discourse processes in reading comprehension.pdf

8/12/2019 Discourse Processes in reading comprehension.pdf

1/18

Integrating Memory-Basedand Constructionist Processes in

Accounts of Reading Comprehension

Paul van den Broek, David N. Rapp, and Panayiota KendeouUniversity of Minnesota

Memory-based and constructionist processes have both been proposed as essential

components of the activation of concepts (e.g., propositions) and the establishment

of meaningful connections between concepts during reading. In this article, we argue

that a comprehensive theory of reading comprehension should include both sets of

processes. In support of this view, we summarize the results of several studies that

support the contribution of both processes during reading. In addition, we describethe conceptual framework of the Landscape Model, in which memory-based and

constructionist processes areexplicitly interconnected and dynamically interact in an

account of reading comprehension.

In the memoirBaghdad Express,author Joel Turnipseed (2003) described his ex-

periences in the Marine Corps during the Gulf War. His story begins during the

first morning of the air strike on Iraq:

We had gotten up early, packed our gear, and put the finishing touches on our ALICE

packs and our H-harnesses: flashlights and Ka-Bar fighting knives and entrenching

tools and ammo pouches and canteens and first-aid kits buckled and snapped and

duct-taped in their places on nylon straps clipped to a cartridge belt, forming an H

over our bodies. We checked our chemical weapons gear and gas masks. We cleaned

our M16s. We dressed for the first time in our desert camouflage uniforms, which

we called chocolate chips. We were all reservists activated as truck drivers, but the

Corps mission states that every Marine is a combat warrior. (p. 5)

DISCOURSE PROCESSES,39(2&3), 299316Copyright 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Paul van den Broek, University of Min-

nesota, Department of Educational Psychology, 211 Burton Hall, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail:

[email protected]


2/18

Turnipseeds equipment only seems to get heavier during his tour of duty:

I carried three seabags, one like a backpack over each shoulder, my rifle in one handand a cot in the other. With this load I struggled around and beside and between tents.

I stumbled over ropes and chains, the cement blocks to which they were attached .

(p. 112)

To understand the information provided in a text, a reader must make connections

between text elements as well as between text elements and prior knowledge. The

first excerpt contains several examples of connections between text elements. For

example, various pieces of Turnipseeds gear are individually mentioned, provid-

ing referential connections for items that are contained in ALICE packs. In addi-tion, the anaphoric termchocolate chipsprovides a referential connection to the

antecedentuniforms,affording an alternative term for Marine Corps garb. The ex-

cerpt also illustrates possible connections to background knowledge. For example,

the termsALICE packs, chocolate chips,and the specific pieces of gear described

in the paragraph may activate prior knowledge for other military-based concepts

and perhaps even for other dessert- (and desert-) related terms. Thus, each item

from the list of ALICE components may activate other types of military gear (e.g.,

helmet, boots, grenade, etc.) from memory. These types of connections, developed

between information in the text as well as between information in the text andbackground knowledge, can become readily available during moment-by-moment

reading processes.

The second excerpt provides an illustration of a different kind of frequently

made connection, one that bridges the conceptual gap between two parts of a text.

Most readers of this excerpt will assume that Turnipseed stumbled over the tent

ropes because of the heavy load he was carrying. The information in the text, as

well as background knowledge (e.g., that people usually do not stumble without

cause, that heavy loads make walking difficult), provide the constraints for the in-

ference that establishes this connection.In addition to these types of connections, readers can develop more elaborate

associations or expectations about events that they believe may occur as the story

unfolds. For example, when reading the first excerpt readers could generate the

prediction that, despite the fact that reservists traditionally serve as truck drivers

during military operations, Turnipseed will become involved in firefight activity

(otherwise, why would he have mentioned all of his gear and his training as a com-

bat warrior?). Another predictive inference, driven by extensive prior knowledge

about the Gulf War, would lead a reader to expect that Turnipseed will actually en-

counter little ground activity (and, perhaps, interpret the descriptionof his gear as acommentary on the absurdity of military situations). These are just a few examples

of elaborate inferences that readers can construct as they read this text. The spe-

cific inferences that readers develop will depend on factors such as the readers

300 VAN DEN BROEK, RAPP, KENDEOU


3/18

prior knowledge, willingness to hypothesize about future text events, strategies or

goals for comprehension, and the information provided in the text itself.

