ESP-3299

Published

2025-12-26

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 12 (2025): Publishing

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 TEOTIMA A. AMPONG

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

TEOTIMA A. AMPONG. (2025). Exploring Innovative Mindsets of Higher Education Learners for STEM Skills through Social Learning Perspectives. Environment and Social Psychology, 10(12), ESP-3299. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i12.3299

Exploring Innovative Mindsets of Higher Education Learners for STEM Skills through Social Learning Perspectives

TEOTIMA A. AMPONG

School Of Technology And Computer Studies, Biliran Province State University, 6560


DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i12.3299


Keywords: creativity; higher education; innovative mindset; social learning; STEM

Abstract

Innovative mindset helps students embrace interdisciplinary approaches, enabling them to integrate knowledge from various domains and collaborate effectively with others. In doing so, they contribute not only to technological and scientific progress but also to societal growth by addressing pressing social concerns. This paper explored how classrooms fostered innovative mindsets among college students through social learning processes. This exploratory study gathered narratives from 16 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students in Biliran Province about their experiences that cultivate their innovative mindset in academic settings. Participants were purposively sampled, and data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The findings indicated that innovative mindset in STEM students is viewed as a triad of flexibility, creativity, and knowledge. Innovation was not limited to generating new ideas but also involved adapting to changing circumstances and applying learned knowledge to solve problems. Teachers who create a collaborative and inquiry-driven classroom environment facilitated students in approaching challenges from multiple perspectives and experimenting with solutions. The ability of teachers to simplify and break down problems into manageable parts served as a form of cognitive modeling, which encouraged students to adopt similar methods when solving their own issues. This strategy not only enhanced understanding but also built confidence in managing challenges innovatively. Cultivating an innovative mindset requires a combination of adaptive teaching strategies, effective integration of technology, and a supportive learning environment. These elements help students develop the critical thinking and problem-solving skills necessary for success in STEM fields and beyond.

References

[1]. 1.Han, J., Kelley, T., & Knowles, J. G. (2021). Factors influencing student STEM learning: Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy, 21st century skills, and career awareness. Journal for STEM Education Research, 4(2), 117-137.

[2]. 2.Grassini, S. (2023). Shaping the future of education: exploring the potential and consequences of AI and ChatGPT in educational settings. Education Sciences, 13(7), 692.

[3]. 3.Kayan-Fadlelmula, F., Sellami, A., Abdelkader, N., & Umer, S. (2022). A systematic review of STEM education research in the GCC countries: Trends, gaps and barriers. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, 1-24.

[4]. 4.Sahin, A., Waxman, H. C., Demirci, E., & Rangel, V. S. (2020). An investigation of harmony public school students’ college enrollment and STEM major selection rates and perceptions of factors in STEM major selection. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(7), 1249-1269.

[5]. 5.Vooren, M., Haelermans, C., Groot, W., & van den Brink, H. M. (2022). Comparing success of female students to their male counterparts in the STEM fields: an empirical analysis from enrollment until graduation using longitudinal register data. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, 1-17.

[6]. 6.Sulai, M. E., & Sulai, E. I. (2020). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: A tool for national development. International Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 117-126.

[7]. 7.Idris, R., Govindasamy, P., Nachiappan, S., & Bacotang, J. (2023). Revolutionizing STEM education: Unleashing the potential of STEM interest career in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(7), 1741-1752.

[8]. 8.Dare, E. A., Keratithamkul, K., Hiwatig, B. M., & Li, F. (2021). Beyond content: The role of STEM disciplines, real-world problems, 21st century skills, and STEM careers within science teachers’ conceptions of integrated STEM education. Education Sciences, 11(11), 737.

[9]. 9.Khadri, H. O. (2022). Becoming future-proof STEM teachers for enhancing sustainable development: A proposed general framework for capacity-building programs in future studies. Prospects, 52(3), 421-435.

[10]. 10.Charrón Vías, M., & Rivera-Cruz, B. (2020). Fostering innovation and entrepreneurial culture at the business school: A competency-based education framework. Industry and Higher Education, 34(3), 160-176.

[11]. 11.Dweck, C. S. (2014). Mindsets and math/science achievement.

[12]. 12.Konak, A., Kulturel-Konak, S., Schneider, D. R., & Mehta, K. (2024). Enhancing student learning in innovation competitions and programs. European Journal of Engineering Education, 1-21.

[13]. 13.Naumann, C. (2017). Entrepreneurial mindset: A synthetic literature review. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 5(3), 149-172.

