1989
DOI: 10.2307/747774
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Effects of Reader and Text Characteristics on Imagery Reported During and After Reading

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
27
0
1

Year Published

1991
1991
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
5
27
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The findings from the IRSFL reveal that the most prominent EFL reading strategies used in biotechnology engineering involve re-reading for better understanding, using background knowledge to relate it with the text being read, using text features (pictures, tables, charts), which is in line with the findings of Park (2010) and Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001). Many studies on text comprehension indicate that successful readers call on background knowledge (Alexander, Schallert, & Hare, 1991) to make inferences (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994) and to comprehend the text (Long, Winograd, & Bridget, 1989). Background knowledge has a significant effect on student performance, explaining up to 81% of the variance in posttest scores (Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…The findings from the IRSFL reveal that the most prominent EFL reading strategies used in biotechnology engineering involve re-reading for better understanding, using background knowledge to relate it with the text being read, using text features (pictures, tables, charts), which is in line with the findings of Park (2010) and Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001). Many studies on text comprehension indicate that successful readers call on background knowledge (Alexander, Schallert, & Hare, 1991) to make inferences (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994) and to comprehend the text (Long, Winograd, & Bridget, 1989). Background knowledge has a significant effect on student performance, explaining up to 81% of the variance in posttest scores (Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…Thus, the intervention utilizes multiple sensory modalities in order to help improve internal visual and phonological representations. The use of imagery as a focus of the intervention is based on several studies relating the use of imagery in reading including a self report study of imagery during reading (Long et al, 1989), use of imagery in semantic retrieval (Kosslyn, 1976), and more direct measures of relating imagery during reading to improved processing and comprehension (Sadoski, 1983; Linden and Wittrock, 1981). The intervention was administered at the subjects’ school by employees of the Lindamood-Bell Corporation © who were specifically trained to administer the program.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One study comparing ratings on the shortened version of Betts' (1909) Questionnaire upon Mental Imagery (QMI) and ratings of imagery during the reading of a fictional text (Long et al 1989) found correlations between the two scores, and this may have something to do with the QMI being less centred on the visual, and hence the pictorial, modality. Kosslyn and Thompson (2003) have also proposed that the ongoing debate about whether activity in primary visual cortex (V1) increases when imagining, as it does when seeing, should take into account the possibility that tasks to which the detailed geometric shape of objects being imagined isn't relevant may not activate V1, although they may still activate other retinotopically mapped areas involved in processing, for example, colour, motion, or spatiality (Thomas 2010).…”
Section: Imaginative Prompts: Literary Texts and Imagery Questionnairesmentioning
confidence: 95%