As the aforementioned examples illustrate, a central component of comprehen-sion is the identification of semantic connections between the various pieces of in-

formationin the text, andbetween this information andreadersbackgroundknowl-

edge. In the discourse processing literature, two sets of processes have been

proposed as providingthe foundation for the identification of such meaningful con-

nections: memory-based processes and constructionist processes. According to the

memory-basedview of text processing, as a text is read, information in the text (and

any otherinformationalreadyactivatedinworking memory) will triggera spread of

activation through the readers knowledge base, activating associated information

(Gerrig & McKoon, 1998; McKoon, Gerrig, & Greene, 1996; Myers & OBrien,1998; OBrien, 1995). This spread of activation can occur through the episodic

memory representation that the reader has constructed of the text so far as well as

through his or her semantic (background) knowledge. This memory-based activa-

tion process is generally described as occurring for free (McKoon & Ratcliff,

1992), because it ispassiveandinvolves littleor no influenceof strategy. According

tothe constructionistview, readers have explicit andimplicit goals orstandards they

actively attempt to satisfy when theyread a text.These goalsor standards havebeen

labeled asa search/effort after meaning.Readers can use information from prior

text, their developing memoryrepresentationof the text, and/or background knowl-edge in an effort to achieve these goals or standards (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso,

1994; Long, Seely, & Oppy, 1996; Singer, Graesser, & Trabasso, 1994; van den

Broek, Risden, & Husebye-Hartmann, 1995). These constructionist processes are

active and strategic.

In this article, we propose that both sets of processes are necessary for a com-

plete account of naturalistic reading and that a comprehensive theory of reading

comprehension should include both. Moreover, we argue that memory-based and

constructionist processes dynamically interact, borrowing from, supporting, and,

possibly, conflicting with each other. We illustrate how this dynamic interactioncan be conceptualized by outlining the Landscape Model, a theoretical framework

in which the two sets of processes are integrated.

MEMORY-BASED AND CONSTRUCTIONIST

PROCESSES IN TEXT COMPREHENSION

The processes associated with memory-based and constructionist views differ in a

number of ways. According to the memory-based view of reading, general pro-cesses associated with memory influence the availability of information during

reading. Memory-based processes are autonomous and passive (as mentioned,

they occur for free). They are dumb in the sense that activation is the result

INTEGRATING READING PROCESSES 301


4/18


5/18

as evidenced by think-aloud protocols and reading times, depending on whether

subjects read a text for entertainment or for study (Linderholm & van den Broek,

2002; Lorch, Lorch, & Klusewitz, 1993; Narvaez, van den Broek, & Ruiz, 1999).In addition, subtle text cues (e.g., time shifts or event duration) can lead readers to

develop particular expectations or desires for text events (e.g., preferences for nar-

rative situations). These reader responses, in turn, influence expectations for story

outcomes (Gerrig, 1993; Rapp & Gerrig, 2002; Rapp, Gerrig, & Prentice, 2001;

Rapp & Taylor, 2004).

There is also a growing body of evidence that both memory-based and con-

structionist processes simultaneously operate during reading. For example, van

den Broek, OBrien, Halleran, and Kendeou (2004) presented subjects with texts

that varied in two respects: First, target sentences were immediately preceded by asentence that provided either a strong or a weak explanation for the target and, sec-

ond, a potential alternative explanation earlier in the text was either elaborated or

not. The first variation was designed to affect constructionist processing, the sec-

ond to affect memory-based processing. The results showed that the availability of

earlier information (as measured by speed of recognition) generally was influ-

enced by the extent of elaborationreflecting memory-based processes

whereas the processing of the target sentences (as measured by reading speed)

generally was influenced by the explanatory power of the immediately preceding

contextreflecting constructionist processes. Thus, both memory-based factorsand constructionist factors influenced readers processing of these texts.

As a result of findings such as these, it is generally accepted that both mem-

ory-based and constructionist processes operate during reading. There is much less

agreement about the circumstances in which each occurs and how they can be cap-

tured in a single conceptual framework. In the remainder of this article, we contend

that the two sets of processes co-occur and dynamically interact.

INTERACTIONS BETWEEN MEMORY-BASED ANDCONSTRUCTIONIST PROCESSES

In our view, memory-based and constructionist processes both operate during

reading and, moreover, both play an important role in the identification of the se-

mantic connections between the various pieces of information in the text and be-

tween this information and readersbackground knowledge. To conceptualize how

memory-based and constructionist processes interact, a number of years ago we

introduced the notion ofstandards of coherence(van den Broek et al., 1995; see

also van den Broek, Lorch, Linderholm, & Gustafson, 2001). Standards of coher-ence reflect a readers knowledge and beliefs about what constitutes good com-

prehension as well as the readers specific goals for reading the particular text

(van den Broek, Virtue, Everson, Tzeng, & Sung, 2002, p. 137). These standards



6/18

influence the extent to which readers will engage in constructionist processes.

