Comprehension challenges in the fourth grade: The roles of text cohesion, text genre, and readers' prior knowledge

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 229-257

  McNamara, Danielle S ^a   Ozuru, Yasuhiro ^b   Floyd, Randy G ^c  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Coherence; Cohesion; Comprehension; Construction integration; Domain knowledge; Fourth grade slump; Genre; Individual differences; Reading

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857078547     PISSN: None     EISSN: 13079298     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Afflerbach, P. (1986). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' importance assignment processes. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 35, 30-40.
2. Baker, L. (1985). How do we know when we don't understand? Standards for evaluating text comprehension. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (Vol. 1, pp. 155-205). Orlando, FL: Academic.
3. Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Gromoll, E. (1989). Learning from social studies texts. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 99-158.
4. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Omason, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1984). Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 263-277.
5. 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.
6. Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children's comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137-164.
7. 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, 329-345.
8. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V. & Bryant, P. E. (2000). Phonological skills and comprehension failure: A test of the phonological processing deficit hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 13, 31-56.
9. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. E. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31-42.
10. Carver, R. P., & David, A. H. (2001). Investigating reading achievement using a causal model. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 107-140.
11. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
12. Coté, N., & Goldman, S. R. (1999). Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children's think-aloud protocols. In H. Van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 169-193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Ehri, L. C. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 384-417). New York: Longman.
14. Graesser, A.C. & McNamara, D.S. (2010). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science.
15. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In A.P. Sweet and C.E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York: Guilford Publications
16. 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.
17. Graesser, A.C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-95.
18. Hannon, B. & Daneman, M. (2001). A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component process of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,103-28.
19. Kamberelis, G., & Bovino, T.D. (1999). Cultural Artifacts as Scaffolds for Genre Development. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 138-170.
20. Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M.J., & Lynch, J.S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765-778.
21. Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
22. Kintsch, W. (1993). Information accretion and reduction in text processing: Inferences. Discourse Processes, 16, 193-202
23. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
24. Langer, J. A. (1986). Children reading and writing: Structures and Strategies. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
25. Loxterman, J. A., Beck, I. L., & McKeown (1994). The effects of thinking aloud during reading on students' comprehension of more or less coherent text. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 353-367.
26. Lyon, G.R. (2002). Reading development, reading difficulties, and reading instruction: Educational and public health issues. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 3-6.
27. McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical Manual. Woodcock-Johnson 3. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
28. 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.
29. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47, 292-330.
30. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
31. 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.
32. Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1998). Nurturing independent learners: Helping students take charge of their learning. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
33. Nelson, K. (1996). Language in cognitive development: The emergence of the mediated mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Oakhill, J. V, Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). Dissociation of single-word reading and text comprehension skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443-468.
35. Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Yuill, N. M. (1998). Individual differences in children's comprehension skill: Towards an integrated model. In C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorder. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. 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.
37. O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121-152.
38. Perfetti, C. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Rupley, H. R., & Wilson, V. L. (1996). Content, domain, and world knowledge: Relationship to comprehension of narrative and expository text. Reading and Writing, 8, 419-432.
40. Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 6, 934-947.
41. Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: Guilford Press.
42. van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299-316.
43. 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.
44. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Spearing, D. (1995). Semantic and phonological coding in poor and normal readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 76-123.
45. Vidal-Abarca, E., Martinez, G., & Gilabert, R. (2000). Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 107-116.
46. Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, K. B., De Sisto, L. A., & deCani, J. S. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 538-550.
47. Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Issues in cognitive-behavioral interventions in academic skill areas. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 425-442.
48. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson 3. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
49. Wolfe, M. B. W. & Goldman, S. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467-502.
50. Zinar, S. (1990). Fifth-graders' recall of propositional con- tent and causal relationships from expository prose. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 181-199.