Children's text comprehension: Effects of genre, knowledge, and text cohesion

ICLS 2006 - International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Proceedings

Volumn 1, Issue , 2006, Pages 37-42

  Best, Rachel ^a   Ozuru, Yasuhiro ^a   Floyd, Randy G ^a   McNamara, Danielle S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS; SPECIFIC INFORMATION; TEXT COHESION; TEXT COMPREHENSIONS; TEXT GENRE; WORLD KNOWLEDGE;

ADHESION;

EID: 70349101856     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Gromoll, E. (1989). Learning from social studies texts. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 99-158.
2. Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children's reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 424-436.
3. Graesser, A. C, McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36, 193-202.
4. Guthrie, J. T. (2003). Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction: Practices of teaching reading for understanding. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking Reading Comprehension (pp 115-140). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
5. Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
6. Kintsch, W. (1993). Information accretion and reduction in text processing: Inferences. Discourse Processes, 16, 193-202.
7. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
8. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
9. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N, & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
10. Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1998). Nurturing independent learners: Helping students take charge of their learning. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
11. Moje, E. B. (1996). I teach students, not subjects: Teacher-student relationships as contexts for secondary literacy, Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 172-195.
12. Olson, M. W. (1985). Text type and reader ability: The effects on paraphrase and text-based inference questions, Journal of Reading Behavior, 3, 199-214.
13. Perfetti, C. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
14. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
15. Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: Guilford Press.
16. Van den Broek, P., Tzeng, Y., Risden, K, Trabasso, T., & Basche, P. (2001). Inferential questioning: effects on comprehension of narrative texts as a function of grade and timing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 521-529
17. Vellutino, F. R. (2003). Individual differences as sources of variability in reading comprehension in elementary school children. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 51-81). New York: Guilford Press.
18. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Itasca, IL: Riverside.