COMPREHENSION

By H. Shim, Thomas J. Grabowski. 2010

479 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology, Question Answering & Reading Comprehension

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Richard E. Mayer
2. K. Cain
3. Logan Fiorella
4. Y. Kim
5. J. R. García
6. J. Stafura
7. Charles A. Perfetti
8. Patricia A. Alexander

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Richard E. Mayer
2. Logan Fiorella
3. Patricia A. Alexander
4. J. Stafura
5. Y. Kim
6. Charles A. Perfetti
7. Ehud Reiter
8. Walter Daelemans

In Social Psychology

1. Patricia A. Alexander
2. Ehud Reiter
3. The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Labo
4. Walter Daelemans
5. Richard E. Mayer
6. Logan Fiorella
7. Charles A. Perfetti
8. Simon Suster

In Question Answering & Reading Comprehension

1. Walter Daelemans
2. Simon Suster
3. E. Fox
4. Y. Kim
5. K. Cain

Citations in the corpus

• Why the Simple View of Reading Is Not Simplistic: Unpacking Component Skills of Reading Using a Direct and Indirect Effect Model of Reading (DIER) (2017, background): “The situationmodel is amental representation ofmeaning as it is actually expressed by the text (oral or written text; Kintsch & Rawson, 2005) and is established throughmultiple processes at different levels of mental representation (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1988).”
• The Role of Reader Characteristics in Processing and Learning From Informational Text (2009, background): “Kintsch (1998), in particular, distinguished between the aspect of the reader’s representation of the text involving representation of the propositions in the text and their relations, which he termed the textbase, and the aspect involving the representation of what the text means as integrated…”
• Decoding and Reading Comprehension (2014, background): “Another important factor to consider is the nature of information assessed (literal or inferential) or, in other words, the nature of the reader’s mental representation, textbase, or the situation model (Graesser, Millis, & Zwaan, 1997; Kintsch, 1994, 1998; van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983).”
• Reading Into the Future: Competence for the 21st Century (2012, background): “Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehen-”
• Word Knowledge in a Theory of Reading Comprehension (2014, background): “Following van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) and Kintsch (1988), text comprehension research headed in new directions, building on these models of textknowledge interaction and creating enriched variations (Goldman & Varma, 1995) and updates on the basic idea (Kintsch & Rawson, 2005).”
• CliCR: a Dataset of Clinical Case Reports for Machine Reading Comprehension (2018, methodology): “For an expert reader this process is more automatized (Kintsch and Rawson, 2008).”
• An Investigation into the Validity of Some Metrics for Automatically Evaluating Natural Language Generation Systems (2009, background): “It may be worth investigating whether psycholinguistic models of language comprehension (for example, Kintsch 1998) could provide a stronger theoretical basis for metric plausibility.”
• Eight Ways to Promote Generative Learning (2016, background): “…of generative learning and Mayer’s SOI framework—as well as other similar frameworks of active learning (e.g., Chi and Wylie 2014; Kiewra 2005; Kintsch 1998—have resulted in a large body of empirical research investigating ways in which teachers and students can foster meaningful learning…”