They reflect the types of coherence (e.g., referential, causal, spatial) as well as the

strength of coherence that a reader aims to maintain. Standards vary as a functionof reader variables including (but not limited to) reading goals, expectations,

working memory resources, and perspective, as well as contextual variables in-

cluding text genre, presentation rate, and task variables (van den Broek, Fletcher,

& Risden, 1993; van den Broek et al., 2001). In our interactive view, mem-

ory-based activation processes take place as outlined by models such as the Reso-

nance Model (Albrecht & OBrien, 1993; OBrien & Myers, 1999; OBrien,

Rizzella, Albrecht, & Halleran, 1998) or the Landscape Model (van den Broek,

Risden, Fletcher, & Thurlow, 1996; van den Broek, Young, Tzeng, & Linderholm,

1999). The information activated through this autonomous process, constrainedonly by the strength of the concepts that trigger it and the strengths of their associa-

tions, is evaluated with respect to a readers standards of coherence. If the activated

information is sufficient to meet those standards, then the connections are easily

and quickly identified. However, if the activated information is insufficient for sat-

isfying those standards, then more effortful, strategic processes will ensue in an at-

tempt to attain the standards. Consequently, if a reader maintains strict standards

(as a function of reader or contextual variables), then constructionist processes will

be more common, with the benefit of deeper understanding but at the cost of

greater effort by the reader. If, however, the reader maintains relatively relaxedstandards of coherence, then constructionist processes will be less common, with

the benefit that reading will be less effortful but at the cost of a potentially less co-

herent text representation (van den Broek et al., 2001). Standards of coherence

vary between readers as well as within readers across reading situations (see van

den Broek et al., 1995), but, as illustrated by the passage at the outset of this article,

standards of referential and causal referential coherence have been found to be the

most commonly maintained standards in narrative reading.

To summarize, memory-based and constructionist processes play important,

yet distinct roles in the comprehension process. To establish connections, readersmust activate the to-be-connected information and determine what, if any, connec-

tions exist between the activated pieces of information. Memory-based processes

are central to the first component, whereas constructionist processes are central to

the second. To put it differently, memory-based processes provide the input to the

constructionist processes, and the product from the constructionist processes de-

termines whether the memory-based input is sufficient for comprehension. The

standards of coherence that a reader has in a particular reading situation provide

constraints, in addition to those provided by textual information and background

knowledge.There is empirical evidence for the interactive nature of memory-based and

constructionist processes. For example, the previously described recognition and

reading time results obtained by van den Broek et al. (2004) indicated that reading



7/18


8/18

vated and retrieved during moment-by-moment reading, but may lack an account

of how these processes can lead to changes in the mental representation of

long-term knowledge structures (even though such changes are presumed to influ-ence subsequent processes). A complete description of memory-based and con-

structionist processing must provide an account not only of how activation and

comprehension occur, but also how these processes both lead to and depend on de-

veloping memory structures. This becomes particularly important when attempts

are made to capture the memory-based and constructionist views in a single archi-

tecture. We turn to this next.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE LANDSCAPE MODEL

OF READING COMPREHENSION

To describe the contributions of memory-based and constructionist processes we

have developed a conceptual model called the Landscape Model (van den Broek,

Risden, et al., 1996; van den Broek et al., 1999). The architecture of the Landscape

Model assumes that as a reader proceeds through a text in reading cycles (with

each cycle roughly corresponding to the reading of a new sentence or proposition),

concepts fluctuate in activation as a function of four sources of information: thecurrent processing cycle, the preceding cycle, the current episodic text representa-

tion, and readers background knowledge. With the reading of each cycle, particu-

lar concepts are activated and added as nodes to the episodic memory representa-

tion of the text. If a concept is already part of the text representation and is

reactivated, its trace is strengthened. In addition, co-activation of concepts leads to

the establishment (or strengthening) of connections between those concepts. The

resulting network representation influences subsequent activation patterns. These

cyclical and dynamically fluctuating activations lead to the gradual emergence of

an episodic memory representation or discourse model of the text, in which textualpropositions and inferences are connected via semantic relations (such as causal

and referential links). Thus, the model captures the fluctuations of concepts during

reading, as well as the evolving discourse model. The resulting memory represen-

tation is the product of iterative and reciprocal relations between fluctuations of ac-

tivations and the episodic text representation.

