Cohesion and structural organization in high school texts

Proceedings of the Twentieth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS 2007

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 235-240

  Lightman, Erin J ^a   McCarthy, Philip M ^a   Dufty, David F ^a   McNamara, Danielle S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL TOOLS; HIGH SCHOOL TEXTS; STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION; TEXTUAL COHESION;

COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; WORD PROCESSING;

TEXT PROCESSING;

EID: 34547827186     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (Eds.) (1993). The CELEX Lexical Database [CD-ROM]. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
2. Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., Sinatra, G.M., & Loxterman, J.A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 251-276.
3. Best, R., Floyd, G., & McNamara, D. (2005).Differential aptitudes contributing to children's comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology. Submitted for publication.
4. Bowen, B.A. (1999). Four puzzles in adult literacy: Reflections on the national adult literacy survey. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42, 314-323.
5. Britton, B.K., & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329-404.
6. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database quarterly. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497-505.
7. Graesser, A.C. (1993). Inference generation during text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 16, 1-2.
8. Graesser, A.C., Karnavat, A.B., Daniel, F.K., Cooper, E., Whitten, S.N., & Louwerse, M. (2001). A computer tool to improve questionnaire design. In Statistical Policy Working Paper 33, Federal Committee of Statistical Methodology (pp. 36-48). Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
9. Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202.
10. Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. (2000). Speech and language processing. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11. Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
12. Klare, G.R. (1974-1975). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62-102.
13. Landauer, T.K., & Dumais, S.T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
14. Linderholm, T., Everson, M.G., van den Broek, Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on more and less skilled readers' comprehension of easy and difficult text. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 525-556.
15. th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 843-848). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. McCarthy, P.M., Graesser, A.C., & McNamara, D.S. (2006, July). Distinguishing genre using Coh-Metrix indices of cohesion. Paper presented at the Society for Text and Discourse conference, Minneapolis, MN.
17. McCarthy, P.M., Briner, S.W., Rus, V., & McNamara, D.S. (in press). Textual Signatures: Identifying text-types using Latent Semantic Analysis to measure the cohesion of text structures. In: A. Kao, & S. Poteet (Eds.). Natural Language Processing and Text Mining. London: Springer-Verlag UK.
18. McNamara, D.S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from Text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-287.
19. McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
20. McNamara, D.S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62.
21. McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., & Graesser, A.C. (2006). Coh-Metrix: Automated cohesion and coherence scores to predict text readability and facilitate comprehension. Annual Report to the Institute of Educational Sciences, R305G020018.
22. Miller, G.A., Beckworth, R., Feldbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. (1990). Five papers on WordNet (Tech. Rep.). Princeton University, Cognitive Science Laboratory.
23. O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D.S. (in press). Good texts can be better for skilled comprehenders. Discourse Processes.
24. th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1696-1701). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
26. Tonjes, M.J., Ray, W., & Zintz, M.V. (1999). Integrated Content Literacy. New York: The McGraw-Hill Publishers.
27. Zipf, G.K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley.