google Scholar
Cook, A. E., Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (2005). Processing an anaphor when there is no antecedent. Discourse Processes, 39, 101–120.Google Scholar
Cook, A. E. & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). Knowledge activation, integration, and validation during narrative text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 51, 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, A. E. & O’Brien, E. J. (2015). Passive activation and instantiation of inferences during reading. In O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Lorch, R. F. Jr. (eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 19–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, A. E., Walsh, E., Bills, M. A. A., Kircher, J. C., & O’Brien, E. J. (2018). Validation of semantic illusions independent of anomaly detection: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, A. E. & Wei, W. (2017). Using eye movements to study reading processes: Methodological considerations. In Was, C. A., Sansoti, F. J., & Morris, B. J. (eds.), Eye tracking technology applications in educational research (pp. 27–47). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creer, S. D., Cook, A. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (2018). Competing activation during fantasy text comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22, 308–320.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1983). The activation of antecedent information during the processing of anaphoric reference in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 121–132.Google Scholar
Dole, J. A., Valencia, S. W., Greer, E. A., & Wardrop, J. L. (1991). Effects of two types of prereading instruction on the comprehension of narrative and expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 26 (2), 142–159.Google Scholar
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 19–23.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211–245.Google Scholar
Erickson, T. D. & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–551.Google Scholar
Ferguson, H. J. & Sanford, A. J. (2008). Anomalies in real and counterfactual worlds: An eye-movement investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 609–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G.,& Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Patson, N. D. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1‐2), 71–83.Google Scholar
Fountas, I. C. & Pinnell, G. S. (2006). Teaching for comprehending and fluency: Thinking, talking, and writing about reading, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Fountas, I. C. & Pinnell, G. S. (2008). When readers struggle: Teaching that works. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Foy, J. E. & Gerrig, R. J. (2014). Flying to Neverland: How readers tacitly judge norms during comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 42(8), 1250–1259.Google Scholar
Garrod, S., O’Brien, E. J., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1990). Elaborative inferencing as an active or passive process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(2), 250–257.Google Scholar
Garrod, S. & Sanford, A. (1977). Interpreting anaphoric relations: The integration of semantic information while reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(1), 77–90.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. (1993). Less-skilled readers have less efficient suppression mechanisms. Psychological Science, 4, 294–298.Google Scholar
Gerrig, R. J. (1989). Suspense in the absence of uncertainty. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(6), 633–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrig, R. J. & O’Brien, E. J. (2005). The scope of memory-based processing. Discourse Processes, 39(2–3), 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillund, G. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91, 1–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman, S. R., McCarthy, K. S., & Burkett, C. (2015). Interpretive inferences in literature. In O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Lorch, R. F. Jr. (eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 386–415). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, P. B. & Hillinger, M. L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 20, 179–196.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C. (2015). Deeper learning with advances in discourse science and technology. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.Google Scholar
Guéraud, S., Harmon, M. E., & Peracchi, K. A. (2005). Updating situation models: The memory-based contribution. Discourse Processes, 39, 243–263.Google Scholar
Guéraud, S., Tapiero, I., & O’Brien, E. J. (2008). Context and the activation of predictive inferences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 351–356.Google Scholar
Guéraud, S., Walsh, E., Cook, A. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (in press). Validating character profiles during reading: The effect of recency. Journal of Research in Reading.Google Scholar
Hakala, C. M. & O’Brien, E. J. (1995). Strategies for resolving coherence breaks in reading. Discourse Processes, 20(2), 167–185.Google Scholar
Harmon-Vukić, M., Guéraud, S., Lassonde, K. A., & O’Brien, E. J. (2009). The activation and instantiation of instrumental inferences. Discourse Processes, 46(5), 467–490.Google Scholar
Henderson, I., Snowling, M., & Clark, P. (2013). Accessing, integrating, and inhibiting word meaning in poor comprehenders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 177–198.Google Scholar
Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528–551.Google Scholar
Hyönä, J., LorchJr, R. F., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 44–55.Google Scholar
Hyönä, J. & Nurminen, A. M. (2006). Do adult readers know how they read? Evidence from eye movement patterns and verbal reports. British Journal of Psychology, 97(1), 31–50.Google Scholar
Isberner, M. B. & Richter, T. (2014). Does validation during language comprehension depend on an evaluative mindset?. Discourse Processes, 51, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamas, E. N. & Reder, L. M. (1995). The role of familiarity in cognitive processing. In Lorch, R. F., & O’Brien, E. J. (eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 177–202). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kamas, E. N., Reder, I. M., & Ayers, M. S. (1996). Partial matching in the Moses Illusion: Response bias not sensitivity. Memory and Cognition, 24, 687–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keefe, D. E. & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The time course and durability of predictive inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 32 (4), 446–463.Google Scholar
Keenan, J. M., Baillet, S. D., & Brown, P. (1984). The effects of causal cohesion on comprehension and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 115–126.Google Scholar
Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R., & O’Brien, E. J. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 854–865.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. & Vipond, D. (1979). Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory. In Nilsson, L. G. (ed.), Perspectives on memory research (pp. 329–365). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Klin, C. M., Guzmán, A. E., & Levine, W. H. (1999). Prevalence and persistence of predictive inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(4), 593–604.Google Scholar
Klin, C. M., Guzmán, A. E., Weingartner, K. M., & Ralano, A. S. (2006). When anaphor resolution fails: Partial encoding of anaphoric inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(1), 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klin, C. M., Weingartner, K. M., Guzmán, A. E., & Levine, W. H. (2004). Readers’ sensitivity to linguistic cues in narratives: How salience influences anaphor resolution. Memory and Cognition, 32(3), 511–522.Google Scholar
Lassonde, K. A. & O’Brien, E. J. (2009). Contextual specificity in the activation of predictive inferences. Discourse Processes, 46(5), 426–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, R. B. (1995). On-line evidence for elaborative logical inferences in text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(6), 1469–1482.Google Scholar
Lea, R. B. & Mulligan, E. J. (2002). The effect of negation on deductive inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(2), 303–317.Google Scholar
Lea, R. B., Mulligan, E. J., & Walton, J. L. (2005). Accessing distant premise information: How memory feeds reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 387–395.Google Scholar
Levine, W. H., Guzmán, A. E., & Klin, C. M. (2000). When anaphor resolution fails. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 594–617.Google Scholar
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(4), 778–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linderholm, T. & Zhao, Q. (2008). The impact of strategy instruction and timing of estimates on low and high working-memory capacity readers’ absolute monitoring accuracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, D. L. & Chong, J. L. (2001). Comprehension skill and global coherence: A paradoxical picture of poor comprehenders’ abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1424–1429.Google Scholar
Long, D. L. & Lea, R. B. (2005). Have we been searching for meaning in all the wrong places? Defining the “search after meaning” principle in comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, M. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1990). Levels of representation in the interpretation of anaphoric reference and instrument inference. Memory and Cognition, 18(6), 611–631.Google Scholar
MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading test, 4th edn. Itasca, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1980). The comprehension processes and memory structures involved in anaphoric reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(6), 668–682.Google Scholar
McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1981). The comprehension processes and memory structures involved in instrumental inference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(6), 671–682.Google Scholar
McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1986). Inferences about predictable events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(1), 82–91.Google Scholar
McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. (1997). Comprehension skill: A knowledge-based account. In Langley, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the nineteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 508–513). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Jacovina, M. E., & Allen, L. K. (2016). Higher order thinking in comprehension. In Afflerbach, P. (ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Text and context (pp. 164–176). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. & McDaniel, M. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 465–482.Google Scholar
Murray, J. D., Klin, C. M., & Myers, J. L. (1993). Forward inferences in narrative text. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4), 464–473.Google Scholar
Myers, J. L., Cook, A. E., Kambe, G., Mason, R. A., & O’Brien, E. J. (2000). Semantic and episodic effects on bridging inferences. Discourse Processes, 29, 179–199.Google Scholar
Myers, J. L. & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131–157.Google Scholar
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, and Cognition, 20(4), 876–886.Google Scholar
Myers, J. L., Shinjo, M., & Duffy, S. A. (1987). Degree of causal relatedness and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(4), 453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Google Scholar
Nelson, M. J., Brown, J. I., & Denny, M. J. (1960). The Nelson-Denny Reading Test: Vocabulary, Comprehension, Rate. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S. & Van Berkum, J. J. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1098–1111.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J. (1987). Antecedent search processes and the structure of text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2), 278–290.Google ScholarPubMed
O’Brien, E. J. & Albrecht, J. E. (1991). The role of context in accessing antecedents in text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(1), 94–102.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J. & Albrecht, J. E. (1992). Comprehension strategies in the development of a mental model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 777–784.Google ScholarPubMed
O’Brien, E. J., Albrecht, J. E., Hakala, C. M., & Rizzella, M. L. (1995). Activation and suppression of antecedents during reinstatement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3), 626–634.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J. & Cook, A. E. (2015). Models of discourse comprehension. In Pollatsek, A., & Treiman, R. (eds.), Handbook on reading (pp. 217–231). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J. & Cook, A. E. (2016a). Coherence threshold and the continuity of processing: The RI-Val model of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 53, 326–338.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J. & Cook, A. E. (2016b). Separating the activation, integration, and validation components of reading. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 65, 249–276.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Guéraud, S. (2010). Accessibility of outdated information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 979–991.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Peracchi, K. A. (2004). Updating situation models: A reply to Zwaan and Madden. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 289–291.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J., Duffy, S. A., & Myers, J. L. (1986). Anaphoric inference during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(3), 346–352.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J. & Myers, J. L. (1987). The role of causal connections in the retrieval of text. Memory and Cognition, 15(5), 419–427.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J. & Myers, J. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., & van den Broek, P. (eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J., Plewes, P. S., & Albrecht, J. E. (1990). Antecedent retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(2), 241–249.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J., Raney, G. E., Albrecht, J. E., & Rayner, K. (1997). Processes involved in the resolution of explicit anaphors. Discourse Processes, 23(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.Google Scholar
