The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence
Abstract
Two experiments, theoretically motivated by the construction‐integration model of comprehension (W. Kintsch, 1988), investigated effects of prior knowledge on learning from high‐ and low‐coherence history texts. In Experiment 1, participants’ comprehension was examined through free recall, multiple‐choice questions, and a keyword sorting task. An advantage was found for the high‐coherence text on recall and multiple‐choice questions. However, high‐knowledge readers performed better on the sorting task after reading the low‐coherence text. In Experiment 2, participants’ comprehension was examined through open‐ended questions and the sorting task both immediately and after a 1‐week delay. Little effect of delay was found, and the previous sorting task results failed to replicate. As predicted, high‐knowledge readers performed better on the open‐ended questions after reading the low‐coherence text. Reading times from both experiments indicated that the low‐coherence text requires more inference processes. These inferences are more likely to be successful and useful for high‐knowledge readers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x · Cited by 1,582
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1 · Cited by 1,341
Self-citationInterest, Prior Knowledge, and Learning
Tobias, S. (1994) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543064001037 · Cited by 713
Cited by
SERT: Self-Explanation Reading Training
McNamara, D. S. (2004) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3801_1 · Cited by 519
Self-citationPrior 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
Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge.
McNamara, D. S. (2001) · Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · doi:10.1037/h0087352 · Cited by 342
Self-citationComputational 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
Self-citationWorking memory capacity and strategy use
McNamara, D. S., & Scott, J. L. (2001) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03195736 · Cited by 296
Self-citationTransfer of test- enhanced learning: meta-analytic review and synthesis
Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000151 · Cited by 286
Differential Competencies Contributing to Children's Comprehension of Narrative and Expository Texts
Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & Mcnamara, D. S. (2008) · Reading Psychology · doi:10.1080/02702710801963951 · Cited by 281
Self-citationWittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520701756420 · Cited by 277
Nassaji, H. (2002) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00189 · Cited by 271
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2015) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z · Cited by 220
Toward an Integrated Framework of Multiple Text Use
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514 · Cited by 147
Comparing comprehension measured by multiple-choice and open-ended questions.
Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Kurby, C. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013) · Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · doi:10.1037/a0032918 · Cited by 134
Self-citationStadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769996 · Cited by 126
Does Strategic Memory Training Improve the Working Memory Performance of Younger and Older Adults?
Carretti, B., Borella, E., & De Beni, R. (2007) · Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1027/1618-3169.54.4.311 · Cited by 127
Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2010) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9090-5 · Cited by 103
Text difficulty, topic interest, and mind wandering during reading
Soemer, A., & Schiefele, U. (2019) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.12.006 · Cited by 102
Ignacio Madrid, R., Van Oostendorp, H., & Puerta Melguizo, M. C. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.06.005 · Cited by 99
Hattan, C., Alexander, P. A., & Lupo, S. M. (2024) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543221148478 · Cited by 90
Endres, T., Lovell, O., Morkunas, D., Rieß, W., & Renkl, A. (2023) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjep.12563 · Cited by 57
Forensic scientists’ conclusions: How readable are they for non-scientist report-users?
Howes, L. M., Kirkbride, K. P., Kelty, S. F., Julian, R., & Kemp, N. (2013) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.026 · Cited by 34
Medve, V. B., & Takač, V. P. (2013) · Second Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35305-5_7 · Cited by 33
Cognition, Memory, and Education
McDaniel, M. A., & Callender, A. A. (2008) · Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference · doi:10.1016/b978-012370509-9.00145-5 · Cited by 22
Distributed Learning in the Classroom: Effects of Rereading Schedules Depend on Time of Test
Greving, C. E., & Richter, T. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02517 · Cited by 15
“McNamara and Kintsch (1996) demonstrated that the comprehension of junior high school students with low prior knowledge benefited from more coherent and thus easier texts, whereas the comprehension of students with higher prior knowledge benefit from less coherent and thus more difficult texts.”
BackgroundKaren Murphy, P., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., M. V. Croninger, R., Duke, R. F., Li, M., & Lobczowski, N. G. (2022) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102099 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W.
- Venue
- Discourse Processes
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1996-10
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 247-288
- ISSN
- 0163-853X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6950
- OpenAlex
- W2028131103
- Cited by
- 745
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
