Alexander, P. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1991). Domain-specific and strategic knowledge as predictors of expository text comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 165–190.
Alexander, P. A., & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory (2012). Reading into the future: competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47, 259–280.
Alexander, P. A., Dumas, D., Grossnickle, E. M., List, A., & Firetto, C. M. (2016a). Measuring relational reasoning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84, 119–151.
Alexander, P. A., Jablansky, S., Singer, L. M., & Dumas, D. (2016b). Relational reasoning: What we know and why it matters. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–9.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261–295.
Ariasi, N., & Mason, L. (2011). Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: an eye-tracking study. Instructional Science, 39, 581–601.
Ariasi, N., & Mason, L. (2014). From covert processes to overt outcomes of refutation text reading: the interplay of science text structure and working memory through eye fixations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 493–523.
Bohan, J., & Sanford, A. (2008). Semantic anomalies at the borderline of consciousness: an eye-tracking investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 232–239. doi:10.1080/17470210701617219.
Braasch, J. L. G., & Goldman, S. R. (2010). The role of prior knowledge in learning from analogies in science texts. Discourse Processes, 47, 447–479. doi:10.1080/01638530903420960.
Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., & Reynolds, R. E. (2010). The nature of the refutation text effect: an investigation of attention allocation. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 407–423. doi:10.1080/00220670903383101.
Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237–261.
Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2016). The role of executive functions in knowledge revision. Paper to be presented at the Society for Text and Discourse Society Annual Meeting, Kassel, Germany.
Chi, M. T. (2013). Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes.In S. Vosniadou (Ed.),International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed.), (pp. 49–70). New York: Routledge Press.
Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R., Slotta, J., Roy, M., & Chase, M. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for “emergent” processes. Cognitive Science, 36, 1–61.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.
Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2009). Conceptual change—multiple routes, multiple mechanisms: a commentary on Ohlsson (2009). Educational Psychologist, 44, 48–57.
Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250–256. doi:10.1159/000278475.
Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–247.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: CCSSO & National Governors Association.
Danielson, R. W., Sinatra, G. M., & Kendeou, P. (2016). Augmenting the refutation text effect with analogies and graphics. Discourse Processes, 53(5–6), 392–414.
Dennis, M. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Cognition and instruction. In F. T. Durso (Ed.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 571–593). New York: Wiley.
Diakidoy, I. A. N., Mouskounti, T., Fella, A., & Ioannides, C. (2016). Comprehension processes and outcomes with refutation and expository texts and their contribution to learning. Learning and Instruction, 41, 60–69.
Diakidoy, I. A. N., Mouskounti, T., & Ioannides, C. (2011). Comprehension and learning from refutation and expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 22–38.
DiSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225.
Donnelly, C. M., & McDaniel, M. A. (2000). Analogy with knowledgeable learners: when analogy confers benefits and exacts costs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 537–543.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75, 649–672.
Dumas, D., Alexander, P. A., & Grossnickle, E. M. (2013). Relational reasoning and its manifestations in the educational context: a systematic review of the literature. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 391–427. doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9224-4.
Dunbar, K. N., Fugelsang, J. A., & Stein, C. (2007). Do naïve theories ever go away? Using brain and behavior to understand changes in concepts. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 193–206). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Erickson, T. A., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: a semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–552.
Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students' misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001–1015.
Gadgil, S., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Chi, M. T. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 47–61.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.
Gentner, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy: introduction. American Psychologist, 52(1), 32–34.
Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91, 1–67.
Goldman, S. R., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2015). Research on learning and instruction implications for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 33–41.
Hayes, D., & Tierney, R. (1982). Developing reader’s knowledge through analogy. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 256–280.
Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52(1), 35–44.
Hynd, C. E. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 699–714. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00010-1.
Iding, M. K. (1993). Instructional analogies and elaborations in science text: effects on recall and transfer performance. Reading Psychology, 14, 33–55.
Iding, M. K. (1997). How analogies foster learning from science texts. Instructional Science, 25, 233–253.
Jablansky, S., Alexander, P. A., Dumas, D., & Compton, V. (2015). Developmental differences in relational reasoning among primary and secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.
Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). The knowledge revision components (KReC) framework: processes and mechanisms. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 353–377). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2016). Theories of text processing: frameworks and challenges. In M. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). Interactions between prior knowledge and text structure during comprehension of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567–1577.
Kendeou, P., Muis, K. R., & Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors on reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365–383.
Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R., & O’Brien, E. J. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 854–865.
Kendeou, P., Walsh, E., Smith, E. R., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). Knowledge revision processes in refutation texts. Discourse Processes, 51, 374–397.
Kreezer, G., & Dallenbach, K. M. (1929). Learning the relation of opposition. The American Journal of Psychology, 41, 432–441. doi:10.2307/1414683.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 90–104.
Masson, S., Potvin, P., Riopel, M., & Brault Foisy, L. M. (2014). Differences in brain activation between novices and experts in science during a task involving a common misconception in electricity. Mind, Brain, and Education, 8, 44–55.
McCrudden, M. T., & Kendeou, P. (2014). Exploring the link between cognitive processes and learning from refutational text. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 116–140.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wagner, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100.
Mosenthal, P. B. (1988). Anopheles and antinomies in reading research (research views). Reading Teacher, 42, 234–235.
National Science Foundation. (2014). How proficient are U.S. fourth graders in math and science? Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/edTool/data/primary-05.html
Nelson, J. K., Lizcano, R. A., Atkins, L., & Dunbar, K. (2007). Conceptual judgments of expert vs. novice chemistry students: An fRMI study. Paper presented at the 48th Annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Hyatt Regency Hotel Long Beach, CA.
Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). The Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Ubel, P. A. (2013). The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Medical Care, 51, 127–132.
O’Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1987). The role of causal connections in the retrieval of text. Memory & Cognition, 15, 419–427.
O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Guéraud, S. (2010). Accessibility of outdated information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 979–991. doi:10.1037/a0019763.
O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Peracchi, K. A. (2004). Updating a situation model: a reply to Zwaan and madden (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 289–291.
O’Brien, 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, 1200–1210.
Potvin, P., Masson, S., Lafortune, S., & Cyr, G. (2015). Persistence of the intuitive conception that heavier objects sink more: a reaction time study with different levels of interference. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 21–43.
Potvin, P., Turmel, É., & Masson, S. (2014). Linking neuroscientific research on decision making to the educational context of novice students assigned to a multiple-choice scientific task involving common misconceptions about electrical circuits. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–13.
Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95(3), 385–408.
Sanford, A. J., Leuthold, H., Bohan, J., & Sanford, A. J. S. (2010). Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: an ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 514–523.
Schulz, L. E., Goodman, N. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Jenkins, A. C. (2008). Going beyond the evidence: abstract laws and preschoolers’ responses to anomalous data. Cognition, 109, 211–223. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.017.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 225–247.
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 259–264.
Tanca, M., Grossberg, S., & Pinna, B. (2010). Probing perceptual antinomies with the watercolor illusion and explaining how the brain resolves them. Seeing and Perceiving, 23, 295–333.
Trabasso, T., & Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: achieving explanatory coherence through on-line inferences and mental operations in working memory. Discourse Processes, 16, 3–34. doi:10.1080/01638539309544827.
Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612–630.
Trevors, G., & Muis, K. R. (2015). Effects of text structure, reading goals and epistemic beliefs on conceptual change. Journal of Research in Reading, 38, 361–386.
van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453–456.
van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: the role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335–351. doi:10.1002/acp.1418.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69.
Vosniadou, S. (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge.
Vosniadou, S., & Schommer, M. (1988). Explanatory analogies can help children acquire information from expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 524–538.
Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking and Reasoning, 14, 1–27.