Two types of mechanisms guide access to these sources of activation. The first

type iscohort activation. The architecture of the model assumes that when a con-

cept is activated during reading, all other concepts currently activated become as-

sociated with it. Thus, each concept connects with other, related concepts becom-ing acohort.In turn, when any of the individual concepts in a cohort become

active, the other concepts are also activated. This mechanism is passive and oper-

ates under a limited pool of activation. Thus, cohort activation is memory-based



9/18

and similar to the activation mechanism described by the Resonance Model

(Myers & OBrien, 1998; OBrien & Myers, 1999; OBrien et al., 1998).

The second type of mechanism is coherence-based retrieval.Unlike mem-ory-based activations that are based on, for example, featural overlap, coher-

ence-based retrieval is a strategic mechanism by which information is retrieved

with the aim of meeting a readers standards or goals (Linderholm, Virtue, Tzeng,

& van den Broek, 2004). Such retrieval can be from an episodic text representa-

tion, from background knowledge, or from the text itself (e.g., via look-backs in a

text). This mechanism operates under a limited pool of activation that can be dis-

tributed over concepts and, unlike cohort activation, is strategic (and can be

effortful). Thus, coherence-based retrieval is similar to search/effort after mean-

ing mechanisms described by the constructionist view of reading (Graesser et al.,1994; Singer et al., 1994).

A central factor in the model that determines which sources of activation are ac-

cessed consists of thestandards of coherencethat the reader maintains during

reading (van den Broek et al., 1995). The architecture of the model allows for the

adoption of different types of coherence that a reader may establish (including, but

not limited to, referential, causal, temporal, and spatial connections). Reader stan-

dards canvary as a function of individual differences, text types, reading goals, and

so on (Linderholm & van den Broek, 2002; Narvaez et al., 1999; van den Broek et

al., 2001), but for narratives and many other types of text, referential and causalstandards of coherence are often central. During reading, a readers standards can

at times be met entirely by the information currently activated in the model through

cohort activation (i.e., memory-based processing), whereas in other cases the

reader may need to actively search the episodic text representation and/or back-

ground knowledge to maintain these standards through coherence-based retrieval

(i.e., constructionist processing).

In summary, the architecture of the Landscape Model incorporates a dynamic

interaction of both memory-based and constructionist processes. Thus, these pro-

cesses are not just complementary views but are part of a single theoretical accountof text comprehension.

APPLICATIONS OF THE LANDSCAPE MODEL

In prior research, the conceptual framework of the Landscape Model has been vali-

dated by comparing computational simulations and human data for narrative read-

ing (van den Broek et al., 1999). With regard to online measures, the models pre-

dictions about the patterns of activation of propositions over the course of readingwere strongly related to the activations reported by actual readers. With regard to

off-line measures, in several studies recall of text propositions was found to be

strongly related to actual recall by readers. In addition to frequency of recall, the



10/18

model also predicted the actual order in which participants recalled the text propo-

sitions, with the most strongly represented concepts being recalled first and the

strength of semantic relations determining subsequent recall. Thus, the LandscapeModel captures important aspects of the cognitive processes that take place during

the reading of narrative texts and of the resulting representation in memory.

Since its original conceptualization, the Landscape Model has been extended to

various other reading situations and types of texts. We describe some of these now.

Scientific Text

Whereas initial studies using the Landscape Model have focused on narrative read-ing, similar findings have been obtained on reading of scientific texts. For exam-

ple, we have simulated the comprehension of scientific texts and compared the

models final text representation to human recall (van den Broek, Kendeou, Sung,

& Chen, 2003; van den Broek et al., 2002). The models prediction for recall of

propositions, based on several factors including the accumulated node strength of

concepts over the course or reading, was strongly related to the frequency of recall

of participants. In a related set of simulations, the Landscape Model was used to

simulate comprehension of scientific texts designed to refute studentsmisconcep-

tions. The simulations showed that the Landscape Model accurately predicted thecircumstances under which misconceptions and correct conceptualizations are si-

multaneously activated, and are most likely to lead to revisions of prior knowledge

(Kendeou & van den Broek, 2004).

Differences in Background Knowledge

We have simulated the effects of readers prior knowledge on text comprehension.

