Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: the role of co‐activation in confronting misconceptions

Broek, Paul van den; Kendeou, Panayiota

doi:10.1002/acp.1418

Cited by 202 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

127

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, readers displayed better memory for source information if the information was presented in conjunction with discrepant assertions, as compared to cases in which the sources agreed. This effect qualifies previous research that has demonstrated readers' enhanced memory for regions of texts conveying conflicting content information (Albrecht & O'Brien, 1993;Hakala & O'Brien, 1995;O'Brien & Myers, 1985;Tapiero & Otero, 1999). When texts imply that discrepant assertions are associated with two distinct and meaningful sources, readers instead display enhanced memory for source-content links.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 43%

“…Supplemental measures have suggested that increased reading times indicate, above and beyond merely noticing a discrepancy, readers' attempts to selectively retrieve and reprocess information from long-term memory that contradicted the target sentence. Strong evidence for this is that readers exhibit enhanced memory for the regions of texts conveying conflicting content, more than for other previously read sentences (Albrecht & O'Brien, 1993;Baker & Anderson, 1982;Hakala & O'Brien, 1995;O'Brien & Albrecht, 1992;O'Brien & Myers, 1985;Tapiero & Otero, 1999). Verbal protocol evidence supports the idea that readers frequently attempt to resolve the two contradictory statements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 54%

“…However, the continued influence of the currently viable and the outdated information on inference-level performance additionally suggests that mental representations stemming from these paradigms are rather fragmented and incoherent. For example, groups receiving misinformation correction often provide completely contradictory responses across inference-level questions, and at times within the same question (Seifert, 2002; van Oostendorp, 2002;Wilkes & Leatherbarrow, 1988).Thus, when presented with discrepant information, readers appear to store some components of the newer and the outdated information and to use both types of information during comprehension (H.M. Johnson & Seifert, 1994Seifert, 2002;Tapiero & Otero, 1999; van Oostendorp & Bonebakker, 1999). The reliance on old information may be due to readers' reluctance or difficulty in reconsidering their mental model of the situation (i.e., the set of inferences and connections that were made on the basis of the old information).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, when presented with discrepant information, readers appear to store some components of the newer and the outdated information and to use both types of information during comprehension (H.M. Johnson & Seifert, 1994Seifert, 2002;Tapiero & Otero, 1999;van Oostendorp & Bonebakker, 1999). The reliance on old information may be due to readers' reluctance or difficulty in reconsidering their mental model of the situation (i.e., the set of inferences and connections that were made on the basis of the old information).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, we examined the role of discrepancy on readers' text processing of and memory for the sources of brief news reports. Each story included two assertions that were attributed to different sources. We manipulated whether the second assertion was either discrepant or consistent with the first assertion. On the basis of the discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) assumption, we predicted that discrepant stories would promote deeper processing and better memory for the sources conveying the messages, as compared to consistent stories. As predicted, readers mentioned more sources in summaries of discrepant stories, recalled more sources, made more fixations, and displayed longer gaze times in source areas when reading discrepant than when reading consistent stories. In Experiment 2, we found enhanced memory for source-content links for discrepant stories even when intersentential connectors were absent, and regardless of the reading goals. Discussion was focused on discrepancies as one mechanism by which readers are prompted to encode source-content links more deeply, as a method of integrating disparate pieces of information into a coherent mental representation of a text.Keywords Discrepancies . Eye movements . Memory . Sources . Text comprehensionThere is an old saying that "there are two sides to every story." This saying describes the observation that, in everyday contexts, we are frequently presented with and must comprehend uncertain or tentative events, which have resulted in multiple interpretations. In newspaper reports, for example, a single event is often described (e.g., a fire in a building) that may be attributed to various reasons (sabotage vs. electrical malfunction), either within the same report or across several different ones. These kinds of discrepancies are notably different from simple errors in reporting; in fact, they are part and parcel of the state of affairs of the situation. In the present example, the cause of the fire may have been uncertain at the time that the newspapers were printed, investigation may be ongoing, and so on.The present experiments were designed to give some clarity regarding the cognitive mechanisms that operate during the comprehension of discrepancies like these when they appear in texts, particularly when different sources are associated with the conflicting pieces of information (e.g., "The detective claims that the fire in the building was due to sabotage. However, a journalist asserts that the fire was caused by an electrical malfunction."). In the present work, we argue that comprehending discrepancies of this kind requires that readers attend to-and at times rememberwho said what. More colloquially, in the event that readers have accessed a discrepancy during reading, are they more Mem Cogn (2012) 40:450-465 DOI 10.3758/s13421-011-0160-6 likely to pay attention to and remember the "two sides to the story," and if so, why? Do readers regularly monitor their understandings of texts and notice when texts present conflicting...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 43%

mentioning

confidence: 54%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Para lograr esta representación, el lector debe conectar ideas provenientes de diferentes partes del texto e integrarlas (Abusamra, & Joanette, 2012), esto es, debe realizar inferencias y conexiones entre la información literal explícita (Elbro & Buch-Iversen, 2013;van den Broek & Kendeou, 2008). La generación de inferencias se refiere a la activación de información que no se encuentra explícitamente enunciada durante la lectura para dar mayor coherencia a la oración focal que se está leyendo (Carlson et al, 2014;Freed & Cain, 2016;van den Broek, Risden, Fletcher, & Thurlow, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified