___

• Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L. & Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Re- search Journal, 14, 367-381.
• Ballstaed, P. S. & Mandl, H. (1984). Elaborations: Asessment and analysis. In H. Mandl, N. L.
• Stein & T. Trabasso (Eds) Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 331-353). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Celce-Mercia, M. & Olshtain, D. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
• de Beaugrande, R. (1984) Learning to read versus reading to learn: A discourse processing approach. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein & T. Trabasso (Eds). Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 159-192). New Jersey: Law- rence Erlbaum Associates.
• Graesser, A. C., Singer, M. & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371- 395.
• Halldorson, M. & Singer, M. (2002). Inference process: Integrating relevant knowledge and text information. Discourse Processes, 34, 145-161.
• Henson, K. T. (2001). Curriculum planning: Integrating multiculturalism, con- structivism, and education. Boston: McGrow Hill.Landry, K. L. (2002). Schemata in second language reading. The Reading Matrix, 2(3). http:// www.readingmatrix.com/archives/archives_vol2_no3.html.
• Laing, S. P. & Kamhi, A.G. (2002). The use of think-aloud protocols to com- pare inferencing abilities in average and below-average readers. Jour- nal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 436-447.
• Long, L. & Bourg, T. (1996). Thinking aloud: telling a story about a story. Discourse Processes, 21, 329-339.
• Long, L., Seely, M. R. & Oppy, B. J. (1996). The availability of causal infor- mation during reading. Discourse Processes, 22, 145-170.
• Magliano, J. P. & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think- aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition and Instruc- tion, 21, 251-283.
• McCormick, T. W. (1988). Theories of reading in dialogue: An interdisciplin- ary study. University Press of America.
• Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P. & Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Jour- nal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 488-496.
• Oliva, P. F. (2001). Developing the curriculum. New York: Longman.
• Oster, L. (2001). Using the think-aloud for reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 55(1), 64-69.
• Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Richeit, G., Schnotz, W. & Strohner, H. (1985). The concept of inference in discourse comprehension. In G. Richeit & H. Strohner (Eds) Inferences in text processing (pp. 3-49). Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
• Singer, M. (1990). Psychology of language. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Suh, S. & Trabasso, T. (1993). Inferences during reading: Converging evidence from discourse analysis, talk-aloud protocols, and recognition priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 279-300.
• Thomas, K. F. & Barksdale-Ladd, M. A. (2000). Metacognitive process: teach- ing strategies in literacy education courses. Reading psychology, 21, 67-84.
• Trabasso, T. & Magliano, J. P. (1996). Conscious understanding during com- prehension. Discourse Processes, 12, 255-287.
• van den Broek, P., Lorch, Jr., R. F., Linderholm, T. & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effect of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory and Cognition, 29, 1081-1087.
• van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
• Wade, S. E. (1990). Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The Reading Teacher. 43(7), 442-451.
• Zwaan, R. A. & Brown, C. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation model construction. Discourse Processes, 21, 289-327.