O’Brien, E. J., Shank, D. M., Myers, J. L., & Rayner, K. (1988). Elaborative inferences during reading: Do they occur on-line?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 410–420.Google Scholar
Peracchi, K. A. & O’Brien, E. J. (2004). Character profiles and the activation of predictive inferences. Memory and Cognition, 32(7), 1044–1052.Google Scholar
Potts, G. R., Keenan, J. M., & Golding, J. M. (1988). Assessing the occurrence of elaborative inferences: Lexical decision versus naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 399–415.Google Scholar
Rapp, D. N., Hinze, S. R., Slaten, D. G., & Horton, W. S. (2014). Amazing stories: Acquiring and avoiding inaccurate information from fiction. Discourse Processes, 51, 50–74.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31–74.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., Masson, M. E., Potter, M. C., & Treiman, R. (2016). So much to read, so little time: How do we read, and can speed reading help?. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(1), 4–34.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Slattery, T. J., & Bélanger, N. N. (2010). Eye movements, the perceptual span, and reading speed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(6), 834–839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reder, L. M. & Cleeremans, A. (1990). The role of partial matches in comprehension: The Moses Illusion revisited. In Graesser, A. C. & Bower, G. H. (eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 25, pp. 233–258). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reder, L. M. & Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses Illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match?. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 385–406.Google Scholar
Richter, T. (2015). Validation and comprehension of text information: Two Sides of the Same Coin. Discourse Processes, 52, 337–354.Google Scholar
Rizzella, M. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1996). Accessing global causes during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1208–1218.Google Scholar
Rizzella, M. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (2002). Retrieval of concepts in script-based texts and narratives: The influence of general world knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 780–790.Google Scholar
Routman, R. (1991). Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. (2002). Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind and Language, 17(1‐2), 188–206.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. & Emmott, C. (2012). Mind, brain and narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1989). What, when, and how? Questions of immediacy in anaphoric reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 235–262.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26, 159–190.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (2005). Memory-based approaches and beyond. Discourse Processes, 39(2–3), 205–224.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. & Graesser, A. C. (2006). Shallow processing and underspecification. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 99–108.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(9), 382–386.Google Scholar
Singer, M. (1979). Processes of inference during sentence encoding. Memory and Cognition, 7, 192–200.Google Scholar
Singer, M. (1993). Causal bridging inferences: Validating consistent and inconsistent sequences. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(2), 340–359.Google Scholar
Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 574–591.Google Scholar
Singer, M. (2013). Validation in reading comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 361–366.Google Scholar
Singer, M. & Doering, J. C. (2014). Exploring individual differences in language validation. Discourse Processes, 51, 167–188.Google Scholar
Singer, M. & Ferreira, F. (1983). Inferring consequences in story comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 437–448.Google Scholar
Singer, M., Graesser, A. C., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Minimal or global inference during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(4), 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, M. & Halldorson, M. (1996). Constructing and validating motive bridging inferences. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 1–38.Google Scholar
Singer, M., Halldorson, M., Lear, J. C., & Andrusiak, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 507–524.Google Scholar
Smith, E. R. & O’Brien, E. J. (2016). Enhancing memory access for less-skilled readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20, 421–435.Google Scholar
Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Smith, F. & Goodman, K. S. (1971). On the psycholinguistic method of teaching reading. Elementary School Journal, 71, 177–181.Google Scholar
Trabasso, T., Secco, T., & van den Broek, P. W. (1984). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In Mandl, H., Stein, N. L., & Trabasso, T. (eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 83–111). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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 McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J., & Schraw, G. (eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 123–139). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory and Cognition, 29(8), 1081–1087.Google Scholar
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 Britton, B. K. & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Models of understanding text (pp.165–187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of readers’ standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In Lorch, R. F. & O’Brien, E. J. (eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 353–373). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van den Broek, P., Virtue, S., Everson, M. G., Tzeng, Y., & Sung, Y. C. (2002). Comprehension and memory of science texts: Inferential processes and the construction of a mental representation. In Otero, J., Leon, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 131–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, E. K., Cook, A. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (2018). Processing real-world violations embedded within a fantasy-world narrative. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 2282–2294.Google Scholar
Wei, W., & Cook, A. E. (2016). Semantic size and contextual congruency effects during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Discourse Processes, 53, 415–429.Google Scholar
Williams, C. R., Cook, A. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (2018). Validating semantic illusions: Competition between context and general world knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 1414–1429.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (1999). Five dimensions of narrative comprehension: The event-indexing model. In Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., & van den Broek, P. (eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 93–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
References
Ackerman, J. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10, 334–370.Google Scholar
Akkus, R. (2006). The impact of writing on students’ performances on the post test. In Alatorre, S., Cortina, J. L., Sáiz, M., & Méndez, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (p. 326). Mérida: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.Google Scholar
Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry‐based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1745–1765.Google Scholar
Akkus, R. & Hand, B. (2005). Mathematics reasoning heuristic: Writing-to-learn. In Lloyd, G. M., Wilson, M., Wilkins, J. L. M., & Behm, S. L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (pp. 1–3). Roanoke, VA: Virginia Polytechnic and State University.Google Scholar
Applebee, A. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54, 577–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atasoy, Ş. (2013). Effect of writing-to-learn strategy on undergraduates’ conceptual understanding of electrostatics. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22, 593–602.Google Scholar
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (2009). Genre and cognitive development: Beyond writing to learn. Pratiques. Linguistique, littérature, didactique, 143–144, 127–138.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2003.) Fostering the application of learning strategies in writing learning protocols. In Schmalhofer, F. & Young, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the European cognitive science conference 2003. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17, 564–577.Google Scholar
Bezemer, J. & Kress, G. (2015). Multimodality, learning and communication: A social semiotic frame. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boscolo, P. & Carotti, L. (2003). Does writing contribute to improving high school students’ approach to literature? L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 3, 197–224.Google Scholar
Boscolo, P. & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In Tynjälä, P., Mason, L., & Lonka, K. (eds.), Studies in Writing: Vol. 7. Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 83–104). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Britton, J. (1982). Writing-to-learn and learning to write. In Pradl, G. M. (ed.), Prospect and retrospect: Selected essays of James Britton (pp. 94–111.). Montclair, NJ: Boynton and Cook Publishers. (Reprinted from The Humanity of English: NCTE Distinguished Lectures 1972.)Google Scholar
Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). School councils research studies: The development of writing abilities (pp. 11–18). London: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
Cantrell, R. J., Fusaro, J. A., & Dougherty, E. A. (2000): Exploring the effectiveness of journal writing on learning social studies: A comparative study. Reading Psychology, 21, 1–11.Google Scholar
Childers, P. B., Gere, A. R., & Young, A. (eds.), (1994). Programs and practices: Writing across the secondary school curriculum. Montclair, NJ: Boynton and Cook Publishers.Google Scholar
Corcelles Seuba, M. & Castelló, M. (2015). Learning philosophical thinking through collaborative writing in secondary education. Journal of Writing Research, 7, 157–200. https://doi.org/10.17239 jowr-2015.07.01.07Google Scholar
De La Paz, S. & Felton, M. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 174–192.Google Scholar
Drabick, D. A., Weisberg, R., Paul, L., & Bubier, J. L. (2007). Keeping it short and sweet: Brief, ungraded writing assignments facilitate learning. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 172–176.Google Scholar
Duke, N. K., Purcell‐Gates, V., Hall, L. A., & Tower, C. (2006). Authentic literacy activities for developing comprehension and writing. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 344–355.Google Scholar
Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29, 417–446.Google Scholar
Galbraith, D. (2009). Writing about what we know: Generating ideas in writing. In Beard, R., Myhill, D., Riley, J., & Nystrand, M. (eds.), The Sage handbook of writing development (pp. 48–64). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Galbraith, D., Ford, S., Walker, G., & Ford, J. (2005). The contribution of different components of working memory to knowledge transformation during writing. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 5, 113–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelati, C., Galvan, N., & Boscolo, P. (2014). Summary writing as a tool for improving the comprehension of expository texts: An intervention study in primary school. In Klein, P. D., Boscolo, P., Kirkpatrick, L. C., & Gelati, C. (eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 28: Writing as a learning activity (pp. 191–216). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (2003). Why we’re so smart. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 195–235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gere, A. R. (ed.). (1985). Roots in the sawdust: Writing to learn across the disciplines. Urbana: IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Gillespie, A., Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., & Hebert, M. (2014). High school teachers’ use of writing to support students’ learning: a national survey. Reading and Writing, 27, 1043–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingerich, K. J., Bugg, J. M., Doe, S. R., Rowland, C. A., Richards, T. L., Tompkins, S. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Active processing via write-to-learn assignments learning and retention benefits in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 303–308.Google Scholar
Glogger, I., Holzäpfel, L., Schwonke, R., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2009). Activation of learning strategies in writing learning journals. Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie, 23, 95–104.Google Scholar
Glogger, I., Schwonke, R., Holzäpfel, L., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2012). Learning strategies assessed by journal writing: Prediction of learning outcomes by quantity, quality, and combinations of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 452–468.Google Scholar
Graham, S. & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 710–744.Google Scholar
Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Gunduz, S. (2006). Comparing student understanding of quantum physics when embedding multimodal representations into two different writing formats: Presentation format versus summary report format. Science Education, 90, 1092–1112.Google Scholar
Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19, 354–367.Google Scholar
Hand, B., Gunel, M., & Ulu, C. (2009). Sequencing embedded multimodal representations in a writing to learn approach to the teaching of electricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 225–247.Google Scholar
Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004). Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 186–210.Google Scholar
Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2007). Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on year 10 biology students’ understanding of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instructional Science, 35, 343–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006–9012-3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Hand, B., Yang, O. E. M., & Bruxvoort, C. (2007). Using writing-to-learn science strategies to improve year 11 students’ understandings of stoichiometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 125–143.Google Scholar
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 295–340.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of the writing processes. In Gregg, L. W. & Steinberg, E. R. (eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hebert, M., Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2013). Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 26, 111–138.Google Scholar
Hebert, M., Graham, S., Rigby-Wills, H., & Ganson, K. (2014). Effects of note-taking and extended writing on expository text comprehension: Who benefits? Learning Disabilities – A Contemporary Journal, 12(1), 43–68.Google Scholar
Hewitt, J. & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 75–96.Google Scholar
Hohenshell, L.M. & Hand, B. (2006). Writing‐to‐learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336965Google Scholar
Hübner, S., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2010). Writing learning journals: Instructional support to overcome learning-strategy deficits. Learning and Instruction, 20, 18–29.Google Scholar
Jennings, J. H. (1990). A comparison of summary and journal writing as components of an interactive comprehension model. In Zuttell, J. & McCormick, S. (eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction: Fortieth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 67–82). Chicago: National Reading Conference.Google Scholar
Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065–1084.Google Scholar
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing as a learning tool: Testing the role of students’ writing strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 17–34.Google Scholar
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 18, 379–390.Google Scholar
Kingir, S., Geban, O., & Gunel, M. (2013). Using the Science Writing Heuristic approach to enhance student understanding in chemical change and mixture. Research in Science Education, 43, 1645–1663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012–9326-xGoogle Scholar
Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 203–270.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D. & Boscolo, P. (2016). Trends in research on writing as a learning activity. Journal of Writing Research, 7, 311–350.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D., Haug, K. N., & Arcon, N. (2017). The effects of rhetorical and content subgoals on writing and learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 85, 291–308.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D. & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2010). A framework for content area writing: Mediators and moderators. Journal of Writing Research, 2(1), 1–46.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D. & Leacock, T. L. (2012). Distributed cognition as a framework for understanding writing. In Berninger, V. W. (ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 133–152). New York: Psychology Press and Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D., Piacente-Cimini, S., & Williams, L. A. (2007). The role of writing in learning from analogies. Learning and Instruction, 17, 595–611.Google Scholar
Konopak, B. C., Martin, S. H., & Martin, M. A. (1990). Using a writing strategy to enhance sixth-grade students’ comprehension of content material. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 19–37.Google Scholar
Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of the Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Leopold, C. & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22, 16–26.Google Scholar
Leopold, C., Sumfleth, E., & Leutner, D. (2013). Learning with summaries: Effects of representation mode and type of learning activity on comprehension and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 27, 40–49.Google Scholar
Linton, D. L., Pangle, W. M., Wyatt, K. H., Powell, K. N., & Sherwood, R. E. (2014). Identifying key features of effective active learning: The effects of writing and peer discussion. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13, 469–477.Google Scholar
Martínez, I., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Learning history by composing synthesis texts: Effects of an instructional program on learning, reading, and writing processes, and text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7(2), 275–302.Google Scholar
Mason, L. & Tornatora, M. C. (2016). Analogical encoding with and without instructions for case comparison of scientific phenomena. Educational Psychology, 36, 391–412.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDermott, M. A. & Hand, B. (2013). The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation within writing tasks on high school students’ chemistry understanding. Instructional Science, 41, 217–246.Google Scholar
Nam, J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1111–1133.Google Scholar
Nevid, J.S., Pastva, A., & McClelland, N. (2012). Writing-to-learn assignments in introductory psychology: Is there a learning benefit? Teaching of Psychology, 39, 272–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312456622Google Scholar
Newell, G. E. (2006). Writing to learn. In MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 235–247). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Nückles, M., Hübner, S., Dümer, S., & Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise reversal effects in writing-to-learn. Instructional Science, 38, 237–258.Google Scholar
Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19, 259–271.Google Scholar
Nückles, M., Schwonke, R., Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2004). The use of public learning diaries in blended learning. Journal of Educational Media, 29, 49–66.Google Scholar
Ong, J. (2013). Discovery of ideas in second language writing task environment. System, 41, 529–542.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Petko, D., Egger, N., & Graber, M. (2014). Supporting learning with weblogs in science education: A comparison of blogging and hand-written reflective writing with and without prompts. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 7(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
Pineda, L., & Garza, G. (2000). A model for multimodal reference resolution. Computational Linguistics, 26, 139–193.Google Scholar
Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336643Google Scholar
Prain, V. & Hand, B. (2016). Coming to know more through and from writing. Educational Researcher, 45, 430–434.Google Scholar
Reynolds, G. A. & Perin, D. (2009). A comparison of text structure and self-regulated writing strategies for composing from sources by middle school students. Reading Psychology, 30, 265–300.Google Scholar
Rinehart, S. D., Stahl, S. A., & Erickson, L. G. (1986). Some effects of summarization training on reading and studying. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 422–438.Google Scholar
Ritchie, S. M., Tomas, L., & Tones, M. (2011). Writing stories to enhance scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 685–707.Google Scholar
Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88, 420–442.Google Scholar
Rivard, L.P. & Straw, S.B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.Google Scholar
Roelle, J., Krüger, S., Jansen, C., & Berthold, K. (2012). The use of solved example problems for fostering strategies of self-regulated learning in journal writing. Education Research International, 12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/751625Google Scholar
Rouse, A., Graham, S., & Compton, D. (2017). Writing to learn in science: Effects on Grade 4 students’ understanding of balance. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(4), 366–379.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. M. & Goldenberg, C. (1999). Effects of instructional conversations and literature logs on limited and fluent English proficient students’ story comprehension and thematic understanding. Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 277–301.Google Scholar
Schwonke, R., Hauser, S., Nückles, M., & Renkl, R. (2006). Enhancing computer-supported writing of learning protocols by adaptive prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.002Google Scholar
Stewart, T. L., Myers, A. C., & Culley, M. R. (2010). Enhanced learning and retention through “writing to learn” in the psychology classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 46–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280903425813Google Scholar
Van Drie, J., Braaksma, M., & Van Boxtel, C. (2015). Writing in history: Effects of writing instruction on historical reasoning and text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7, 123–156. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.01.06Google Scholar
Wallace, C.S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Wäschle, K., Gebhardt, A., Oberbusch, E. M., & Nückles, M. (2015). Journal writing in science: Effects on comprehension, interest, and critical reflection. Journal of Writing Research, 7(1), 41–64.Google Scholar
Wiley, J. & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.Google Scholar
Wong, B. Y. L., Kuperis, S., Jamieson, D., Keller, L., & Cull-Hewitt, R. (2002). Effects of guided journal writing on students’ story understanding. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022067020959658Google Scholar
Yildiz, A. (2012). Prospective teachers’ comprehension levels of special relativity theory and the effect of writing for learning on achievement. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n12.Google Scholar
References
Bain, B. (1974). Bilingualism and cognition: Toward a general theory. In Carey, S. T. (ed.), Bilingualism, biculturalism and education: Proceedings from the Conference at College Universitaire Saint Jean (pp. 119–128). Edmonton: The University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Barke, E. (1933). A study of the comparative intelligence of children in certain bilingual and monoglot schools in South Wales. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 237.Google Scholar
Barke, E. & Williams, D. E. P. (1938). A further study of the comparative intelligence of children in certain bilingual and monoglot schools in South Wales. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1938.tb03183.xGoogle Scholar
Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2014). Models of lexical access and bilingualism. In Heredia, R. & Altarriba, J. (eds.) Foundations of bilingual memory (pp. 85–107). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Baus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). On the effects of second language immersion on first language production. Acta Psychologica, 142, 402–409.Google Scholar
Beatty-Martínez, A. L. & Dussias, P. E. (2017). Bilingual experience shapes language processing: Evidence from codeswitching. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 173–189.Google Scholar
Ben-Zeev, S. (1977). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development. Child Development, 48(3),1009–1018.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 233–262.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K. F., & Yang, S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 525–531.Google Scholar
Bice, K. & Kroll, J. F. (2015). Native language change during early stages of second language learning. Neuroreport, 26(16), 966–971.Google Scholar
Bion, R. A. H., Borovsky, A., & Fernald, A. (2013). Fast mapping, slow learning: Disambiguation of novel word–object mappings in relation to vocabulary learning at 18, 24, and 30 months. Cognition, 126(1), 39–53.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory and Cognition, 41(3), 392–402.Google Scholar
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.Google Scholar
Bjork, R. A. & Kroll, J. F. (2015). Desirable difficulties in vocabulary learning. American Journal of Psychology, 128, 241–252.Google Scholar
Bogulski, C. A., Bice, K., & Kroll, J. F. (2018). Bilingualism as a desirable difficulty: Advantages in word learning depend on regulation of the dominant language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000858Google Scholar
Byers-Heinlein, K. & Werker, J. F. (2009). Monolingual, bilingual, trilingual: Infants’ language experience influences the development of a word-learning heuristic. Developmental Science, 12(5), 815–823.Google Scholar
Carrow, E. (1972). Auditory comprehension of English by monolingual and bilingual preschool children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 15(2), 407–412.Google Scholar
Chang, C. B. (2012). Rapid and multifaceted effects of second-language learning on first-language speech production. Journal of Phonetics, 40(2), 249–268.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Commission on Language Learning. (2017). America’s languages: Investing in language education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Core, C., Hoff, E., Rumiche, R., & Señor, M. (2013). Total and conceptual vocabulary in Spanish–English bilinguals from 22 to 30 months: Implications for assessment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(5), 1637–1649.Google Scholar
Cottrell, J. M. & Barrett, C. A. (2016). Defining the undefinable: Operationalization of methods to identify specific learning disabilities among practicing school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 53 , 143–157.Google Scholar
Crivello, C., Kuzyk, O., Rodrigues, M., Friend, M., Zesiger, P., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2016). The effects of bilingual growth on toddlers’ executive function. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 121–132.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In Bialystok, E. (ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70–89). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620652.006Google Scholar
Darcy, N. T. (1953). A review of the literature on the effects of bilingualism upon the measurement of intelligence. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 82(1), 21–57.Google Scholar
De Villiers, J. (2015). Taking account of both languages in the assessment of dual language learners. Seminars in Speech and Language, 36, 120–132.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test: PPVT-4. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 101–116.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Giezen, M. R., & Gollan, T. H. (2016). Psycholinguistic, cognitive, and neural implications of bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(2), 223–242.Google Scholar
Fabiano-Smith, L., & Goldstein, B. A. (2010). Phonological acquisition in bilingual Spanish–English speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(1), 160–178.Google Scholar
Fennell, C. T., Byers-Heinlein, K., & Werker, J. F. (2007). Using speech sounds to guide word learning: The case of bilingual infants. Child Development, 78(5), 1510–1525.Google Scholar
Fortier, D. (2009). Official languages policies in Canada: A quiet revolution. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 105–106(1), 69–98.Google Scholar
Fricke, M., Kroll, J. F., and Dussias, P. E. (2016). Phonetic variation in bilingual speech: A lens for studying the production–comprehension link. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 110–137.Google Scholar
Friedman, N. P. & Miyake, A. (2017). Unity and diversity of executive functions: Individual differences as a window on cognitive structure. Cortex, 86, 186–204.Google Scholar
Garcia, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). From English Language Learners to Emergent Bilinguals. Equity Matters. Research Review No. 1. Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
García, O. & Lin, A. M. Y. (2017). Translanguaging in bilingual education. In García, O., Lin, A. M. Y.., & May, S. (eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 117–130). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
García, O. & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging and education. In Wright, W. E., Boun, S., & García, O.(eds.), Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education (pp. 63–77). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Genesee, F. & Nicoladis, E. (2007). Bilingual acquisition. In Hoff, E. & Shatz, M. (eds.), Handbook of language development, pp. 324–342. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, C. & Romeo, K. (2015). ESL vs. EFL learners: The benefits of combining language acquisition and explicit instruction approaches. In Wong, L. & Dubey-Jhaveri, A. (eds.), English language education in a global world: Practices, issues, and challenges. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 515–530.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. & Wei, L. (2014). A control process model of code-switching. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 499–511.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2013). From second language learning to bilingualism in schools. ACI Information Group. http://scholar.aci.info/view/1427c2d263f114a0104/14ea95abe0600010008Google Scholar
Gross, M., Buac, M., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2014). Conceptual scoring of receptive and expressive vocabulary measures in simultaneous and sequential bilingual children. American Journal of Speech and Language Pathology, 23, 574–586.Google Scholar
Guerrero, S. L., Smith, S., & Luk, G. (2016). Home language usage and executive function in bilingual preschoolers. In Schwieter, J. W. (ed.) Cognitive control and consequences of multilingualism (pp. 351–374). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.2.15leoGoogle Scholar
Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., & Dussias, P. E. (2016). Examining the relationship between comprehension and production processes in code-switched language. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 138–161.Google Scholar
Harris, B., Sullivan, A. L., Oades-Sese, G. V., & Sotelo-Dynega, M. (2015). Culturally and linguistically responsive practices in psychoeducational reports for English language learners. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 31, 141–166.Google Scholar
Hartanto, A., & Yang, H. (2016). Disparate bilingual experiences modulate task-switching advantages: A diffusion-model analysis of the effects of interactional context on switch costs. Cognition, 150, 10–19.Google Scholar
Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E. Jr., (2013). Empirically valid principles for training in the real world. The American Journal of Psychology, 126, 389–399.Google Scholar
Heidlmayr, K., Moutier, S., Hemforth, B., Heidlmayr, K., Moutier, S., Hemforth, B., Courtin, C., Tanzmeister, R., & Isel, F. (2014). Successive bilingualism and executive functions: The effect of second language use on inhibitory control in a behavioural Stroop colour word task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(3), 630–645.Google Scholar
Hoff, E. (2018). Bilingual development in children of immigrant families. Child Development Perspectives, 12, 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12262Google Scholar
Hoshino, N. & Kroll, J. F. (2008). Cognate effects in picture naming: Does cross-language activation survive a change of script? Cognition, 106(1), 501–511.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S. & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.Google Scholar
Jones, W. R. (1952). The language handicap of Welsh-speaking children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 22(2),114–123.Google Scholar
Jones, W. R. & Stewart, W. A. C. (1951). Bilingualism and verbal intelligence. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 4(1),3–8.Google Scholar
Klein, D., Mok, K., Chen, J.-K., & Watkins, K. E. (2014). Age of language learning shapes brain structure: A cortical thickness study of bilingual and monolingual individuals. Brain and Language, 131, 20–24.Google Scholar
Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 35, 989–998.Google Scholar
Kovács, Á. M. (2015). Cognitive adaptations induced by a multi-language input in early development. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 35, 80–86.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for language processing and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 497–514.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Hoshino, N. (2014). Two languages in mind: Bilingualism as a tool to investigate language, cognition, and the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 159–163.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(2), 119–135.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & Dussias, P. E. (2017). The benefits of multilingualism to the personal and professional development of residents of the US. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 248–259.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bice, K., & Perrotti, L. (2015). Bilingualism, mind, and brain. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 377–394.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bogulski, C. A., & Valdes Kroff, J. R. (2012). Juggling two languages in one mind: What bilinguals tell us about language processing and its consequences for cognition. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 56, 229–262.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & Navarro-Torres, C. (2018). Bilingualism. In Wixted, J. (ed.), The Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience (pp. 245–274), Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–174.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59–67.Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning. Psychological Science, 20, 1507–1515.Google Scholar
Linquanti, R., Cook, H. G., Bailey, A. L., & MacDonald, R. (2016). Moving toward a more common definition of English learner: Collected guidance for states and multi-state assessment consortia. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
Luk, G. & Bialystok, E. (2013). Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction between language proficiency and usage. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 605–621.Google Scholar
Luk, G. & Christodoulou, J. A. (2016). Assessing and understanding the needs of dual-language learners. Leading edge of early childhood education: linking science to policy for a new generation, 67–90.Google Scholar
Macnamara, J. T. (1966). Bilingualism and primary education: A study of Irish experience. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
MA-DESE (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education). (2016). School and district profiles [data file]. www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/research/Google Scholar
MA-DESE (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) (2018). Home Language Survey. www.doe.mass.edu/ell/resources.htmlGoogle Scholar
Marchman, V. A., Martínez, L. Z., Hurtado, N., Grüter, T., & Fernald, A. (2017). Caregiver talk to young Spanish-English bilinguals: Comparing direct observation and parent-report measures of dual-language exposure. Developmental Science, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12425Google Scholar
Marian, V. & Spivey, M. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within- and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2),97–115.Google Scholar
Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Miller, E. K. & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1), 167–202.Google Scholar
Misra, M., Guo, T., Bobb, S. C., & Kroll, J. F. (2012). When bilinguals choose a single word to speak: Electrophysiological evidence for inhibition of the native language. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 224–237.Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. J. (1937). The effect of bilingualism in the measurement of intelligence. The Elementary School Journal, 38(1), 29–37.Google Scholar
Miyake, A. & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 8–14.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100.Google Scholar
Morford, J. P., Wilkinson, E., Villwock, A., Piñar, P., & Kroll, J. F. (2011). When deaf signers read English: Do written words activate their sign translations? Cognition, 118, 286–292.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Explicit and implicit second language training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(4), 933–947.Google Scholar
Murphey, D. (2014). The Academic Achievement of English Language Learners: Data for the U.S. and each of the States. Research Brief, Child Trends, Publication No. 2014–62.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
National Center for Education Statistics (2018a). English language learners in public schools. The Condition of Education. Updated April 2018. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.aspGoogle Scholar
National Center for Education Statistics (2018b). Children and youth with disabilities. The Condition of Education. Updated April 2018. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.aspGoogle Scholar
Norman, D. A. & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action. In: Davidson, R. J., Schwartz, G. E., & Shapiro, D. (eds.) Consciousness and self-regulation. Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
Ortiz-Mantilla, S., Hämäläinen, J. A., Realpe-Bonilla, T., & Benasich, A. A. (2016). Oscillatory dynamics underlying perceptual narrowing of native phoneme mapping from 6 to 12 months of age. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(48), 12095–12105.Google Scholar
Peal, E. & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The Relation of Bilingualism to Intelligence, 76(27), 1–23.Google Scholar
Perani, D. & Abutalebi, J. (2005). The neural basis of first and second language processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 202–206.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Base, B. Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G. (2005). Processing constraints on L1 transfer. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 128–153). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Piske, T., MacKay, I. R. A., & Flege, J. E. (2001). Factors affecting the degree of foreign accent in an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 191–215.Google Scholar
Prior, A., Goldwasser, N., Ravet-Hirsh, R., & Schwartz, M. (2016). Executive functions in bilingual children: Is there a role for language balance?. In Schwieter, J. W. (ed.), Cognitive control and consequences in the multilingual mind (pp. 323–350). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.2.14priGoogle Scholar
Rueda, M. R., Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Halparin, J. D., Gruber, D. B., Lercari, L. P., & Posner, M. I. (2004). Development of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42(8), 1029–1040.Google Scholar
Saer, D. J. (1923). The effect of bilingualism on intelligence. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 14(1), 25–38.Google Scholar
Smith, F. (1923). Bilingualism and mental development. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 13(3), 271–282.Google Scholar
Smith, M. E. (1931). A study of five bilingual children from the same family. Child Development, 2, 184–187.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K. (2014). Event-related potentials (ERPs) in second language research: A brief introduction to the technique, a selected review, and an invitation to reconsider critical periods in L2. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 393–417.Google Scholar
Surrain, S. & Luk, G. (2017). Describing bilinguals: A systematic review of labels and descriptions used in the literature between 2005–2015. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000682Google Scholar
Tukey, J. (1949). Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics, 5, 99–114.Google Scholar
Unruh, S. & Mckellar, N. A. (2013). Evolution, not revolution: School psychologists’ changing practices in determining specific learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 353–365.Google Scholar
Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Gollan, T. H. (2013). Whole-language and item-specific control in bilingual language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1781.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(3), 458–483.Google Scholar
Vega-Mendoza, M., West, H., Sorace, A., & Bak, T. H. (2015). The impact of late, non-balanced bilingualism on cognitive performance. Cognition, 137, 40–46.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., Fennell, C. T., Corcoran, K. M., & Stager, C. L. (2002). Infants’ ability to learn phonetically similar words: Effects of age and vocabulary size. Infancy, 3(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., Yeung, H. H., & Yoshida, K. A. (2012). How do infants become experts at native-speech perception? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 221–226.Google Scholar
Yamasaki, B. & Luk, G. (2018). Eligibility for special education in elementary school: The role of diverse language experiences. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49 (4), 889–901.Google Scholar
References
Aguilar-Roca, N. M., Williams, A. E., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2012). The impact of laptop-free zones on student performance and attitudes in large lectures. Computers and Education, 59, 1300–1308.Google Scholar
Aiken, G. A., Thomas, G. S., & Shennum, W. A. (1975). Memory for lecture: Effects of notes, lecture rate, and informational density. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 439–444.Google Scholar