[14]. 14.Konak, A., Kulturel-Konak, S., Schneider, D. R., & Mehta, K. (2023, October). Best Practices for Cultivating Innovative Thinking Skills in Innovation Competitions and Programs. In 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

[15]. 15.Akers, R. L., & Jennings, W. G. (2015). Social learning theory. The handbook of criminological theory, 230-240.

[16]. 16.Nurkasanah, A., & Sarwoprasodjo, S. (2024). The lens of social learning theory: an imitation behaviour to adapting climate change in agriculture. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 1359, No. 1, p. 012058). IOP Publishing.

[17]. 17.Daniels, H. (Ed.). (1996a). The genesis of higher mental functions. Routledge.

[18]. 18.Papert, S., & Harel, I. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism: research reports and essays, 1985-1990. Ablex publishing corporation.

[19]. 19.Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard educational review, 84(4), 495-504.

[20]. 20.Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (1st ed.). Routledge.

[21]. 21.Babrow, A. S., & Kuang, K. (2022). Problematic integration theory. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 64–75). Routledge, Taylor & Frances.

[22]. 22.Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.). (2008). Exploring Talk in School: Inspired by the Work of Douglas Barnes. Sage.

[23]. 23.Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. Exploring talk in school, 55-71.

[24]. 24.Felder, R. M. (2021). STEM education: A tale of two paradigms. Journal of Food Science Education, 20(1), 8-15.

[25]. 25.Waters, C. C., & Orange, A. (2022). STEM-driven school culture: Pillars of a transformative STEM approach. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6(2), 72-90.

[26]. 26.Lavi, R., Tal, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2021). Perceptions of STEM alumni and students on developing 21st century skills through methods of teaching and learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 101002.

[27]. 27.Ovbiagbonhia, A. R., Kollöffel, B., & Brok, P. D. (2019). Educating for innovation: Students’ perceptions of the learning environment and of their own innovation competence. Learning environments research, 22, 387-407.

[28]. 28.Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?. Educational psychology review, 16, 235-266.

[29]. 29.Wan, Z. H., English, L., So, W. W. M., & Skilling, K. (2023). STEM integration in primary schools: Theory, implementation and impact. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(Suppl 1), 1-9.

[30]. 30.Engström, S., & Lennholm, H. (2023). Authentic Teaching in STEM Education–factors for success. In PATT40: The 40th International Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology Research Conference Hosted by Liverpool John Moores University, 31st October to 3rd November 2023.

[31]. 31.Suhirman, S., & Prayogi, S. (2023). Overcoming challenges in STEM education: A literature review that leads to effective pedagogy in STEM learning. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(8), 432-443.

[32]. 32.Moore, M. (2018). Mindset and mathematics in an all-girls secondary school.

[33]. 33.Zhang, J., Kuusisto, E., & Tirri, K. (2017). How teachers’ and students’ mindsets in learning have been studied: research findings on mindset and academic achievement. Psychology, 8(9), 1363.

[34]. 34.Uwerhiavwe, A. A. (2023). The influence of learners’ mindsets on their mathematics learning. Creative Education, 14(1), 74-102.

[35]. 35.Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational psychologist, 47(4), 302-314.

[36]. 36.Liu, T., Pang, P. C. I., & Lam, C. K. (2024). Public health education using social learning theory: a systematic scoping review. BMC public health, 24(1), 1906.

[37]. 37.Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs.

[38]. 38.McCullough C. A. (2011). Social learning theory and behavioral therapy: Considering human behaviors within the social and cultural context of individuals and families. Social work in public health, 26(5), 471-481.

[39]. 39.Zapkau, F. B., Schwens, C., Steinmetz, H., & Kabst, R. (2015). Disentangling the effect of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 639-653.

[40]. 40.Türk, S., Zapkau, F. B., & Schwens, C. (2020). Prior entrepreneurial exposure and the emergence of entrepreneurial passion: the moderating role of learning orientation. Journal of small business management, 58(2), 225-258.

[41]. 41.Yang, S., Ling, S., Lv, K., Gao, R., Yang, J., Yue, L., ... & He, G. (2023). Entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurial performance: evidence from Chinese farmer entrepreneurs. Asia Pacific Business Review, 1-27.

[42]. 42.Illeris, K. (2003). Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. International journal of lifelong education, 22(4), 396-406.

[43]. 43.Illeris, K. (2007). How We Learn: Learning and Non-Learning in School and Beyond. Routledge.

[44]. 44.Illeris, K. (2009). A comprehensive understanding of human learning. International Journal of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, 2(1), 45-63.

[45]. 45.Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

[46]. 46.Strauch, C. C., & Al Omar, M. J. (2014). Critical Analysis of Learning Theories and Ideologies and Their Impact on Learning: "Review Article". Online Journal of Counseling & Education, 3(2).

