Cited by 5Reading and Literacy DevelopmentMemory Processes and InfluencesAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

Comprehension

Walter, Kintsch·2016·Scientists Making a Difference

Abstract

My first publication appeared in 1956 when I still was a graduate student, while my most recent one came last year (2014), a decade after I retired from my position as a psychology professor and director of an Institute of Cognitive Science. That is a long time, and psychology has changed a great deal during that period, and so has my work. Nevertheless, much of my career has focused on the same problem: to study how people read and comprehend texts, both in the psychological laboratory and in educational settings. Today, the study of text and discourse comprehension, text memory, and learning from text is a flourishing branch of experimental psychology and cognitive science, and I had a small part in making this happen. I came to text and discourse from the study of memory. Memory research was one of the big achievements of the new cognitive psychology. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the modern conception of memory was formulated in the 1960s. Of course, there has been significant progress since then, but the basic framework for our understanding of memory was worked out at that time. This achievement was made possible because the new research on memory adopted a principle that goes back to the earliest days of experimental psychology. Namely, the laboratory studies of memory avoided dealing with meaningful material, by adopting nonsense syllables in the tradition of Ebbinghaus, or by working with word lists. This was a brilliant move in that, by disregarding the com…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9781316422250.039

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Understanding and sense-making processes include explicit comprehension strategies, verbally-mediated self-explanation, explicit hypothesizing and scientific discovery, deductive proof, and explicit argumentation or collaborative discourse.

    “Understanding and sense-making processes include explicit comprehension strategies (e.g., Graesser et al., 2005;Kintsch, 1998;Palinscar & Brown, 1984), verbally-mediated selfexplanation (e.g., Ainsworth, & Loizou, 2003;Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann & Glaser, 1989;Lewis, 1988;VanLehn, 1999), explicit hypothesizing and scientific discovery processes (Levine, 1966;Klahr & Dunbar, 1988), deductive proof”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walter, K.
Corresponding author
Walter, Kintsch
Venue
Scientists Making a Difference
Published
2016-07-31
Pages
175-178
OpenAlex
W4252930195
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Keywords
text comprehension, discourse comprehension, memory for text, learning from text, meaning representation, memory studies, history of psychology, cognitive psychology, word lists, nonsense syllables

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review