Amer, A. A. (1994). The effect of knowledge-map and underlining training on the reading comprehension of scientific texts. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 35–45.Google Scholar
Anderson, T. H. & Anderson, B. B. (1984). Studying. In Pearson, P. D. (ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 657–679). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Annis, L. & Davis, J. K. (1975). The effect of encoding and an external memory device on note taking. Journal of Experimental Education, 44, 44–46.Google Scholar
Armbruster, B. (2009). Notetaking from lectures. In Flippo, R. F., & Caverly, D. C. (eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research, 2nd edn. (pp. 220–248). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arnold, K. M. Umanath, S., Thio, K. et al. (2017). Understanding the cognitive processes involved in writing to learn. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23, 115–127.Google Scholar
Austin, J., Lee, M., & Carr, J. (2004). The effects of guided notes on undergraduate students’ recording of lecture content. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 314–320.Google Scholar
Bahr, G. S. & Dansereau, D. F. (2001). Bilingual knowledge maps (BiK-Maps) in second-language vocabulary learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 5–24.Google Scholar
Bahr, G. S. & Dansereau, D. F. (2005). Bilingual knowledge maps (BiK-Maps) as a presentation format: Delayed recall and training effects. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 101–118.Google Scholar
Barnett, J. E., DiVesta, F. J., & Rogozinski, J. T. (1981). What is learned in note taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 181–192.Google Scholar
Benton, S. L., Kiewra, K. A., Whitfill, J. M., & Dennison, R. (1993). Encoding and external-storage effects on writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 267–280.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In Glaser, R. (ed.), Advances in instruction, Vol. 2 (pp. 1–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berninger, V. (2012). Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Jones, J., Wolf, B. J., Gould, L., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., Shimada, S., & Apel, K. (2006). Early development of language by hand: Composing-, reading-, listening-, and speaking- connections, three letter writing modes, and fast mapping in spelling. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 61–92.Google Scholar
Berninger, V. W. & Richards, T. L. (2012). The writing brain: Coordinating sensory/motor, language, and cognitive systems in working memory. In Berninger, V. W. (ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Berninger, V. W. & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flower’s model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In Butterfield, E. (ed.), Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 57–81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Blair, A. (2004). Note taking as an art of transmission. Critical Inquiry, 31, 85–107.Google Scholar
Bouwmeester, S. & Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L. (2011). Why do some children benefit more from testing than others? Gist trace processing to explain the testing effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.02.005Google Scholar
Boyle, J. R. (2010a). Note-taking skills of middle school students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43 (6), 530–540.Google Scholar
Boyle, J. R. (2010b). Strategic note-taking for middle-school students with learning disabilities in science classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 93–109.Google Scholar
Boyle, J. R. (2012). Note-taking and students with learning disabilities: Challenges and solutions. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27, 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–5826.2012.00354.x.Google Scholar
Boyle, J. R. (2013). Strategic note-taking for inclusive middle school science classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 34(2), 78–90.Google Scholar
Boyle, J. R. & Rivera, T. Z. (2012). Note-taking techniques for students with disabilities: A systematic review of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711435794Google Scholar
Boyle, J. R. & Weishaar, M. (2001). The effects of a strategic note-taking technique on the comprehension and long term recall of lecture information for high school students with LD. LD Research and Practice, 16, 125–133.Google Scholar
Bretzing, B. H., Kulhavy, R. W., & Caterino, L. C. (1987). Notetaking by junior high students. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 359–362.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L. & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing text: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing text. Child Development, 54, 968–979.Google Scholar
Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A., (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. New York: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L. & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1–8.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L. & Smiley, S. S. (1978). The development of strategies for studying. Child Development, 49, 1076–1088.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L., Smiley, S. S., & Lawton, S. Q. C. (1978). The effects of experience on the selection of suitable retrieval cues for studying texts. Child Development, 49, 829–835.Google Scholar
Bui, D. C. & Myerson, J. (2014). The role of working memory abilities in lecture note-taking. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 12–22.Google Scholar
Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 299–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030367Google Scholar
Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 36, 1118–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019902Google Scholar
Butler, A. C., Marsh, E. J., Goode, M. K., & Roediger, H. L. (2006). When additional multiple-choice lures aid versus hinder later memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 941–956. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1239Google Scholar
Chmielewski, T. L. & Dansereau, D. F. (1998). Enhancing the recall of text: Knowledge mapping training promotes implicit transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 407–413.Google Scholar
Cohn, E., Cohn, S., & Bradley, J. (1995). Notetaking, working memory, and learning in principles of economics. Research in Economic Education, 26, 291–307.Google Scholar
Crawford, C. C. (1925). The correlation between lecture notes and quiz papers. Journal of Educational Research, 12, 282–291.Google Scholar
Dahlstrom, E., Walker, J. D., & Dziuban, C. (2013). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2012. Boulder, CO: Educause Center for Applied Research.Google Scholar
Dansereau, D. F. & Simpson, D. D. (2009). A picture is worth a thousand words: The case for graphic representations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 104–110.Google Scholar
Dempster, F. N. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results of psychological research. American Psychologist, 43, 627–634.Google Scholar
DiCecco, V. M. & Gleason, M. M. ( 2002 ). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 306–320.Google Scholar
DiVesta, F. J. & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 321–325.Google Scholar
Dunkel, P. & Davy, S. (1989). The heuristic of lecture notetaking: Perceptions of American and international students regarding the value and practice of notetaking. English for Specific Purposes, 8, 33–50.Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58.Google Scholar
Fisher, J. L. & Harris, M. B. (1973). Effect of note-taking and review on recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 321–325.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. M. (2000). Younger and older jurors: The influence of environmental supports on memory performance and decision making in complex trials. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55, 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/55.6.P323Google Scholar
ForsterLee, L. & Horowitz, I. A. (1997). Enhancing juror competence in a complex trial. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199708)11:4%3C305::AID-ACP457%3E3.0.CO;2-JGoogle Scholar
ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., & Bourgeois, M. (1994). Effects of notetaking on verdicts and evidence processing in a civil trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 567–578.Google Scholar
ForsterLee, L., Kent, L., & Horowitz, I. A. (2005). The cognitive effects of jury aids on decision‐making in complex civil litigation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 867–884. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1124Google Scholar
Frank, B. M. (1984). Effect of field independence-dependence and study technique on learning from lecture. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 669–678.Google Scholar
Frank, B. M., Garlinger, D. K., & Kiewra, K. A. (1989). Use of embedded heading and intact online with videotaped instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 277–281.Google Scholar
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers and Education, 50(3),906–914.Google Scholar
Gates, A. I. (1917). Recitation as a factor in memorizing. Archives of Psychology, 40th edn. (pp. 1–104). New York: The Science Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books/download/Recitation_as_a_factor_in_memorizing.pdf?id=YinQhb3ZS8YC&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U0dCJ-oJYvoQ6ESH62kUpQQVGL2vQGoogle Scholar
Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1539–1552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025510Google Scholar
Gleason, J. (2012). An investigation of the lecture note-taking skills of adolescents with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: An extension of previous research. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City.Google Scholar
Glover, J. A. (1989). The “testing” phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022–0663.81.3.392Google Scholar
Grabe, M., Christopherson, K., & Douglas, J. (2005). Providing introductory psychology students access to on-line notes: The relationship of note use to performance and class attendance. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33, 295–308.Google Scholar
Greene, E. B. (1928). The relative effectiveness of lecture and individual reading as methods of college teaching, Genetic Psychology Monographs, 4, 459–563.Google Scholar
Hadwin, A. F., Kirby, J. R., & Woodhouse, R. A. (1999). Individual differences in notetaking, summarization, and learning from lectures. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 1–17.Google Scholar
Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 212–242.Google Scholar
Hamilton, S. L., Seibert, M. A., Gardner, R., & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2000). Using guided notes to improve the academic achievement of incarcerated adolescents with learning and behavior problems. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 133–140.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. (2002). Notetaking in non-academic settings: a review. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 559–574.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. & Cameron, A. (1967). Some observations on the efficiency of lecturing. Educational Review, 20, 30–37.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. & Davies, I. K. (1978). Note-taking: A critical review. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 15, 207–224.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. (eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hembrooke, H. & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15, 46–64.Google Scholar
Heuer, L. & Penrod, S. (1988). Increasing jurors’ participation in trials: A field experiment with jury notetaking and question asking. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 231–262.Google Scholar
Heuer, L. & Penrod, S. (1994). Juror notetaking and question asking during trials. Law and Human Behavior 18, 121–150.Google Scholar
Hope, L., Eales, N., & Mirashi, A. (2014). Assisting jurors: Promoting recall of trial information through the use of a trial‐ordered notebook. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 99, 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12003Google Scholar
Horowitz, I. A. & Bordens, K. S. (2002). The effects of jury size, evidence complexity, and note taking on jury process and performance in a civil trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021–9010.87.1.121Google Scholar
Horowitz, I. A. & ForsterLee, L. (2001). The effects of note-taking and trial transcript access on mock jury decisions in a complex civil trial. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 373–391.Google Scholar
Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., & Bergerud, D. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12–22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., & Bergerud, D. (1975). Taking notes and human learning. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 28, 158–161.Google Scholar
Hughes, C. A. & Suritsky, S. K. (1994). Note-taking skills of university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 20–24.Google Scholar
Hulme, C. & Snowling, M. J. (2011). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties: Nature, causes, and treatments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 139–142.Google Scholar
Jing, H. G., Szpunar, K. K., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Interpolated testing influences focused attention and improves integration of information during a video-recorded lecture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 305–318.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., Smeekens, B. A., von Bastian, C. C. et al. (2017). A combined experimental and individual-differences investigation into mind wandering during a video lecture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 1649–1647.Google Scholar
Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 528–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440601056620Google Scholar
Karpicke, J. D. & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772–775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327Google Scholar
Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802647009Google Scholar
Kaufman, D. F., Zhao, R., & Yang, Y-S. (2011). Effects of online note taking formats and self-monitoring prompts on learning from online text: Using technology to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 313–322.Google Scholar