[47]. 47.Shively, R. L., & Ryan, C. S. (2013). Longitudinal changes in college math students’ implicit theories of intelligence. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 241-256.

[48]. 48.Hunter, D., McCallum, J., & Howes, D. (2019). Defining exploratory-descriptive qualitative (EDQ) research and considering its application to healthcare. Journal of Nursing and Health Care, 4(1).

[49]. 49.Singh, A. (2021). An introduction to experimental and exploratory research. Available at SSRN 3789360.

[50]. 50.Chavez, J. V. (2022). Narratives of bilingual parents on the real-life use of English language: Materials for English language teaching curriculum. Arab World English Journals, 13(3).

[51]. 51.Stebbins, R. A. (2001). What is exploration. Exploratory research in the social sciences, 48, 2-17.

[52]. 52.Chavez, J. V., & Del Prado, R. T. (2023). Discourse analysis on online gender-based humor: Markers of normalization, tolerance, and lens of inequality. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 5(1), 55-71.

[53]. 53.Szabelska, A., Pollet, T. V., Dujols, O., Klein, R. A., & IJzerman, H. (2021). A tutorial for exploratory research: An eight-step approach.

[54]. 54.Akhtar, F., Khan, H., & Rasheed, M. (2019). The power of positive psychological capital: An Exploratory study. Arabian J Bus Manag Review, 9(387), 2.

[55]. 55.Harrison, R. L., Reilly, T. M., & Creswell, J. W. (2020). Methodological rigor in mixed methods: An application in management studies. Journal of mixed methods research, 14(4), 473-495.

[56]. 56.Swedberg, R. (2020). Exploratory research. The production of knowledge: Enhancing progress in social science, 2(1), 17-41.

[57]. 57.Olawale, S. R., Chinagozi, O. G., & Joe, O. N. (2023). Exploratory research design in management science: A review of literature on conduct and application. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 7(4), 1384-1395.

[58]. 58.Chavez, J. V., Adalia, H. G., & Alberto, J. P. (2023). Parental support strategies and motivation in aiding their children learn the English language. In Forum for Linguistic Studies, 5(2), 1541-1541.

[59]. 59.Chavez, J. V., Garil, B. A., Padrique, C. B., Askali, S. T., & Indama, A. C. (2024). Assessing innovative and responsive young leaders in public service: Lens from community clientele. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(9).

[60]. 60.Tuckett, A. G. (2004). Qualitative research sampling: the very real complexities. Nurse researcher, 12(1), 47-61.

[61]. 61.Bernard, H. R. (2017). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Rowman & Littlefield.

[62]. 62.Barratt, M. J., Ferris, J. A., & Lenton, S. (2015). Hidden populations, online purposive sampling, and external validity: Taking off the blindfold. Field methods, 27(1), 3-21.

[63]. 63.Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of advanced nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.

[64]. 64.Barriball, K. L., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing-Institutional Subscription, 19(2), 328-335.

[65]. 65.Alshenqeeti, H. (2014). Interviewing as a data collection method: A critical review. English linguistics research, 3(1), 39-45.

[66]. 66.Naz, N., Gulab, F., & Aslam, M. (2022). Development of qualitative semi-structured interview guide for case study research. Competitive Social Science Research Journal, 3(2), 42-52.

[67]. 67.Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.

[68]. 68.Hardon, A., Hodgkin, C., & Fresle, D. (2004). How to investigate the use of medicines by consumers. In How to investigate the use of medicines by consumers (pp. 89-89).

[69]. 69.Bolderston, A. (2012). Conducting a research interview. Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences, 43(1), 66-76.

[70]. 70.Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers College.

[71]. 71.Elhami, A., & Khoshnevisan, B. (2022). Conducting an Interview in Qualitative Research: The Modus Operandi. Mextesol Journal, 46(1).

[72]. 72.Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

[73]. 73.Chavez, J. V., & Ceneciro, C. C. (2023). Discourse analysis on same-sex relationship through the lens of religious and social belief systems. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(1).

[74]. 74.Luo, L., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Semistructured interviews. Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science, 232.

[75]. 75.Au, A. (2019). Thinking about cross-cultural differences in qualitative interviewing: Practices for more responsive and trusting encounters. The Qualitative Report, 24(1), 58-77.

[76]. 76.Miller, L. M., & Carpenter, C. L. (2009). Altruistic leadership strategies in coaching: A case study of Jim Tressel of the Ohio State University. Strategies, 22(4), 9-12. (Note: Cited in text as Miller & Carpenter, 2023)

[77]. 77.Barrett, D., & Twycross, A. (2018). Data collection in qualitative research. Evidence-based nursing, 21(3), 63-64.

