What Have We Been Missing? The Role of General World Knowledge in Discourse Processing

Cook, Anne E.; Guéraud, Sabine

doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3902&3_9

Cited by 61 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also possible, however, that the observed dominance of world knowledge is not an inherent property of the system but emerged due to other factors. For example, the dominance of one informational source over the other may depend on the strength of the reader's text-relevant general world knowledge (Cook & O'Brien, 2014) versus the strength of the contextual information (e.g., Cook & Guéraud, 2005;Myers, Cook, Kambe, Mason, & O'Brien, 2000;O'Brien & Albrecht, 1991). In the current study, knowledge-based inaccuracies tended to be stronger than the text-based incongruencies, as the former were outright errors and the latter merely unlikely.…”

Section: Differentiating Text-based and Knowledge-based Validation Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differentiating Text-Based and Knowledge-Based Validation Processes during Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements

Moort

Koornneef

Broek

2020

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To build a coherent accurate mental representation of a text, readers routinely validate information they read against the preceding text and their background knowledge. It is clear that both sources affect processing, but when and how they exert their influence remains unclear. To examine the time course and cognitive architecture of text-based and knowledgebased validation processes, we used eye-tracking methodology. Participants read versions of texts that varied systematically in (in)coherence with prior text or background knowledge. Contradictions with respect to prior text and background knowledge both were found to disrupt reading but in different ways: The two types of contradiction led to distinct patterns of processes, and, importantly, these differences were evident already in early processing stages. Moreover, knowledge-based incoherence triggered more pervasive and longer (repair) processes than did text-based incoherence. Finally, processing of text-based and knowledge-based incoherence was not influenced by readers' working memory capacity.

show abstract

Section: Differentiating Text-based and Knowledge-based Validation Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differentiating Text-Based and Knowledge-Based Validation Processes during Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements

Moort

Koornneef

Broek

2020

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Knowledge includes any information and the structure of the information stored in long-term memory (Cook & Gueraud, 2005), and in reading research, the term prior knowledge (used interchangeably with background knowledge) has been used to account for knowledge that readers have (e.g., Coiro, 2011;Priebe et al, 2012;Taft & Leslie, 1985). There are three dimensions of prior knowledge that can affect the process of reading comprehension (Cook & Gueraud, 2005): lexical knowledge (information about 3 meanings of words), featural knowledge (information about characteristics of objects and ideas), and script/scenario knowledge (episodic information about different situations). For example, in reading a text about evergreens, prior knowledge about the meaning of word evergreen (trees that have green leaves for all seasons), prior knowledge about characteristics of evergreens (e.g., needle-like leaves, seeds inside cones), and prior experience of planting a pine tree can influence the quality and characteristics of situation models constructed with a text about evergreens.…”

Section: Prior Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Content Counts and Motivation Matters: Reading Comprehension in Third-Grade Students Who Are English Learners

Hwang

Duke

2020

AERA Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the role of science domain knowledge, reading motivation, and decoding skills in reading comprehension achievement in third-grade students who are English learners (ELs) and students who are monolingual, using a nationally representative data set. Multigroup probit regression analyses showed that third-grade science domain knowledge and motivation for reading, decoding skills, and early attainment of decoding skills were significantly associated with third-grade reading comprehension in both language groups. Also, using Wald chi-square tests, the study showed that the association between third-grade science domain knowledge and reading comprehension was stronger in students who were ELs than in students who were monolingual. These findings suggest that cultivating science domain knowledge is very important to supporting reading comprehension development in third grade, particularly for students who are ELs.

show abstract

“…Processes and competencies that are critical to the construction of a coherent mental model of the text include inference generation (Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, ; Graesser & Kreuz, ), integration of ideas across a text and with background knowledge (Cain et al., ; Coté, Goldman, & Saul, ; McNamara & Kintsch, ), monitoring understanding (Cain et al., ; Hacker, ), awareness of text structure (Cain et al., ; Perfetti, ), and foundational skills such as word reading (Cain et al., ; Cromley & Azevedo, ; Perfetti, Landi, & Oakhill, ). These processes are impacted by characteristics of text (Barth, Tolar, Fletcher, & Francis, ; Cain & Nash, ; McNamara, ) and by a range of reader characteristics, including verbal working memory (i.e., the concurrent processing and storing of verbal information; Cain et al., ; Laing & Kamhi, ; Linderholm & van den Broek, ; Yuill & Oakhill, ), vocabulary knowledge and verbal ability (Cain et al., ; Cromley & Azevedo, ; Karasinski & Weismer, ; Laing & Kamhi, ; Nation, Adams, Bowyer‐Crane, & Snowling, ), readers' goals and purposes for reading (Linderholm & van den Broek, ; van den Broek, Lorch, Linderholm, & Gustafson, ), and the extent and quality of the reader's relevant world knowledge (Cook & Guéraud, ; Cromley & Azevedo, ; Kendeou & van den Broek, ).…”

Section: Essential Text Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Text-Processing Differences in Adolescent Adequate and Poor Comprehenders Reading Accessible and Challenging Narrative and Informational Text

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the analysis of 620 think‐aloud verbal protocols from students in grades 7, 9, and 11, we examined students' conscious engagement in inference generation, paraphrasing, verbatim text repetition, and monitoring while reading narrative or informational texts that were either at or above the students' current reading levels. Students were randomly assigned to read informational or narrative text, and each student read two texts in their assigned genre—one accessible and one challenging. The research question addressed the combinations of text processes that best differentiated four groups of readers: (1) adequate comprehenders who read narrative and (2) informational text and (3) poor comprehenders who read narrative and (4) informational text. Canonical discriminant analysis (CDA) revealed that the four groups were best differentiated by two latent, underlying functions related to (a) a combination of inference generation in accessible text and paraphrasing in both accessible and difficult text (On‐Level Inference/Paraphrasing) and (b) monitoring in both accessible and difficult text (Monitoring). Poor comprehenders who read informational text were significantly lower than the other three groups on On‐Level Inference/Paraphrasing. Poor comprehenders in both genres were significantly lower on Monitoring than adequate comprehenders who read informational text. A second CDA further examining the effects of text difficulty identified one latent function primarily explained by inference generation (Inference). Text difficulty had a significant impact on adequate comprehenders' Inference in narrative text. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

show abstract

What Have We Been Missing? The Role of General World Knowledge in Discourse Processing

Cited by 61 publications

References 59 publications

Differentiating Text-Based and Knowledge-Based Validation Processes during Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements

Differentiating Text-Based and Knowledge-Based Validation Processes during Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements

Content Counts and Motivation Matters: Reading Comprehension in Third-Grade Students Who Are English Learners

Text-Processing Differences in Adolescent Adequate and Poor Comprehenders Reading Accessible and Challenging Narrative and Informational Text

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About