There is considerable evidence that readers prior knowledge, particularly incor-rect prior knowledge (i.e., misconceptions), affects comprehension both online

and off-line (Hynd & Alvermann, 1989; Kendeou, Rapp, & van den Broek, in

press; Kendeou & van den Broek, in press). We captured these effects by conduct-

ing two simulations and comparing them to human recall for readers with and

without misconceptions for text topics. In these simulations, we included prior

knowledge in the model by means of activation vectors established prior to read-

ing. The two simulations predictions for recall were significantly related to the

frequency of recall of human participants with and without misconceptions, re-

spectively. Moreover, the correlations between contrasting model simulations andreaders (e.g., the model without misconceptions and readers with misconceptions)

were substantially smaller. In addition, differences between the two simulations

identified differences in human recall.



11/18

Reading Goals

Previous research has shown that reading processes systematically vary as a func-

tion of reading purpose. For example, when reading to study, readers are more

likely to engage in processes aimed at establishing coherence than when reading

for entertainment (e.g., Linderholm & van den Broek, 2002; Lorch et al., 1993; van

den Broek et al., 2001). Linderholm et al. (2004) conducted simulations for each

reading purpose by varying the models input parameters to capture differences in

readers standards for coherence. The simulations demonstrated that reading for

study resulted in more overall activation, and activation of more concepts, than did

reading for entertainment. In particular, the texts main ideas received consider-

ably more activation in the study simulation than in the entertainment simulation.

Comparisons to human data showed that the model captured readers adjustment

of inferential processes as a function of reading goal.

Inconsistency Detection

The Landscape Model has successfully captured the processes by which readers

detect inconsistencies in texts. Linderholm et al. (2004) conducted simulations of

the texts previously used by OBrien and colleagues in several of their inconsis-

tency detection studies. In the Landscape Model, the likelihood of detecting an in-consistency depends on the extent to which the initial text information (which con-

tradicts information in later statements) received activation in previous reading

cycles, how strongly it was connected to other text concepts, and the extent to

which the later information semantically overlapped with the earlier, inconsistent

text information (van den Broek et al., 1999). This simulation accurately predicted

the patterns of reading times reported by Rizzella and OBrien (1996).

Relative Contribution of Cohort Activation

and Coherence-Based Processes

The Landscape Model assumes a dynamic interaction between memory-based and

constructionist processes. To determine whether both are necessary for the

models prediction of reading comprehension, we conducted a set of three simula-

tions of expository text reading, manipulating the contribution of cohort activation

and coherence-based retrieval across the simulations. The first simulation included

both cohort activation and coherence-based retrieval (consisting of the models de-

fault focus on referential and causal coherence). In this simulation, the models

prediction for recall of propositions, based on the accumulated node strength overthe course of reading, was strongly related to the frequency of recall of partici-

pants. (r= .70). When cohort activation was removed from the modelbut coher-

ence-based processes were retainedits predictive power decreased significantly



12/18

(r= .60). When coherence-based processes were removedbut cohort activation

was retainedthe models predictive power decreased even more (r= .50).

In a second set of simulations, we replicated these findings for narrative texts,with remarkably similar correlations. In this second set we also included a simula-

tion in which both cohort activation and coherence-based processes were elimi-

nated. In this simulation, predictive power decreased even further. The results of

these two sets of simulations show that both cohort activation and coherence-based

retrieval were necessary components in the model for capturing human reading

performance.

In summary, the Landscape Model has been used to capture various reading

situations, text types, and behavioral measures of reading comprehension (e.g.,

recall and latency data). The strong correspondence between predicted and ob-served data indicates that the Landscape Model has considerable psychological

validity. The architecture of the model, and in particular the dynamic interaction

between memory-based and constructionist processing, unifies reading compre-

hension into a single conceptual framework that has high predictive power. In-

deed, in cases in which this dynamic interaction is impaired (as demonstrated

by the final sets of simulations described earlier), the models predictive power

is significantly reduced.

DISCUSSION

We have outlined an interactive view that combines autonomous and passive mem-

ory-based processes with constructionist processes that are strategic and goal-di-

rected. We hope to have demonstrated that these two sets of processes can be con-

ceived of as components of a dynamically interacting system. An interactive view

reconciles apparent differences between memory-based and constructionist views

by implementing them in a single conceptual framework. This view is similar in

spirit to conceptual frameworks such as the ConstructionIntegration model(Kintsch, 1988, 1998), in which memory-based spread of activation (construction)

isfollowedby acoherence-basedinferencegenerationphase(integration),andother

two-stage models designed to capture the complementary nature of memory-based

and constructionist models (e.g., Long et al. 1996; Richards & Singer, 2001). Evi-

dence for such a two-stage process comes not only from behavioral and computa-

tional studies, as described previously, but also from neuropsychological research

(e.g., Beeman, 1998; Long & Baynes, 2002; Mason & Just, 2004; Virtue, van den

Broek,& Linderholm,inpress). The Landscape Modelmakes explicithow suchun-

derlying two-stage processes mutually influence each other and how together theyfunctionallyleadtothegradualemergenceofamemoryrepresentationofthetext.

