READING COMPREHENSION: IN DEFENSE OF A MENTAL MODEL APPROACH
Commentary on Glenberg & Mathew on Reading-Inference

Abstract

Glenberg & Mathew (1992) have provided us with an opportunity to address some central issues concerning reading and comprehension. Taken together their arguments make a good case for a mental-model position. We arrive at the conclusion that the constructivist approach has not been proved substantially wrong.

Keywords

References

• Fernandez, A., & Saiz, C. (1989, July). Foregrounding of Trait Information during Text Comprehension. Paper presented at the First European Congress of Psychology, Amsterdam.
• Garnham, A. (1981). Mental models as representations of text. Memory & Cognition, 9(6), 560-565.
• Glenberg, A. M., & Langston, W. E. (1992). Comprehension of illustrated text: Pictures help to build mental models. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 129-151.
• Glenberg, A. M., & Mathew, S. (1992). When minimalism is not enough: Mental models in reading comprehension. PSYCOLOQUY 3(64) reading-inference-2.1.
• Glenberg, A. M., Meyer, M., & Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 69-83.
• Kieras, D. E. (1982). A model of reader strategy for abstracting main ideas from simple technical prose. Text, 2, 47-82.
• McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
• Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
• Van Djik, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.