Skip to main content

Integrating Relational Reasoning and Knowledge Revision During Reading

Abstract

Our goal in this theoretical contribution is to connect research on knowledge revision and relational reasoning. To achieve this goal, first, we review the knowledge revision components framework (KReC) that provides an account of knowledge revision processes, specifically as they unfold during reading of texts. Second, we review a number of studies that have implicated each of the four relational reasoning constructs in knowledge revision during reading comprehension. Third, we integrate knowledge revision and relational reasoning by drawing on the two aforementioned literatures. Finally, we conclude with future directions and implications for work in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2009). Conceptual change—multiple routes, multiple mechanisms: a commentary on Ohlsson (2009). Educational Psychologist, 44, 48–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diakidoy, I. A. N., Mouskounti, T., & Ioannides, C. (2011). Comprehension and learning from refutation and expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, C. M., & McDaniel, M. A. (2000). Analogy with knowledgeable learners: when analogy confers benefits and exacts costs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 537–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75, 649–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, T. A., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: a semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy: introduction. American Psychologist, 52(1), 32–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91, 1–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, D., & Tierney, R. (1982). Developing reader’s knowledge through analogy. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 256–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52(1), 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iding, M. K. (1993). Instructional analogies and elaborations in science text: effects on recall and transfer performance. Reading Psychology, 14, 33–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iding, M. K. (1997). How analogies foster learning from science texts. Instructional Science, 25, 233–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Muis, K. R., & Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors on reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Walsh, E., Smith, E. R., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). Knowledge revision processes in refutation texts. Discourse Processes, 51, 374–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreezer, G., & Dallenbach, K. M. (1929). Learning the relation of opposition. The American Journal of Psychology, 41, 432–441. doi:10.2307/1414683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosenthal, P. B. (1988). Anopheles and antinomies in reading research (research views). Reading Teacher, 42, 234–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1987). The role of causal connections in the retrieval of text. Memory & Cognition, 15, 419–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95(3), 385–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Schommer, M. (1988). Explanatory analogies can help children acquire information from expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 524–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking and Reasoning, 14, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Panayiota Kendeou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kendeou, P., Butterfuss, R., Van Boekel, M. et al. Integrating Relational Reasoning and Knowledge Revision During Reading. Educ Psychol Rev 29, 27–39 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9381-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9381-3

Keywords

  • Relational reasoning
  • Knowledge revision
  • STEM