[78]. 78.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association. APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, 2, 57-71.

[79]. 79.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

[80]. 80.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and psychotherapy research, 21(1), 37-47.

[81]. 81.Terry, G., & Hayfield, N. (2020). Reflexive thematic analysis. In Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 430-441). Edward Elgar Publishing.

[82]. 82.Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The journal of positive psychology, 12(3), 297-298.

[83]. 83.Langridge, D. (2004). Introduction to research methods and data analysis in psychology. Harlow: Pearson.

[84]. 84.Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology, 2(17-37), 25.

[85]. 85.Sharma, G., Tripathi, L., Madan, V., & Khatri, E. (2024). A Study of Teachers’ Adaptability Towards Digital Education System: An Empirical Study in Higher Education Perspective. Journal of Informatics Education and Research, 4(2).

[86]. 86.Chen, Y., So, W. W. M., Zhu, J., & Chiu, S. W. K. (2024). STEM learning opportunities and career aspirations: the interactive effect of students’ self-concept and perceptions of STEM professionals. International Journal of STEM Education, 11(1), 1.

[87]. 87.Hwang, G. J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100001.

[88]. 88.He, H., Glaser, N., AlZoubi, D., Mendoza, K. R., Hunt, H. K., & Burgoyne, S. (2023). Theatre-based techniques for enhancing creativity in engineering education: An evaluation study of the creativity academy program. Discover Education, 2(1), 36.

[89]. 89.Rahman, M. M. (2019). 21st century skill 'problem solving': Defining the concept. Asian Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(1), 64-74.

[90]. 90.Rosa, A. T. R. (2020). Teacher Development Potential (Creativity and Innovation) Education Management in Engineering Training, Coaching and Writing Works through Scientific Knowledge Intensive Knowledge Based on Web Research in the Industrial Revolution and Society. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(4), 161-168.

[91]. 91.Adeoye, M. A., & Jimoh, H. A. (2023). Problem-solving skills among 21st-century learners toward creativity and innovation ideas. Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal, 6(1), 52-58.

[92]. 92.Militaru, A. M. G., Fleacă, B., Dumitrescu, C. I., & Fleacă, E. (2023). Romanian Youth Enhancing Innovation Mindset and Organizational Change in the Business Environment. In European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 18(1), 626-635.

[93]. 93.Özdemir, N., Çoban, Ö., Buyukgoze, H., Gümüş, S., & Pietsch, M. (2024). Leading knowledge exploration and exploitation in schools: The moderating role of teachers’ open innovation mindset. Educational Administration Quarterly, 60(5), 668-717.

[94]. 94.Rusu, A., & Rusu, A. (2023). Fostering the Innovative Mindset: Entrepreneurship Clinic Model for Computer Science Students. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V., 1, 464-470.

[95]. 95.Wakhudin, W., Basri, H., Wahyudi, A., & Ginanjar, M. A. (2024). Entrepreneurship-Based Education: Teaching Students to Think Creatively and Innovatively. Journal of Pedagogi, 1(5), 117-123.

[96]. 96.Carayannis, E. G., Samara, E. T., & Bakouros, Y. L. (2015). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Theory, policy and practice.

[97]. 97.Drucker, P., & Maciariello, J. (2014). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge.

[98]. 98.Hipwell, M. C., Hassan, H. I., Rodriguez, L., Gao, R., Watson, K. L., Layton, A., & Seets, C. (2023). Work in Progress: Mind and Skill Sets for Innovation: Preparation for a Rapidly Changing World. In 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.

[99]. 99.Tuominen, M., Rajala, A., & Möller, K. (2004). How does adaptability drive firm innovativeness?. Journal of Business research, 57(5), 495-506.

[100]. 100.McLeod, S. (2011). Albert Bandura's social learning theory. Simply Psychology. London.

[101]. 101.Acar, O. A., & Tuncdogan, A. (2019). Using the inquiry-based learning approach to enhance student innovativeness: a conceptual model. Teaching in Higher Education.

[102]. 102.Rets, I., Astruc, L., Coughlan, T., & Stickler, U. (2022). Approaches to simplifying academic texts in English: English teachers’ views and practices. English for Specific Purposes, 68, 31-46.

[103]. 103.Crossley, S. A., Yang, H. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). What's so Simple about Simplified Texts? A Computational and Psycholinguistic Investigation of Text Comprehension and Text Processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 92-113.

[104]. 104.Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Text-based recall and extra-textual generations resulting from simplified and authentic texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 28(1), 1-19.



21 Woodlands Close #02-10, Primz Bizhub,Postal 737854, Singapore

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com