An implication of the interactive view of reading comprehension is thatany

kind of inference (e.g., spatial, causal, referential, thematic, character-based,



13/18

moral) can in principle be generated by virtue of either memory-based or mem-

ory-based-followed-by-constructionist processes, given the right combination of

text and reader variables. Consequently, attempts to rigidly assign particular typesof inferences to one set of processes or another are not fruitful and, indeed, mis-

guided. If the information required for making a particular inference is readily

available through memory-based processes, there is no need for constructionist

processes. Of course, certain types of inferences, such as thematic and other ab-

stract inferences,tendto require simultaneous activation of information that is not

immediately available through memory-based processes and, hence,tendto in-

volve more constructionist processes. The point is that both situations are possible.

For example, if by happy circumstance or clever design on the part of the author the

required information becomes available through memory-based spread of activa-tion, then that inference too will be generated for free (McKoon & Ratcliff,

1992).

Although memory-based and constructionist processes often operate in concert

with each other, they may, in fact, conflict. One illustration of this situation is the

basis for the inconsistency paradigm: Comprehension may be moving along fine if

it were not for the problem that the earlier, inconsistent information becomes acti-

vated, causing conflict and slow down in reading. A second, more dramatic illus-

tration is the finding that memory-based processes may activate information that

results in conflict but in actuality is not relevant. For example, when two charactersare described, information about one character may spill over to a second character

via resonance. When one character is described later in the text, information about

both characters is activated (Cook et al., 1998; Long & Chong, 2001), potentially

resulting in interference.

The integration of memory-based and constructionist processes into a single

theoretical (and computational) framework enriches both views. Accounts of read-

ing that focus on memory-based processes have limited themselves to issues con-

cerning the activation of concepts during reading, leaving comprehension pro-

cesses per se out of their purview. Conversely, constructionist accounts that focuson coherence-based and integrative processes tend to assume that activation occurs

but do not explicitly specify how this may occur. To address the limits of these ac-

counts, we have argued that they complement each other.

One reason that memory-based and constructionist accounts may have been

considered in opposition to each other is that it is tempting to equate mem-

ory-based processes with bottom-up processing and constructionist processes with

top-down processing. Bottom-up views traditionally describe stimulus-driven pro-

cesses that do not necessitate higher order cognition. Top-down views traditionally

rely on background knowledge and existing memory representations to mediatethe interpretations of stimuli. We contend that these terms, in their pure form, are

not adequate to describe either process, but have often been used as such. For ex-

ample, memory-based views are not direct analogs of bottom-up processing.



14/18

These views argue that information in memory is activated to a large degree by ele-

ments of a text, thereby assigning an important role to pre-existing memory repre-

sentations, including organized knowledge such as scripts and schemas. Thus,memory-based views to some degree require top-down information (e.g., concepts

in prior knowledge that will be activated broadly) to account for relevant activation

processes. In a similar sense, constructionist views are not direct analogs of

top-down processing. In text comprehension, expectations or preferences on the

part of the reader must interact with the actual words being perceived (e.g., Rapp et

al., 2001); top-down processing is affected directly by bottom-up processing.

Thus, both memory-based and constructionist views rely on a combination of bot-

tom-up and top-down processing. Thinking about them as either completely bot-

tom-up or completely top-down fails to capture the wide array of reader processesthat operate during naturalistic text experiences.

The integration of memory-based and constructionist processes highlights the

importance of investigating the exact nature of their interaction. For example, al-

though we havedescribed the two types of processes as operating in sequence, they

may in fact overlap and alternate (van den Broek et al., 1999). If the information

activated via memory-based processes is insufficient to satisfy the readers stan-

dards, this may lead to an increase in constructionist processing. These processes

may involve selective focus on a subset of activated concepts that, in turn, may trig-

ger a second wave of memory-based spread of activation. Of course, even in thiscase, the initial activation of this dynamic process is likely driven by mem-

ory-based activation. Alternatively, it is conceivable that the constructionist pro-

cesses evoke a strategic search of memory that is different from cohort activation

(cf. Long & Lea, 2005/this issue). A final possibility is that an increase in construc-

tionist processes involves a loosening of the constraints on activation from mem-

ory-based processes, resulting in broader availability of information (we thank an

anonymous reviewer for these suggestions). An important question for future re-

search is to determine the boundary conditions and the exact mechanisms of inter-

action between memory-based and constructionist processes. Continued researchon the nature of integrated memory-based and constructionist processes will be

necessary to outline how memory is constructed, accessed, and retrieved during

readingspontaneously as well as strategically.