Kay, R. H. & Lauricella, S. (2011). Unstructured vs. structured use of laptops in higher education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 33–42.Google Scholar
Kay, R. H. & Lauricella, S. (2014). Investigating the Benefits and Challenges of Using Laptop Computers in Higher Education Classrooms. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 40, 1–25.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A (1983). The process of review: A levels of processing approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 366–374.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A (1985a). Investigating note-taking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A (1985b). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 147–172.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A (1985c). Students’ notetaking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor’s notes for review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 378–386.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A (1985d). Learning from a lecture: An investigation of notetaking, review, and attendance at a lecture. Human Learning, 4, 73–77.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A (1987). Notetaking and review: The research and its implications. Instructional Science, 16, 233–249.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 147–172.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A (2016). Note taking on trial: A legal application of note-taking research. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015–9353-zGoogle Scholar
Kiewra, K. A. & Benton, S. L. (1988). The relationship between information processing ability and notetaking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 33–44.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., Kim, S.-I., Risch, N., & Christensen, M. (1995). Effects of note-taking format and study technique on recall and relational performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 33–44.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., & Lewis, L. B. (1987). Qualitative aspects of notetaking and their relationship with information-processing ability and academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 14, 110–117.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christensen, M., Kim, S.-I., & Lindberg, N. (1989). A more equitable account of the note-taking functions in learning from lecture and from text. Instructional Sciences, 18, 217–232.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., & McShane, A. (1988). Providing study notes: Comparison of three types of notes for review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 595–597.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D. et al. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240–245.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A. & Fletcher, H. J. (1984). The relationship between levels of note-taking and achievement. Human Learning, 3, 273–280.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A. & Frank, B. M. (1988). Encoding and external-storage effects of personal lecture notes, skeletal notes, and detailed notes for field-independent and field-dependent learners. Journal of Educational Research, 81, 143–148.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A. & Mayer, R. E. (1997). Effects of advanced organizers and repeated presentations on students learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 147–159.Google Scholar
Kiewra, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Christensen, M., Kim, S., & Risch, N. (1991). Effects of repetition on recall and note-taking: Strategies for learning from lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 120–123.Google Scholar
King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 303–323.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. J. & Vipond, D. (1979). Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory. In Nilsson, L. (Ed.), Perspectives on memory search (pp. 325–366). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Knight, L. J. & McKelvie, S. J. (1986). Effects of attendance, note taking and review on memory for a lecture: Encoding vs. external storage function of notes. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, 52–61.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limit the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242–262.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of notetaking/‐reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta‐analytic review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 459–477.Google Scholar
Kraushaar, J. M. & Novak, D. C. (2010). Examining the effects of student multitasking with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21, 241–251.Google Scholar
Landrum, R. E. (2010). Faculty and student perceptions of providing instructor lecture notes to students: Match or mismatch? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37, 216–221.Google Scholar
Lazarus, B. D. (1993). Guided notes: Effects with secondary and post secondary students with mild disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 272–289.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A. (1977). An empirical study of lecture notetaking among college students. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 93–99.Google Scholar
Maddox, H. & Hoole, E. (1975). Performance decrement in the lecture. Educational Review, 28, 17–30.Google Scholar
Maqsud, M. (1980). Effects of personal lecture notes and teacher-notes on recall of university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 289–294.Google Scholar
McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35, 13–23.Google Scholar
McCutchen, D. (2012). Phonological, orthographic, and morphological word-level skills supporting multiple levels of the writing process. In Berninger, V. (ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
McCutchen, D., Covill, A., Hoyne, S. H., & Mildes, K. (1994). Individual differences in writing: Implications of translating fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 256–266.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. III (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 399–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021782Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 494–513.Google Scholar
McIntyre, S. (1992). Lecture notetaking, information processing, and academic achievement. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 25, 7–17.Google Scholar
Moore, D. W. & Readence, J. E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. Journal of Educational Research, 78,11–17.Google Scholar
Moos, D. C. & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 270–298.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. H., Lilly, J. D., & Boreham, N. C. (1988). Learning from lectures: The effect of varying detail in lecture handouts to note-taking and recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 115–122.Google Scholar
Mueller, P. A. & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25, 1159–1168.Google Scholar
Mulcahy‐Ernt, P. I. & Caverly, D. C. (2009). Strategic study‐reading. In Flippo, R. F., & Caverly, D. C. (eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research, 2nd edn (pp. 177–198). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Neef, N. A., McCord, B. E., & Ferreri, S. J. (2006). Effects of guided notes versus completed notes during lectures on college students’ quiz performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 123–130.Google Scholar
Nesbit, J. C. & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.Google Scholar
Nye, P. (1978). Student variables in relations to note-taking during a lecture. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 15, 196–200.Google Scholar
Oefinger, L. M. (2014). The lecture note-taking skills of adolescents with and without a learning disabilities. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, A. M. & Adenwalla, D. (1991). Using cooperative learning and concept maps with deaf college students. In Martin, D. S. (ed.), Advances in cognition, learning, and deafness (pp. 348–355). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71–86.Google Scholar
Olive, T., Alves, R. A., & Castro, S. L. (2009). Cognitive processes in writing during pauses and execution periods. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 758–785.Google Scholar
Olive, T. & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). Concurrent activation of high- and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory and Cognition, 30, 594–600.Google Scholar
Palmatier, R. A. & Bennett, J. M. (1974). Notetaking habits of college students. Journal of Reading, 18, 215–218.Google Scholar
Patterson, M. E., Dansereau, D. F., & Newbern, D. (1992). Effects of communication aids and strategies on cooperative teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 453–461.Google Scholar
Peper, R. J. & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note taking as a generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 514–522. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.70.4.514Google Scholar
Peper, R. J. & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.78.1.34Google Scholar
Peverly, S. T. (2006). The Importance of handwriting speed in adult writing. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 197–216.Google Scholar
Peverly, S. T., Brobst, K., Graham, M., & Shaw, R. (2003). College adults are not good at self-regulation: A study on the relationship of self-regulation, note-taking, and test-taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 335–346.Google Scholar
Peverly, S. T., Garner, J. K., & Vekaria, P. C. (2014). Both handwriting speed and selective attention are important to lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013–9431-xGoogle Scholar
Peverly, S. T., Ramaswamy, V., Brown, C. et al. (2007). What predicts skill in lecture note taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 167–180.Google Scholar
Peverly, S. T. & Sumowski, J. F. (2012).What variables predict quality of text notes and are text notes related to performance on different types of tests? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26: 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1802.Google Scholar
Peverly, S. T., Vekaria, P. C., Reddington, L. A. Sumowski, J. F. Johnson, K. R., & Ramsay, C. M. (2013). The relationship of handwriting speed, working memory, language comprehension and outlines to lecture Note-taking and Test-taking among college students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2881Google Scholar
Peverly, S. T. & Wood, R. (2001). The effects of adjunct questions and feedback on improving the reading comprehension skills of learning-disabled adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 25–43.Google Scholar
Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291–312.Google Scholar
Pyc, M. A. & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330(6002), 335. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1191465Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31–74.Google Scholar
Reddington, L. A., Peverly, S. T., & Block, C. J. (2015). An examination of some of the cognitive and motivation variables related to gender differences in lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 1155–1185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015–9566-zGoogle Scholar
Reimer, J. R., Brimhall, E., Cao, C., & O’Reilly, K. (2009). Empirical user studies inform the design of an e-notetaking and information assimilation system for students in higher education. Computers and Education, 52, 893–913.Google Scholar
Rickards, J. P. & Friedman, F. (1978). The encoding versus the external storage hypothesis in note taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3, 136–143.Google Scholar
Richards, T., Peverly, S., Wolf, A., Abbott, R., Tanimoto, S., Thompson, R., Nagy, W., & Berninger, V. (2016). Idea units in notes and summaries for read texts by keyboard and pencil in middle childhood students with specific learning disabilities: Cognitive and brain findings. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5, 146–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2016.07.005Google Scholar
Robinson, D. H. (1998). Graphic organizers as aids to text learning. Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 85–105.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L., Agarwal, P. K., McDaniel, M. A., & McDermott, K. B. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: long-term improvements from quizzing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 17, 382–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026252Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). The power of testing memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17, 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745–6916.2006.00012.xGoogle Scholar
Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2006.01693.xGoogle Scholar
Rohwer, W. D. (1984). An invitation to a developmental psychology of studying. In Morrison, F. J., Lord, C. A., & Keating, D. P. (eds.), Advances in applied developmental psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 1–57). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosenhan, D. L., Eisner, S. L., & Robinson, R. J. (1994). Notetaking can aid juror recall. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 53–61.Google Scholar
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.Google Scholar
Rothkopf, E. Z. (1996). Control of mathemagenic activities. In Jonassen, D. H. (ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 879–896). New York: Simon & Schuster and Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ruhl, K. L. (1996). Does nature of student activity during lecture pauses affect notes and immediate recall of college students with learning disabilities? Journal of Postsecondary education and Disability, 12, 16–27.Google Scholar
Ruhl, K. L., Hughes, C. A., & Gajar, A. H. (1990). Efficacy of the pause procedure for enhancing learning disabled and nondisabled college students’ long- and short-term recall of facts presented through lecture. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 55–64.Google Scholar
Ruhl, K. L., Hughes, C. A., & Schloss, P. J. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall, Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14–18.Google Scholar
Ruhl, K. L. & Suritsky, S. (1995). The pause procedure and/or an outline: Effect on Immediate free recall and lecture notes taken by college students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 2–11.Google Scholar
Rummer, R, Schweppe, J., Gerst, K., & Wagner, S. (2017). Is testing a more effective strategy than note-taking? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 293–300.Google Scholar
