Connectives and layout as processing signals: How textual features affect students' processing and text representation

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 106, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 1036-1048

  van Silfhout, Gerdineke ^a   Evers Vermeul, Jacqueline ^a   Mak, Willem M ^a   Sanders, Ted J M ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

(dis)continuous layout; Connectives; On line processing; Secondary education; Text comprehension

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925585029     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: 19392176     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0036293     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Ashby, J., Rayner, K., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2005). Eye movements of highly skilled and average readers: Differential effects of frequency and predictability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 58(A), 1065-1086. doi:10.1080/ 02724980443000476
2. Ben-Anath, D. (2005). The role of connectives in text comprehension. Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 5, 1-27.
3. Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 65-83. doi:10.1097/00011363- 200501000-00007
4. Bever, T. G., Jandreau, S., Burwell, R., Kaplan, R., & Zaenen, A. (1990). Spacing printed text to isolate major phrases improves readability. Visible Language, 25, 74-87.
5. Bohn-Gettler, C. M., Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P. W. Kendeou, P., & White, M. J. (2011). Adults' and children's monitoring of story events in the service of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 39, 992-1011. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0085-0
6. 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.
7. Braasch, J. L., Goldman, S. R., & Wiley, J. (2013). The influences of text and reader characteristics on learning from refutations in science texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 561-578. doi:10.1037/ a0032627
8. Broer, N. A., Aarnoutse, C. A. J., Kieviet, F. K., & van Leeuwe, J. F. J. (2002): The effect of instructing the structural aspect of texts. Educational Studies, 28, 213-238. doi:10.1080/0305569022000003681
9. Cain, K., & Nash, H. M. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers' processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 429-441. doi:10.1037/a0022824
10. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11, 489-503. doi:10.1023/A:1008084120205
11. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31-42. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31
12. Canestrelli, A. R., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2012). Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 1394-1413. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
13. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.
14. Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1-53. doi:10.1080/01638539809545019
15. Cozijn, R., Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (2011). Propositional integration and world-knowledge inference: Processes in understanding because sentences. Discourse Processes, 48, 475-500, doi:10.1080/ 0163853X.2011.594421
16. Degand, L., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing, 15, 739-757. doi:10.1023/A:1020932715838
17. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256. doi: 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3
18. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Givón, T. (Eds.). (1995). Coherence in spontaneous text. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.
20. Graesser, A. C., & Clark, L. F. (1985). The structures and procedures of implicit knowledge. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
21. Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 371-398. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01081.x
22. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193-202. doi:10.3758/ BF03195564
23. Haberlandt, K. (1982). Reader expectations in text comprehension. In J. F. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and language comprehension (pp. 239-249). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
24. Haberlandt, K. F., & Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 357-374. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.114.3.357
25. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 103-128. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.103
26. Jandreau, S., & Bever, T. (1992). Phrase-spaced formats improve comprehension in average readers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 143-146. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.143
27. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
28. Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L. (2008). Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45, 323-345. doi:10.1080/ 01638530802145486
29. Kamoen, N. (2012). Positive versus negative: A cognitive perspective on wording effects for contrastive questions in attitude surveys (Doctoral dissertation, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics, Utrecht). Retrieved from http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/004426/ bookpart.pdf
30. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers' misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235-245. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.235
31. 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. doi:10.1037/a0015956
32. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
33. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
34. Koornneef, A. W., & Sanders, T. J. (2012). Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 1169-1206. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.699076
35. Land, J. F. H. (2009). Zwakke lezers, sterke teksten? Effecten van tekst-en lezerskenmerken op het tekstbegrip en de tekstwaardering van vmboleerlingen [Less skilled readers, well-built texts? Effects of text and reader characteristics on text comprehension and text appreciation]. Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
36. LeVasseur, V. M., Macaruso, P., Palumbo, L. C., & Shankweiler, D. (2006). Syntactically cued text facilitates oral reading fluency in developing readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 423-445.
37. LeVasseur, V. M., Shankweiler, D., & Macaruso, P. (2001, April). Piecemeal reading. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
38. Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., van den Broek, P. W., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on more- and less-skilled readers' comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 525-556. doi:10.1207/ S1532690XCI1804_4
39. Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Lorch, E. P. (1986). On-line processing of summary and importance signals in reading. Discourse Processes, 9, 489-496. doi:10.1080/01638538609544654
40. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
41. Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2013). The role of causality in discourse processing: Effects of expectation and coherence relations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 1414-1437. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012 .685885
42. Maury, P., & Teisserenc, A. (2005). The role of connectives in science text comprehension and memory. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 489-512. doi:10.1080/01690960444000151
43. McMaster, K. L., van den Broek, P., Espin, C. A., White, M. J., Rapp, D. N., Kendeou, P., . . . Carlson, S. (2012). Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 100-111. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.017
44. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & 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. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
45. Meyer, B. J., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 141-159. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.141
46. Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
47. Mouchon, S., Fayol, M., & Gaonac'h, D. (1995). On-line processing of links between events in narratives: Study of children and adults. Current Psychology of Cognition, 14, 171-193.
48. Mulder, G., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2012). Causal relations and levels of discourse representation. Discourse Processes, 49, 501-522. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2012.692655
49. Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25, 227-236. doi:10.3758/BF03201114
50. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2011. National assessment of educational progress at Grades 4 and 8. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf
51. Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (1997). The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. In M. Fayol & J. Costermans (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships in production and comprehension texts (pp. 75-93). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Oakhill, J. V. (1994). Individual differences in children's text comprehension. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 821-848). New York, NY: Academic Press.
53. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do: Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. 1). Retrieved from doi:10.1787/9789264091450-en
54. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
55. Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
56. Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P. W., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 289-312. doi:10.1080/10888430701530417
57. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
58. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
59. Sanders, T., Land, J., & Mulder, G. (2007). Linguistic markers of coherence improve text comprehension in functional contexts. Information Design Journal, 15, 219-235. doi:10.1075/idj.15.3.04san
60. Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37-60. doi:10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
61. Sanders, T. J. M., & Spooren, W. (2007). Discourse and text structure. In D. Geeraerts & J. Cuykens (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 916-941). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
62. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
63. Spyridakis, J. H., & Standal, T. C. (1987). Signals in expository prose: Effects on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 285-298. doi:10.2307/747969
64. Trabasso, T., Secco, T., & van den Broek, P. (1984). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 83-111). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
65. Traxler, M. J., Bybee, M., & Pickering, M. J. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 50(A), 481-497. doi:10.1080/ 027249897391982
66. van den Broek, P., Lynch, J. S., Naslund, J., Ievers-Landis, C. E., & Verduin, K. (2003). The development of comprehension of main ideas in narratives: Evidence from the selection of titles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 707-718. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.707
67. 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, NY: Guilford Press.
68. Wright, R. E., & Rosenberg, S. (1993). Knowledge of text coherence and expository writing: A developmental study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 152-158. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.1.152
69. Yan, T., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Fast times and easy questions: The effects of age, experience and question complexity on web survey response times. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 51-68. doi:10.1002/ acp.1331
70. Zwaan, R. A., & Singer, M. (2003). Text comprehension. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 83-121). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.