CONCLUSION

Models of text processing have described a variety of underlying mechanisms that

attempt to account for the ways in which people read, understand, and remembertexts. To outline these processes, a variety of explanations have been invoked, in-

volving both passive and strategic knowledge activation. We contend that only by

considering the dynamic interactions of these processes, rather than the viability of



15/18

each in isolation, can we propose a generalizable theory that appropriately ac-

counts for naturalistic text comprehension. Our simulations using the Landscape

Model represent one attempt at illustrating the importance and validity of these in-teractions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by the Center for Cognitive Sciences at the University

of Minnesota through Grant No. HD07151 from the National Institute of Child

Health and Human Development, by the Guy Bond Endowment for Reading and

Literacy, by a Golestan fellowship at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study

in the Humanities and Social Sciences to Paul van den Broek, by a Faculty Sum-

mer Research Fellowship from the Office of the Dean of the Graduate School of

the University of Minnesota to David N. Rapp, and by an Eva O. Miller Fellowship

to Panayiota Kendeou. We thank Robert F. Lorch, Jr. for his comments on an ear-

lier version of this article.

REFERENCES

Albrecht, J. E., & OBrien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global

coherence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 10611069.

Beeman, M. (1998). Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In M. Beeman & C.

Chiarello (Eds.),Getting it right: The cognitive neuroscience of right hemisphere language compre-

hension(pp. 225284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.Psycho-

logical Review, 82, 407428.

Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240247.

Cook, A. E., Halleran, J. G., & OBrien, E. J. (1998). What is readily available? A memory-based view

of text processing.Discourse Processes, 26, 109129.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671684.

Estes, W. K. (1972). An associative basis for coding and organization in memory. In A. W. Melton & E.

Martin (Eds.),Coding processes in human memory(pp. 161190). Washington, DC: Winston.

Gerrig, R. J. (1993).Experiencing narrative worlds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gerrig, R. J., & McKoon, G. (1998). The readiness is all: The functionality of memory-based text pro-

cessing.Discourse Processes, 26, 6786.

Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1990). Flexibility in text processing: A strategy competition model.

Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 181219.Graesser, A., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative comprehen-

sion.Psychological Review, 101, 371395.

Hynd, C., & Alvermann, D. E. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions in science: An on-line study of

prior knowledge activation.Reading Research and Instruction, 28, 1226.



16/18

Kendeou, P., Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (in press). The influence of readers prior knowledge on

text comprehension and learning from text. InProgress in Education.Nova Science.

Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2004, August).Comprehension of refutation texts: A simulation us-

ing the Landscape Model.Paper presented at the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Text

and Discourse, Chicago.

Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (in press). The effects of readers misconceptions on comprehension

of scientific text.Journal of Educational Psychology.

Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructionintegration

model.Psychological Review, 95, 163182.

Kintsch, W. (1998).Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory ca-

pacity on the processing of expository text.Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778784.

Linderholm, T., Virtue, S., Tzeng, Y., & van den Broek, P. (2004). Fluctuations in the availability of in-formation during reading: Capturing cognitive processes using the Landscape Model. Discourse

Processes, 37, 165186.

Lorch, R. E. J., Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College studentsconditional knowledge about

reading.Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 239252.

Long, D. L.,& Baynes, K. (2002). Discourse representation in the twocerebral hemispheres.Journal of

Cognitive Neuroscience, 14,228242.

Long, D. L., & Chong, J. L. (2001). Comprehension skill and global coherence: A paradoxical picture

of poor comprehendersabilities.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cog-

nition, 27,14241429.

Long, D. L., & Lea, R. B. (2005). Have we been searching for meaning in all the wrong places? De-

fining the search after meaning principle in comprehension.Discourse Processes, 39,279298.Long, D. L., Seely, M. R., & Oppy, B. J. (1996). The availability of causal information during reading.

Discourse Processes,22, 145170.

Lucas, M. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1990). Levels of representation in the interpretation

of anaphoric reference and instrument inference.Memory and Cognition, 18, 611631.

Mason, R. A., & Just, M. A. (2004). How the brain processes causal inferences in text: A theoretical ac-

count of generation and integration component processes utilizing both cerebral hemispheres.Psy-

chological Science, 15, 17.