Samuels, S. J. & Farstrup, A. E. (eds.) (2011). What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers and Education, 62, 24–31.Google Scholar
Schacter, D. L. & Szpunar, K. K. (2015). Enhancing attention and memory during video-recorded lectures. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1, 60–71.Google Scholar
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860Google Scholar
Shimmerlick, S. M. & Nolan, J. D. (1976). Organization and the recall of prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 779–786.Google Scholar
Snow, C. (2002). (ed.) Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
Spitzer, H. F. (1939). Studies in retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 641–656.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.Google Scholar
Stull, A. T. & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808–820.Google Scholar
Summers, J. & Catarro, F. (2003). Assessment of handwriting speed and factors influencing written output of university students in examinations. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 50, 148–157.Google Scholar
Szpunar, K. K., Jing, H. G., & Schacter, D. L. (2014). Overcoming overconfidence in learning from video-recorded lectures: Implications for online education. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 3, 161–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.02.001Google Scholar
Szpunar, K. K., Khan, N. Y., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 6313–6317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221764110Google Scholar
Thomas, G. S. (1978). Use of students notes and lecture summaries as study guides for recall. Journal of Educational Research, 71, 316–319.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. W., Iventosch, L., Rohwer, W. D. (1987). Relationships among student characteristics, study activities, and achievement as a function of course characteristics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 344–364.Google Scholar
Thorley, C., Baxter, R.E., & Lorek, J. (2016). The impact of note taking style and note availability at retrieval on mock jurors’ recall and recognition of trial information. Memory, 24, 560–574.Google Scholar
Titsworth, B. (2004). Students’ notetaking: The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity. Communication Education, 53, 305–320.Google Scholar
Titsworth, B. S. & Kiewra, K. A. (2004). Spoken organizational lecture cures and student notetaking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 447–461.Google Scholar
Titsworth, S. (2001). The effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture cues, and students’ notetaking on cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 283–297.Google Scholar
Tomes, J. L., Wasylkiw, L., & Mockler, B. (2011). Studying for success: Diaries of students’ study behaviours. Educational Research and Evaluation, 17, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2011.563087Google Scholar
Trevors, G., Duffy, M., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Note-taking within MetaTutor: Interaction between an intelligent tutoring system and prior knowledge on note-taking and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62, 507–528.Google Scholar
Van Etten, S., Freebern, G., & Pressley, M. (1997). College students’ beliefs about exam preparation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 192–212.Google Scholar
Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students’ theory of note taking derived from their perceptions of note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 323–338.Google Scholar
Vekaria, P. C. & Peverly, S. T. (2018). Lecture note-taking in postsecondary students with self-reported attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 31, 1551–1573, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9849-2Google Scholar
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2–40.Google Scholar
Vogler, K. (2006). Impact of a high school graduation examination on Tennessee science teachers’ instructional practices. American Secondary Education, 35, 35–57.Google Scholar
Weinstein, Y., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2010). A comparison of study strategies for passages: rereading, answering questions, and generating questions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 16, 308–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020992Google Scholar
Wiegmann, D. A., Dansereau, D. F., & McCagg, E. C., Rewey, K. L., & Pitre, U. (1992). Effects of knowledge map characteristics on information processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 136–155.Google Scholar
Winne, P. H. & Hadwin, A. F. (2009). Studying as self-regulation. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wurst, C., Smarkola, C., & Gaffney, M. A. (2008). Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education: Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist measures in honors and traditional class-rooms. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1766–1783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.006Google Scholar
Yamamoto, K. (2007). Banning laptops in the classroom: Is it worth the hassle? Journal of Legal Education, 57, 477–520.Google Scholar
References
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 Cognition, 19(5), 1061.Google Scholar
Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007Google Scholar
Banas, S. & Sanchez, C. A. (2012). Working memory capacity and learning underlying conceptual relationships across multiple documents. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(4), 594–600.Google Scholar
Barzilai, S. & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103.Google Scholar
Barzilai, S., Tzadok, E., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). Sourcing while reading divergent expert accounts: Pathways from views of knowing to written argumentation. Instructional Science, 43(6), 737.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, 2, 3–23.Google Scholar
Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Promoting secondary school students’ evaluation of source features of multiple documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 180–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.003Google Scholar
Braasch, J. L., McCabe, R. M., & Daniel, F. (2016). Content integration across multiple documents reduces memory for sources. Reading and Writing, 29(8), 1571–1598.Google Scholar
Braasch, J. L. G., Rouet, J.-F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 40, 450–465. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011–0160-6.Google Scholar
Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 30, 9–24.Google Scholar
Bråten, I., Ferguson, L., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. (2013). Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 26, 321–348.Google Scholar
Bråten, I. & Strømsø, H. I. (2009). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Bråten, I. & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). When law students read multiple documents about global warming: Examining the role of topic-specific beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing. Instructional Science, 38, 635–657.Google Scholar
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students’ construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 6–28.Google Scholar
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H., Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Towards an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48–70.Google Scholar
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H., & Salmerón, L. (2010). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21, 180–192.Google Scholar
Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the Web: Students’ evaluation of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191–213.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A. & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., & van den Broek, P. (eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. -F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In Lawson, M.J. and Kirby, J.R. (Eds.), Enhancing the Quality of Learning: Dispositions, Instruction, and Learning Processes, (pp. 276–314). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Durik, A. M. (2018). Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Burton, C. & Daneman, M. (2007). Compensating for a limited working memory capacity during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Reading Psychology, 28(2), 163–186.Google Scholar
De Pereyra, G., Britt, M. A., Braasch, J. L. G, & Rouet, J. F. (2014). Reader’s memory for information sources in simple news stories: Effects of text and task features. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 187–204.Google Scholar
Gerjets, P., Kammerer, Y., & Werner, B. (2011). Measuring spontaneous and instructed evaluation processes during Web search: Integrating concurrent thinking-aloud protocols and eye-tracking data. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 220–231.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010b). Understanding and integrating multiple science texts: Summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading Psychology, 31, 30–68.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., Meyer, M., & Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 69–83.Google Scholar
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027Google Scholar
Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., Britt, M. A., & Salas, C. R. (2012). The role of CLEAR thinking in learning science from multiple-document inquiry tasks. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 5, 63–78.Google Scholar
Hagen, Å. M., Braasch, J. L., & Bråten, I. (2014). Relationships between spontaneous note‐taking, self‐reported strategies and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 141–157.Google Scholar
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(1), 88–140.Google Scholar
Jurica, P. J. & Shimamura, A. P. (1999). Monitoring item and source information: Evidence for a negative generation effect in source memory. Memory and Cognition, 27(4), 648–656.Google Scholar
Kammerer, Y., Amann, D., & Gerjets, P. (2015). When adults without university education search the Internet for health information: The roles of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and a source evaluation intervention. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.045Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological review, 95(2), 163.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Young, S. R. (1984). Selective recall of decision-relevant information from texts. Memory and Cognition, 12(2), 112–117.Google Scholar
Kopp, K. (2013). Selecting and using information from multiple documents for argumentation. Unpublished dissertation, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1459216967.Google Scholar
Le Bigot, L. & Rouet, J.-F. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students’ comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 445–470.Google Scholar
Lelivrescolaire (2017). Habiter une métroploe d’un pays emergent: Mumbai (2/2) [to live in the capital of an emerging country: Mumbai (2/2)]. https://fr.calameo.com/read/000596729dc5e7968d39cGoogle Scholar
Linderholm, T., Therriault, D. J., & Kwon, H. (2014). Multiple science text processing: Building comprehension skills for college student readers. Reading Psychology, 35(4), 332–356.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Maggioni, L. & Fox, E. (2009). Adolescents’ reading of multiple history texts: An interdisciplinary investigation of historical thinking, intertextual reading, and domain-specific epistemic beliefs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2013). Text belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 151–175.Google Scholar
Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21, 137–151. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.01.001Google Scholar
Mason, L., Junyent, A. A., & Tornatora, M. C. (2014). Epistemic evaluation and comprehension of web-source information on controversial science-related topics: Effects of a short-term instructional intervention. Computers and Education, 76, 143–157.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
McNamara, D.S., O’Reilly, T., Best, R., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 147–171.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 492.Google Scholar
Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R. & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1239–1252.Google Scholar
Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17–37.Google Scholar
Pérez, A., Potocki, A., Stadtler, M., Macedo-Rouet, M., Paul, J., Salmerón, L., & Rouet, J-F. (2018). Fostering Teenagers’ Assessment of Information Reliability: Effects of a Classroom Intervention focused on Critical Source Dimensions. Learning and Instruction, 58, 53–64.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Towards a theory of documents representation. In van Oostendorp, H. & Goldman, S. (eds.) The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F. & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F. & Britt, M. A. (2014). Learning from multiple documents. In Mayer, R.E. (ed.) Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 813–841). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139547369.039Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading: Contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 478–493.Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85–106.Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Le Bigot, L., de Pereyra, G., & Britt, M. A. (2016). Whose story is this? Discrepancy triggers readers’ attention to source information in short narratives. Reading and Writing, 29, 1549–1570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016–9625-0Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Levonen, J., Dillon, A. P. and Spiro, R. J. (eds.) (1996). Hypertext and cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Salmerón, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., & Rouet, J.-F. (2016). Multiple viewpoints increase students’ attention to source features in social question and answer forum messages. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67, 2404–2419. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23585Google Scholar
Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 393–429.Google Scholar
Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students’ reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19, 272–286.Google Scholar
Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 191–210.Google Scholar
