Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive Architecture

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reading Comprehension

  • 5146 Accesses

Abstract

A number of researchers have reported that students with reading difficulties appear to have memory deficits that impact on their ability to effectively comprehend text. For example, it has been observed that many students with reading comprehension difficulties exhibit poor organisational skills and do not spontaneously use effective cognitive strategies to facilitate memory storage and recall. Recent conceptualisations of memory have given impetus to the notion that reading comprehension is an interactive process that requires readers to actively construct meaningful representations of text information. Normally readers are required to perform a range of quite complex cognitive tasks to comprehend written text. What is certain is that the efficiency of reading comprehension is largely shaped by the way in which memory is structured; information is organised; and how information is encoded and linked. For example, information processing normally requires the reader to monitor and use executive functions to apply compensatory comprehension strategies, when necessary, in order to maintain meaning during reading. Although reading is a dynamic thinking process there are a number of functional limitations that can cause difficulties for many readers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alba, J.W., and L. Hasher. 1983. Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin 93: 203–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albaili, M.A. 1997. Differences among low-, average-, and high-achieving college students on learning and study strategies. Educational Psychology 17(1 & 2): 171–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, R.J., A.D. Baddeley, and G.J. Hitch. 2006. Is the binding of visual features in working memory resource demanding? Journal of Experimental Psychology 135(2): 298–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alloway, T.P., C.W. Gathercole, and A. Adams. 2004. A structural analysis of working memory and related cognitive skills in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 87: 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J.R., and G.H. Bower. 1971. On an associative trace for sentence memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 10: 673–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J.R., and P.D. Pearson. 1984. A scheme-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In Handbook of reading research, ed. P.D. Pearson, 255–292. Hillsdale: Earlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R., and R. Shiffrin. 1968. Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in theory and research, vol. 2, ed. K. Spence and J. Spence, 89–195. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axford, B. 2007. Parents and their children working together: A scaffolding literacy case study. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 30(1): 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. 1986. Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. 1990. Human memory: Theory and practice. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(1): 417–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A.D., and G. Hitch. 1994. Developments in the concept of working memory. Neuropsychology 8: 485–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, F.C. 1932. Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. New York: Cambridge University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J.B. 1988. Assessing student approaches to learning. Australian Psychology 23(2): 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, C.C. 2004. Teaching comprehension: The comprehension process approach. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulware-Gooden, R., S. Carreker, A. Thornhill, and R.M. Joshi. 2007. Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher 61(1): 70–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., and J. Kulik. 1982. Snapshots or benchmarks? In Memory observed, ed. U. Neisser, 23–40. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., and J. Oakhill. 2007. Reading comprehension difficulties: Correlates, causes, and consequences. In Students’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective, ed. K. Cain and J. Oakhill, 41–75. London: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., J. Oakhill, and P. Bryant. 2004a. Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology 96(1): 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cano-Garcia, F., and E.H. Hughes. 2000. Learning and thinking Styles: An analysis of their interrelationship and influence on academic achievement. Educational Psychology 20(4): 413–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, N., and C.C. Morey. 2006. Visual working memory depends on attentional filtering. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(4): 139–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N.K., and P.D. Pearson. 2002. Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In What research has to say about reading instruction, 3rd ed, ed. A.E. Farstrup and S.J. Samuels, 205–242. Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, R., and Dunn, K. 1998. Practical approaches to individualizing staff development for adults. Westport: Praeger. Peabody picture vocabulary test – Revised. Minnesota: American Guidance Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericson, K.A., and W. Kintsch. 1995. Long-term working memory. Psychological Review 102: 211–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farris, P.J., C.J. Fuhler, and M.P. Walther. 2004. Teaching reading: A balanced approach for today’s classrooms. Boston: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furguson, A.N., and J.A. Bowey. 2005. Global processing speed as a mediator of developmental changes in children’s memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 91: 89–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. 1985. The frames of mind: Theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gathercole, S.E., T.P. Alloway, C. Willis, and A. Adams. 2006. Working memory in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 93: 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, Y.M. 1996. Revaluing readers while readers revalue themselves: Retrospective miscue analysis. The Reading Teacher 49: 600–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregorc, A.F. 1982. Gregorc style delineator. Maynard: Gabriel Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D.Z., and R.W. Engle. 2002. Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity, and age on cognitive performance: An investigation of the knowledge-is-power hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology 44: 339–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hareli, S., and B. Weiner. 2002. Social emotions and personality inferences: A scaffold for a new direction in the study of achievement motivation. Educational Psychologist 37: 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J.A. 1992. Self-concept. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J.L. 1973. Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, C., and M.J. Snowling. 2009. Developmental disorders of language learning and cognition. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, C. 1923. Psychological types. New York: Harcourt-Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Just, M.A., and P.A. Carpenter. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychology Review 99: 122–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, J. 1966. Developmental studies in reflection and analysis. In Perceptual development in children, ed. A.H. Kidd and J.L. Rivoire, 487–522. New York: International University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, A., S. Vaughn, J. Wanzek, and S. Wei. 2004. Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities 37: 105–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. 1994. Text comprehension, memory and learning. American Psychologist 49: 294–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirton, M.J. 1994. Adaptors and innovators, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozhevnikov, M., M. Hegarty, and R. Mayer. 2002. Revising the visualizer-verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction 20(1): 47–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaBerg, D., and S.J. Samuels. 1974. Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology 6: 293–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnenbrink, E.A., and P.R. Pintrich. 2003. The Role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly 19: 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, S.A., P.N. Winograd, and C.A. Bridge. 