McKoon, G., Gerrig, R. J., & Greene, S. B. (1996). Pronoun resolution without pronouns: Some conse-

quences of memory-based text processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,

and Cognition, 22, 919932.

McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading.Psychological Review, 99, 440466.

McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1995). The minimalist hypothesis: Directions for research. In C. A.

Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. R. Fletcher (Eds.),Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter

Kintsch(pp. 97116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text co-

herence.Discourse Processes, 22, 247288.

Myers, J. L., & OBrien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading.Discourse

Processes, 26, 131157.

Myers, J. L., OBrien, E. J., Albrecht, J. E., & Mason, R. A. (1994). Maintaining global coherence dur-

ing reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 876886.

Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inferencegeneration and comprehension in reading.Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,488496.

OBrien, E. J. (1995). Automatic components of discourse comprehension. In E. P. Lorch & E. J.

OBrien (Eds.),Sources of coherence in reading(pp. 159176). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc.



17/18

OBrien, E. J., & Albrecht, J. E. (1991). The role of context in accessing antecedents in text.Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 777784.

OBrien, E. J., Albrecht, J. E., Hakala, C. M., & Rizzella, M. L. (1995). Activation and suppression of

antecedents during reinstatement.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

Cognition, 21, 626634.

OBrien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom-up. In S. R.

Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.),Narrative comprehension, causality, and co-

herence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 3553). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Inc.

OBrien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A

memory-based text processing view.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

Cognition, 24, 12001210.

Rapp, D. N., & Gerrig, R. J. (2002). Readers reality-driven and plot-driven analyses in narrative com-

prehension.Memory and Cognition, 30,779788.Rapp, D. N., Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (2001). Readers trait-based models of characters in narra-

tive comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 737750.

Rapp,D.N.,& Taylor, H.A.(2004). Interactivedimensions in theconstructionofmental representations

for text.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30,9881001.

Richards, E., & Singer, M. (2001). Representation of complex goal structures in narrative comprehen-

sion.Discourse Processes, 31, 111135.

Rizzella, M. L., & OBrien, E. J. (1996). Accessing global causes during reading. Journal of Experi-

mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,22, 12081218.

Singer, M.,Graesser, A. C.,& Trabasso, T. (1994). Minimal or global inference during reading.Journal

of Memory and Language, 33, 421441.

Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featuralmodel for semantic decisions.Psychological Review, 81, 214241.

Suh, S., & Trabasso, T. (1993). Inferences during reading: Converging evidence from discourse analy-

sis, talk-aloudprotocols, andrecognition priming.Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 279300.

Sundermeier, B. A., van den Broek, P., & Zwaan, R. A. (in press). Causal coherence and the availability

of locations and objects during narrative comprehension.Memory and Cognition.

Turnipseed, J. (2003).Baghdad express. New York: Penguin.

van den Broek, P., Fletcher, C. R., & Risden, K. (1993). Investigations of inferential processes in read-

ing: A theoretical and methodological integration.Discourse Processes, 16, 169180.

van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., Sung, Y. C., & Chen, M. (2003, June). Comprehension and memory of

science texts:A simulation using the Landscape Model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Society for Text and Discourse, Madrid, Spain.

van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. E. J., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readersgoals

on inference generation and memory for texts.Memory and Cognition, 29, 10811087.

van den Broek, P., OBrien, E. J., Halleran, J. G., & Kendeou, P. (2004). Memory-based and explana-

tory processes during reading.Manuscript in preparation.

van denBroek, P., Risden, K.,& Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). Therole of readers standardsof coher-

ence in the generation of inferences during reading. In E. P. Lorch & E. J. OBrien (Eds.),Sources of

coherence in reading(pp. 353374). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

van den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C. R., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A landscape view of reading:

Fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. In B. K.

Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.),Models of understanding text(pp. 165187). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

van den Broek, P., Rohleder, L., & Narvaez, D. (1996). Causal inferences in the comprehension of liter-

ary texts. In R. J. Kreuz & M. S. MacNealy (Eds.),Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics

(pp. 179200). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.



18/18

van den Broek, P., Virtue, S., Everson, M., Tzeng, Y., & Sung, Y. C. (2002). Comprehension and mem-

oryof science texts: Inferential processesand the construction of a mental representation. In J. Otero,

J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.),The psychology of science text comprehension(pp. 131154).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading. In

H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during read-

ing(pp. 7198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Virtue, S., van den Broek, P., & Linderholm, T. (in press). Hemispheric processing of causal inferences.

Memory & Cognition.

Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 920933.


discourse processes in reading comprehension.pdf

Documents