Stadtler, M., Paul, J., Globoschütz, S., & Bromme, R. (2015). Watch out! – An instruction raising students’ epistemic vigilance augments their sourcing activities. In: Noelle, D. C., Dale, R., Warlaumont, A. S., Yoshimi, J., Matlock, T., Jennings, C. D., & Maglio, P. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2278–2283). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013). Dealing with uncertainty: Readers’ memory for and use of conflicting information from science texts as function of presentation format and source expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 130–150.Google Scholar
Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J. F., & Bromme, R. (2016). Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies. Reading and Writing, 29(4), 705.Google Scholar
Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M. & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 4, 430–456.Google Scholar
Strømsø, H. I. & Bråten, I. (2009). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and multiple-text comprehension among upper secondary students. Educational Psychology, 29, 425–445.Google Scholar
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Britt, M.A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20,192–204.Google Scholar
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 176–203. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769994Google Scholar
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Dimensions of topic-specific epistemological beliefs as predictors of multiple-text understanding. Learning and Instruction, 18, 513–527. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.11.001.Google Scholar
Trabasso, T. & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612–630.Google Scholar
Turner, K. & Greene, E. (1977). The construction and use of a propositional text base. Technical report No. 63, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
VanSledright, B. A. & Kelly, C. (1998). Reading American history: The influence of multiple sources on six fifth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 98(3), 239–265.Google Scholar
Voss, J.-F. & Wiley, J. (1997). Developing understanding while writing essays in history. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 255–265.Google Scholar
Walczyk, J. J., Kelly, K. E., Meche, S. D., & Braud, H. (1999). Time limitations enhance reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 156–165.Google Scholar
Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2013). Fostering students’ evaluation behavior while searching the Internet. Instructional Science, 41, 125–146.Google Scholar
Wiley, J., Goldman, S., Graesser, A., Sanchez., C., Ash, I. & Hemmerich, J. (2009) Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060–1106. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831209333183Google Scholar
Wiley, J. & Voss, J. F. (1996). The effects of “playing historian” on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 63–72.Google Scholar
Wiley, J. & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. J. & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 101–112. 10.1007/BF02894421Google Scholar
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73–87.Google Scholar
Wineburg, S. S. (1994). The cognitive representation of historical texts. In Leinhardt, G., Beck, I. & Stainton, C. (eds.) Teaching and learning in history (pp. 85–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wolfe, M. B. & Griffin, T. D. (2017). Beliefs and discourse processing. In Schober, M. F., Rapp, D. N., & Britt, M. A. (eds.), Handbook of discourse processes, 2nd edn (pp. 295–314). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
References
Anderson, R. C. (1984). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In Anderson, R., Osborn, J., & Tierney, R. (eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers and content texts (pp. 243–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C. & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In Pearson, P. D. (ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Biancarosa, C. & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next – A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L. & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)80002–4Google Scholar
Brown, A. L. & Palincsar, A. S. (1987). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A natural history of one program for enhancing learning. In Day, J. & Borkowski, J. (eds.), Intelligence and exceptionality: New directions for theory, assessment, and instructional practices (pp. 81–132). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Brozo, W. G. (2009). Response to intervention or responsive instruction? Challenges and possibilities of response to intervention for adolescent literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53, 277–281. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.53.4.1Google Scholar
Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350050101Google Scholar
Compton, D. L., Miller, A. C., Elleman, A. M., & Steacy, L. M. (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.836200Google Scholar
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., … & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.2307/747973Google Scholar
Duke, N. K. & Pearson, P. D. (2008). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. The Journal of Education, 189(1/2), 107–122Google Scholar
Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481–533.Google Scholar
Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998Google Scholar
Elleman, A., Lindo, E. J., Murphy, P., & Compton, D. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1),1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802539200Google Scholar
Gajria, M. & Salvia, J. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(6), 508–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299205800605Google Scholar
Gallini, J. K., Spires, H. A., Terry, S., & Gleaton, J. (1993). The influence of macro and micro-level cognitive strategies training on text learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26(3), 164–178.Google Scholar
Goldman, S. R., Snow, C., & Vaughn, S. (2016). Common themes in teaching reading for understanding: Lessons from three projects. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 60(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.586Google Scholar
Gough, P. B. & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.Google Scholar
Hagaman, J. L., Casey, K. J., & Reid, R. (2016). Paraphrasing strategy instruction for struggling readers. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.966802Google Scholar
Hairrell, A., Simmons, D., Swanson, E., Edmonds, M., Vaughn, S., & Rupley, W. H. (2010). Translating vocabulary research to social studies instruction: Before, during, and after text-reading strategies. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(4), 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451210389606Google Scholar
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487Google Scholar
IDEIA (Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004) Biennial report to Congress: Institute of Education Sciences. http://ies.ed.gov/pdf/biennialrpt05.PdfGoogle Scholar
Jitendra, A. K., Chard, D., Hoppes, M. K., Renouf, K., & Gardill, M. C. (2001). An evaluation of main idea strategy instruction in four commercial reading programs: Implications for students with learning problems. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 17(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/105735601455738Google Scholar
Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246690003400302Google Scholar
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008–4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, and US Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.Google Scholar
Kieffer, M. J. & Lesaux, N. K. (2007). Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.2.3Google Scholar
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Leftwich, S. A. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading “real-world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 291–302.Google Scholar
Levin, J. R. (1973). Inducing comprehension in poor readers: A test of a recent model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034818Google Scholar
National Education Summit on High Schools. (2005). An action agenda for improving America’s high schools. www.achieve.org/SummitActionAgendaGoogle Scholar
NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). (2015). The nation’s report card: Trends in academic progress 2015 (NCES 2015–136). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, and US Department of Education.Google Scholar
NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act). (2001). Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).Google Scholar
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Huang, T., Shaver, D., Knokey, A.-M., Yu, J., … Cameto, R. (2011). Secondary school programs and performance of students with disabilities. A special topic report of findings from the national longitudinal transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2012–3000). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research and US Department of Education.Google Scholar
Paivia, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1Google Scholar
Pressley, G. M. (1976). Mental imagery helps eight-year-olds remember what they read. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(3), 355–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.68.3.355Google Scholar
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 159–194. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0202_4Google Scholar
Raphael, T. E. & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students’ awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 217–235.Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Saenz, L., Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100302Google Scholar
Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.Google Scholar
Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., & Stuebing, K. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995Google Scholar
Schumaker, J. B., Denton, P. H., & Deshler, D. D. (1994). The paraphrasing strategy: Instructor’s manual. Lawrence: University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.Google Scholar
Simmons, D., Hairrell, A., Edmonds, M., Vaughn, S., Larsen, R., Willson, V., … & Byrns, G. (2010). A comparison of multiple-strategy methods: Effects on fourth-grade students’ general and content-specific reading comprehension and vocabulary development. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(2), 121–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345741003596890Google Scholar
Solis, M., Miciak, J., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2014). Why intensive interventions matter: Longitudinal studies of adolescents with reading disabilities and poor reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(4), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714528806Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & Cunningham, A. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.85.2.211Google Scholar
Stevens, E. A., Walker, M. A., & Vaughn, S. (2017). The effects of reading fluency interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(5), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416638028Google Scholar
Toste, J. R., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2013). Supporting struggling readers in high school. In Boon, R. T. & Spencer, V. G. (eds.), Adolescent literacy (pp. 79–91). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies for discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vaughn, S. & Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442157Google Scholar
Vaughn, S. & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540–5826.00070Google Scholar
Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C. D.,… Francis, D. J. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., Swanson, E. A., Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Mohammed, S. S., & Stillman-Spisak, S. J. (2011). Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading with middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 938–964. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410305Google Scholar
Vaughn, S., Swanson, E. A., Roberts, G., Wanzek, J., Stillman‐Spisak, S. J., Solis, M., & Simmons, D. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.039Google Scholar
Vaughn, S. Wanzek, J., Murray, C. S., & Roberts, G. (2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.Google Scholar
Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Barth, A., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M.,... Francis, D. J. (2010). The relative effects of group size on reading progress of older students with reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 23, 931–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009–9183-9Google Scholar
Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Leroux, A., Roberts, G., Denton, C., Barth, A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Effects of intensive reading intervention for eighth-grade students with persistently inadequate response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(6), 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411402692Google Scholar
Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Roberts, G., Barth, A. A., Cirino, P. T., Romain, M. A., … & Denton, C. A. (2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77(4), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700401Google Scholar
Wanzek, J. & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541–561.Google Scholar
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N., Gatlin, B., Walker, M. A., & Capin, P. (2016). Meta- analyses of the effects of tier 2 type reading interventions in Grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015–9321-7Google Scholar
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 163–195. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313477212Google Scholar
Watson, S. M. R., Gable, R. A., Gear, S. B., & Hughes, K. C. (2012). Evidence‐based strategies for improving the reading comprehension of secondary students: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–5826.2012.00353.xGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, R. K. & Balajthy, E. (1990). Development of disabled readers’ metacomprehension ability through summarization training using expository text: Results of three studies. Journal of Reading, Writing, & Learning Disabilities International, 6(2), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/0748763900060204Google Scholar