1989. The effects of reader and text characteristics on imagery reported during and after reading. Reading Research Quarterly 24: 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovelace, M.K. 2005. Meta-analysis of experimental research based on the Dunn and Dun model. The Journal of Educational Research 98(3): 176–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKoon, G., and R. Ratcliff. 1992. Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Educational Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 18: 440–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, P. 1994. Theories of memory: An historical perspective. In Theoretical aspects of memory, 2nd ed, ed. P. Morris and M. Gruneburg, 29–78. London: Rutledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J.S., J. Oberer, J. Dobbins, and D. Mitchell. 1998. Understanding learning styles: Implications for staff development. Journal of Nursing Staff Development 14: 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neisser, U. 1982. Snapshots or benchmarks? In Memory observed, ed. U. Neisser, 43–490. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A.S., and A.L. Brown. 1984. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1: 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A.S., and A.L. Brown. 1987. Enhancing instructional time through attention to metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities 20: 66–75 (February).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, L.S. 2004. What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading Teacher 58: 272–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, A.H., and S.G. Paris. 2003. Assessing narrative comprehension in young children. Reading Research Quarterly 38: 36–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S.G., and P.N. Winograd. 1990. How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction, ed. B.F. Jones and L. Idol, 15–51. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P.D., and D.D. Johnson. 1978. Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P.D., and T.E. Raphael. 1990. Reading comprehension as a dimension of thinking. In Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction, ed. B.F. Jones and L. Idol. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. 1965. The stages of the intellectual development of the child. In Readings in child develop­ment and personality, 2nd ed, ed. P.H. Mussen, J.J. Conger, and J. Kagan, 291–298. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M.G. 1997. The cognitive science of reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology 22: 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M.G. 1998. Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: The Gilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • RAND Reading Study Group. 2002. Reading for Understanding. Towards an R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica: Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, S.K. 2000. Cognition, 5th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reutzel, D.R., K. Camberwell, and J.A. Smith. 2002. Hitting the wall: Helping struggling readers to comprehend. In Improving comprehension instruction, ed. C. Collins Block, L.B. Gambrell, and M. Pressley, 385–389. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D.E. 1980. Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, ed. R. Spiro, B. Bruce, and W. Brewer. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M. 1999. Comprehending comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 34(4): 493–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., E.T. Goetz, and E. Avila. 1995. Concreteness effects in text recall: dual coding or context availability? Reading Research Quarterly 30: 287–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, S.J., and R.F. Flor. 1997. The importance of automaticity for developing expertise in reading. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties 13: 107–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, R., N. Lavers, and V. Pillay. 2007. Working memory and reading difficulties: What we know and what we don’t know about the relationship. Educational Psychology Review 19: 185–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searlman, A., and D. Hermann. 1994. Memory from a broader perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V.J. 2008. Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research 78(1): 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, F. 1979. Understanding reading. London: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprenger, M. 2003. Differentiation through learning styles and memory. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R.J. 1988. Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development 31: 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H.L., and O. Jerman. 2007. The influence of working memory on reading growth in subgroups of children with reading difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 96: 249–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H.L., M.H. Ashbaker, and C. Lee. 1996. Learning- disabled readers’ working memory as a function of processing demands. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 61: 242–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H.L., C.B. Howard, and L. Saez. 2006. Do different components of working memory underlie different subgroups of reading disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities 39(3): 252–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E.P. 1988. Style of learning and thinking: Administrator’s manual. Bensenville: Scholastic Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E. 1993. What is episodic memory: Current directions. Psychological Science 2: 67–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, S., and L.S. Fuchs. 2003. Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 18: 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, E.K., A.W. McCollough, and M.G. Machizawa. 2005. Neural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to working memory. Nature 438: 500–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J.J. 1995. Testing a compensatory-encoding model. Reading Research Quarterly 30: 396–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J.J. 2000. The interplay between automatic and control processes in reading. Reading Research Quarterly 35: 554–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H.A. 1962. Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M. 2008. Proust and the squid. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., and R.J. Sternburg. 2005. A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review 17(1): 1–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B.J. 2002. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice 41: 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinar, S. 2000. The relative contributions of word identification skill and comprehension monitoring behaviour to reading comprehension ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S.M., M. Behrmann, and M. Jeannerod. 1995a. The cognitive neuroscience of mental imagery. Neuropsycholigia 33: 1335–1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. 2002a. At-risk students: Learning to break through comprehension barriers. In Improving comprehension instruction, ed. C. Collins Block, L.B. Gambrell, and M. Pressley, 354–369. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. 2002a. Thinking styles: Their relationships with node of thinking and academic performance. Educational Psychology 22(3): 331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. 2002b. Thinking styles and the big five personality traits. Educational Psychology 22(1): 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., and P.A. Carpenter. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 19: 450–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., and P.A. Carpenter. 1983. Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9: 561–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., E.T. Goetz, and M. Rodriguez. 2000. Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology 92: 85–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., J. Oakhill, and K. Lemmon. 2004. Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology 96: 671–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Mt. Gravatt Campus, Brisbane, Queensland, 4111, Australia

    Dr. Gary Woolley

Authors
  1. Dr. Gary Woolley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary Woolley .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Woolley, G. (2011). Cognitive Architecture. In: Reading Comprehension. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1174-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation