Comprehension in a Scenario-Based Assessment: Domain and Topic-Specific Background Knowledge

References

• Alexander, P. A. (1992). Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 33–51. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). The influence of topic knowledge, domain knowledge, and interest on the comprehension of scientific exposition. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 379–397. doi:10.1016/1041-6080(94)90001-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61, 315–343. doi:10.3102/00346543061003315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, P. A., Sperl, C. T., Buehl, M. M., Fives, H., & Chiu, S. (2004). Modeling domain learning: Profiles from the field of special education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 545–557. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., & Readence, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 420–436. doi:10.2307/747852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bigot, L. L., & Rouet, J. F. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students’ comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 445–470. doi:10.1080/10862960701675317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9
   Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., & Durik, A. M. (2017). Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cromley, J., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31, 105–113. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3102_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deane, P. (2012). NLP methods for supporting vocabulary analysis. In J. Sabatini, T. O’Reilly, & L. Albro (Eds.), Reaching an understanding: Innovations in how we view reading assessment (pp. 117–146). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145–186. doi:10.3102/00346543069002145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earthman, E. (1992). Creating the virtual work: Readers’ processes in understanding literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English., 26, 351–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fancsali, C., Abe, Y., Pyatigorsky, M., Ortiz, L., Hunt, A., Chan, V., … Jaciw, A. P. (2015). The impact of the reading apprenticeship improving secondary education (RAISE) project on academic literacy in high school: A report of a randomized experiment in Pennsylvania and California schools. (Empirical Education Rep. No. Empirical_ RAISE-7019-FR1-O.2). Palo Alto, CA: Empirical Education Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Fincher-Kiefer, R., Post, T. A., Greene, T. R., & Voss, J. F. (1988). On the role of prior knowledge and task demands in the processing of text. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 416–428. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90065-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 265–304. doi:10.1080/01638539709544994
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., & Greenleaf, C.; Project READI. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 219–246. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 311–335). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graves, B., & Frederiksen, C. H. (1991). Literary expertise in the description of fictional narrative. Poetics, 20, 1–26. doi:10.1016/0304-422X(91)90031-J
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haenggi, D., & Perfetti, C. A. (1994). Processing components of college‐level reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17(1), 83–104. doi:10.1080/01638539409544860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1567–1577. doi:10.3758/BF03193491
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• LaRusso, M., Kim, H. Y., Selman, R., Uccelli, P., Dawson, T., Jones, S., … Snow, C. (2016). Contributions of academic language, perspective taking, and complex reasoning to deep reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(2), 201–222. doi:10.1080/19345747.2015.1116035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J., Sedransk, N., Coiro, J., & Kennedy, C. (2013). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and preparing students for the 21st century with common core state standards. In S. B. Neuman & L. B. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality Reading Instruction in the Age of Common Core Standards, 219–236. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and Emotion. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, K. S., & Goldman, S. R. (in press). Constructing interpretive inferences about literary text: The role of domain-specific knowledge. Learning and Instruction.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 229–241. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 79–93. doi:10.2307/747834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKeown, M. G., Deane, P. D., Scott, J. A., Krovetz, R., & Lawless, R. R. (2017). Vocabulary assessment to support instruction: building rich word-learning experiences. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51–62. doi:10.1037/h0087352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across genres and grades. In J. P. Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 89–116). Lanham, MD: R&L Education.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288. doi:10.1080/01638539609544975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 465–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2002). What counts? The predictive powers of subject-matter knowledge, strategic processing, and interest in domain-specific performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(3), 197–214. doi:10.1080/00220970209599506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for english language arts. Washington, D.C: Author.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007a). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional “high stakes” measures of high school students’ science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 161–196. doi:10.3102/0002831206298171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007b). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121–152. doi:10.1080/01638530709336895
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., & Sabatini, J. (2013). Reading for understanding: How performance moderators and scenarios impact assessment design. ETS Research Report Series, 2013, 2.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., Sabatini, J., & Wang, Z. (in press). The impact of topical knowledge and knowledge monitoring on the ability comprehend and learn from text.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., Wang, Z., Sabatini, J., & Steinberg, J., Weeks. (in press). GISA validity argument: Claims and supporting evidence.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., Weeks, J., Sabatini, J., Halderman, L., & Steinberg, J. (2014). Designing reading comprehension assessments for reading interventions: How a theoretically motivated assessment can serve as an outcome measure. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 403–424. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9269-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition & Instruction, 25, 399–438. doi:10.1080/07370000701632371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peskin, J. (1998). Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An expert-novice study. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 135–263. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1603_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouet, J. F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 85–106. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1501_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J., Halderman, L., O’Reilly, T., & Weeks, J. (2016). Assessing comprehension in kindergarten through third grade. Topics in Language Disorders, 36(4), 334–355. doi:10.1097/TLD.0000000000000104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Deane, P. (2013). Rationale for a new generation of reading comprehension assessments. In B. Miller, L. Cutting, & P. McCardle (Eds.), Unraveling the behavioral, neurobiological, and genetic components of reading comprehension (pp. 100–111). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J. P., O’Reilly, T., Halderman, L. K., & Bruce, K. (2014). Integrating scenario-based and component reading skill measures to understand the reading behavior of struggling readers. Learning Disabilities, 29, 36–43.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 159–189. doi:10.3102/00028312041001159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
   Google Scholar
• Spilich, G., Vesonder, G., Chiesi, H., & Voss, J. (1979). Text processing of domain related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 275–290. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90155-5
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, R. A., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2004). Academic aptitude and prior knowledge as predictors of student achievement in introduction to psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 778–784. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.778
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1081–1087. doi:10.3758/BF03206376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading. In I. H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Voss, J. F., & Silfies, L. N. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 45–68. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, C. H. (1987). Relative importance of domain knowledge and overall aptitude on acquisition of domain-related information. Cognition and Instruction, 4(1), 25–42. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0401_2
   Google Scholar
• Warren, J. E. (2011). “Generic” and “specific” expertise in English: An expert/expert study in poetry interpretation and academic argument. Cognition and Instruction, 29(4), 349–374. doi:10.1080/07370008.2011.607929
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiley, J., George, T., & Rayner, K. (2016). Baseball fans don’t like lumpy batters: Influence of domain knowledge on the access of subordinate meanings. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319–346. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2203_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wineburg, S. S. (1997). Beyond “breadth and depth”: Subject matter knowledge and assessment. Theory Into Practice, 36, 255–261. doi:10.1080/00405849709543776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar