Cognitive Processes in Comprehension of Science Texts : The Role of Co-Activation in Confronting Misconceptions

By Paul van den Broek, Panayiota Kendeou. 2008

273 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c9e2c494a33b45e1e34d25f1fe84b8c0b50ff7c5

How researchers see this paper

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

In Artificial Intelligence

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The Nature of the Refutation Text Effect: An Investigation of Attention Allocation (2010, methodology): “…been done in previous research exploring online comprehension processes while reading refutation texts (Kendeou & van den Broek, 2005, 2007; van den Broek & Kendeou, 2008) and research investigating attention allocation during reading (Cirilo & Foss, 1980; McCrudden & Schraw, 2009; Reynolds, 1992;…”
The Discrepancy-Induced Source Comprehension (D-ISC) Model: Basic Assumptions and Preliminary Evidence (2017, background): “The controversial content would not become coactivated in working memory (Kendeou & O’Brien, 2014), making it unlikely that the reader experiences cognitive conflict (D’Mello et al., 2014; Otero, 2002; van den Broek & Kendeou, 2008).”
Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with high confidence (2015, background): “To correct misconceptions, learners need to coactivate these together with the correct concepts to become aware that the two conflict with each other (van den Broek & Kendeou, 2008).”
The influences of text and reader characteristics on learning from refutations in science texts. (2013, background): “As indicated earlier, the coactivation hypothesis (Kendeou & van den Broek, 2007; van den Broek & Kendeou, 2008) as well as more passive activation-based text processing models predict that contemporaneous presence-inconsciousness of the misconception and the correct conception are necessary for…”
Bridging Reading Comprehension and Conceptual Change in Science Education: The Promise of Refutation Text (2011, background): ““When concepts are co-activated in a cycle a connection between these concepts is established (or strengthened, if a connection already existed)” (van den Broek & Kendeou, 2008, p. 339).”
Using Reading Times and Eye-Movements to Measure Cognitive Engagement (2015, background): “This study was motivated by the conflicting results of van den Broek and Kendeou (2008) using self-paced reading.”
A Cognitive View of Reading Comprehension: Implications for Reading Difficulties (2014, background): “From a processing point of view, misconceptions are best confronted by presenting the existing, incorrect knowledge and the new, correct knowledge explicitly and in close proximity in the text (Kendeou, Smith, & O’Brien, 2013; van den Broek, 2010; van den Broek & Kendeou, 2008).”
Reader and text factors in reading comprehension processes (2011, unknown): “…& Pintrich, 1997; Schommer, 1990) 認識的信念の低い個人は、知識は単純で、絶対で、確実であると信じる傾向にある認識的信念の高い個人は、知識は複雑で、暫定的で、進化的であると信じる傾向にある (Murphy & Mason, 2006) 認識的信念は個人の読解、特に、理解のモニタリングやテキストの解釈に影響を及ぼす (Ryan, 1984; Schommer, Crouse & Rhodes, 1992; Kardash & Scholes, 1996; Kardash & Howell, 2000; Schommer, 1990) …”
Knowledge Revision Processes in Refutation Texts (2014, background): “Unless this incorrect knowledge is revised, it can interfere with the acquisition of new knowledge (Kendeou & van den Broek, 2005, 2007; Kendeou et al, 2011; van den Broek & Kendeou, 2008; van den Broek, 2010).”
Activation of inaccurate prior knowledge affects primary-school students' metacognitive judgments and calibration (2013, background): “Research has found that when the inaccuracy of prior knowledge is not directly identified and addressed, it can be resistant to change and hinder the learning of new information (Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999; Lipson, 1982; Van den Broek & Kendeou, 2008).”