Cognitive Architecture

  • Gary Woolley


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.


Reading Comprehension Semantic Memory Learning Style Mental Imagery Semantic Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alba, J.W., and L. Hasher. 1983. Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin 93: 203–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Baddeley, A. 1986. Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Baddeley, A. 1990. Human memory: Theory and practice. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Baddeley, A. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(1): 417–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baddeley, A.D., and G. Hitch. 1994. Developments in the concept of working memory. Neuropsychology 8: 485–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bartlett, F.C. 1932. Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. New York: Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
  14. Biggs, J.B. 1988. Assessing student approaches to learning. Australian Psychology 23(2): 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Block, C.C. 2004. Teaching comprehension: The comprehension process approach. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cowan, N., and C.C. Morey. 2006. Visual working memory depends on attentional filtering. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(4): 139–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Ericson, K.A., and W. Kintsch. 1995. Long-term working memory. Psychological Review 102: 211–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gardner, H. 1985. The frames of mind: Theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goodman, Y.M. 1996. Revaluing readers while readers revalue themselves: Retrospective miscue analysis. The Reading Teacher 49: 600–609.Google Scholar
  30. Gregorc, A.F. 1982. Gregorc style delineator. Maynard: Gabriel Systems.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hattie, J.A. 1992. Self-concept. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Holland, J.L. 1973. Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Hulme, C., and M.J. Snowling. 2009. Developmental disorders of language learning and cognition. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Jung, C. 1923. Psychological types. New York: Harcourt-Brace.Google Scholar
  37. Just, M.A., and P.A. Carpenter. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychology Review 99: 122–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kintsch, W. 1994. Text comprehension, memory and learning. American Psychologist 49: 294–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kirton, M.J. 1994. Adaptors and innovators, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. LaBerg, D., and S.J. Samuels. 1974. Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology 6: 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McKoon, G., and R. Ratcliff. 1992. Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Educational Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 18: 440–466.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. Neisser, U. 1982. Snapshots or benchmarks? In Memory observed, ed. U. Neisser, 43–490. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  52. Palincsar, A.S., and A.L. Brown. 1984. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1: 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Palincsar, A.S., and A.L. Brown. 1987. Enhancing instructional time through attention to metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities 20: 66–75 (February).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pardo, L.S. 2004. What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading Teacher 58: 272–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Paris, A.H., and S.G. Paris. 2003. Assessing narrative comprehension in young children. Reading Research Quarterly 38: 36–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Pearson, P.D., and D.D. Johnson. 1978. Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. Pressley, M.G. 1997. The cognitive science of reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology 22: 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pressley, M.G. 1998. Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: The Gilford Press.Google Scholar
  62. RAND Reading Study Group. 2002. Reading for Understanding. Towards an R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica: Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  63. Reed, S.K. 2000. Cognition, 5th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. Sadoski, M. 1999. Comprehending comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 34(4): 493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Searlman, A., and D. Hermann. 1994. Memory from a broader perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  71. Shute, V.J. 2008. Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research 78(1): 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith, F. 1979. Understanding reading. London: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  73. Sprenger, M. 2003. Differentiation through learning styles and memory. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  74. Sternberg, R.J. 1988. Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development 31: 197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Torrance, E.P. 1988. Style of learning and thinking: Administrator’s manual. Bensenville: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
  79. Tulving, E. 1993. What is episodic memory: Current directions. Psychological Science 2: 67–70.Google Scholar
  80. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Walczyk, J.J. 1995. Testing a compensatory-encoding model. Reading Research Quarterly 30: 396–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Walczyk, J.J. 2000. The interplay between automatic and control processes in reading. Reading Research Quarterly 35: 554–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Witkin, H.A. 1962. Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  85. Wolf, M. 2008. Proust and the squid. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  86. Zhang, L., and R.J. Sternburg. 2005. A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review 17(1): 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zimmerman, B.J. 2002. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice 41: 64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zinar, S. 2000. The relative contributions of word identification skill and comprehension monitoring behaviour to reading comprehension ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Kosslyn, S.M., M. Behrmann, and M. Jeannerod. 1995a. The cognitive neuroscience of mental imagery. Neuropsycholigia 33: 1335–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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
  91. Zhang, L. 2002a. Thinking styles: Their relationships with node of thinking and academic performance. Educational Psychology 22(3): 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zhang, L. 2002b. Thinking styles and the big five personality traits. Educational Psychology 22(1): 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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
  94. 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
  95. 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
  96. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education and Professional StudiesGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations