Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge.
Abstract
Previous research (e.g., McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch, 1996) has demonstrated that high-knowledge readers learn more from low-coherence than high-coherence texts. This study further examined the assumption that this advantage is due to the use of knowledge to fill in the gaps in the text, resulting in an integration of the text with prior knowledge. Participants read either a high- or low-coherence text twice, or they read both the high- and low-coherence texts in one order or the other. Reading the low-coherence text first should force the reader to use prior knowledge to fill in the conceptual gaps. However, reading the high-coherence text first was predicted to negate the necessity of using prior knowledge to understand the low-coherence text when the latter was presented second. As predicted, high-knowledge readers benefited from the low-coherence only text when it was read first. Low-knowledge readers benefited from the high-coherence text, regardless of whether it was read first, second, or twice.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the reverse cohesion effect, readers with high knowledge in a domain do better in learning from a text when the text has cohesion gaps.
“In this reversal effect, readers with high knowledge in a domain do better in learning from a text when the text has cohesion gaps, which presumably stimulate more active knowledge retrieval and inference making.”
From The Knowledge‐Learning‐Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science‐Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning (2012) · cites this paper as McNamara, 2001
Cites
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x · Cited by 1,582 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01245.x · Cited by 772 · see citing works
Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003 · Cited by 428 · see citing works
Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension
Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01081.x · Cited by 325 · see citing works
Self-citationToward an Integrated Framework of Multiple Text Use
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2010) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9090-5 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Important Constructs in Literacy Learning across Disciplines
Foorman, B. R., Arndt, E. J., & Crawford, E. C. (2011) · Topics in Language Disorders · doi:10.1097/tld.0b013e31820a0b86 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- McNamara, D. S.
- Affiliations
- Old Dominion University (US)
- Corresponding author
- McNamara, Danielle S.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-62
- ISSN
- 1196-1961 (ISSN-L)
- 1878-7290
- OpenAlex
- W1968199915
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 8.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Keywords
- text coherence, prior knowledge, reading comprehension, text integration
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Humans, Random Allocation, Reading, Semantics, Time Factors
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