Text signals influence second language expository text comprehension: knowledge structure analysis

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 65, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 909-930

  Kim, Kyung ^a   Clariana, Roy B ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Expository text; Instructional design; Knowledge structure analysis; Second language reading; Text signals

Indexed keywords

EID: 84991106786     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-016-9494-x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. (2000). A comparison of first and second language readers’ situation models as evidenced in a recall task. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 441 219) http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED441219.pdf.
2. Cashen, V. M., & Leicht, K. L. (1970). Role of the isolation effect in a formal educational setting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(6p1), 484.
3. Clariana, R. B. (2010). Deriving group knowledge structure from semantic maps and from essays. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 117–130). New York: Springer.
4. Clariana, R. B., Draper, D., & Land, S. M. (2011). An automated measure of group knowledge structure convergence. In annual meeting of the AECT International Convention. Retrieved September (Vol. 22, p. 2014).
5. Clariana, R. B., Engelmann, T., & Yu, W. (2013). Using centrality of concept maps as a measure of problem space states in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 423–442.
6. Clariana, R. B., Rysavy, M. D., & Taricani, E. (2015). Text signals influence team artifacts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 35–52.
7. Clariana, R. B., Wolfe, M. B., & Kim, K. (2014). The influence of narrative and expository lesson text structures on knowledge structures: Alternate measures of knowledge structure. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 601–616.
8. Crouse, J. H., & Idstein, P. (1972). Effects of encoding cues on prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(4), 309.
9. Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing, 15(7–8), 739–757.
10. Fecteau, M. L. (1999). First-and second-language reading comprehension of literary texts. The Modern Language Journal, 83(4), 475–493.
11. Fesel, S. S., Segers, E., Clariana, R. B., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). Quality of children’s knowledge representations in digital text comprehension: Evidence from pathfinder networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 135–146.
12. Fowler, R. L., & Barker, A. S. (1974). Effectiveness of highlighting for retention of text material. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 358.
13. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1991). Cognitive processes and mechanisms in language comprehension: The structure building framework. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 27, pp. 217–263). San Diego: Academic Press.
14. Hartley, J., Bartlett, S., & Branthwaite, A. (1980). Underlining can make a difference—sometimes. The Journal of Educational Research, 73(4), 218–224.
15. Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in second language acquisition, 24(04), 541–577.
16. Jonassen, D. H. (1985). The technology of text: Principles for structuring, designing, and displaying text (Vol. 2). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology.
17. Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Kim, M. (2012). Cross-validation study on methods and technologies to assess mental models in a complex problem solving situation. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 703–717.
19. Kim, K., & Clariana, R. B. (2015). Knowledge structure measures of reader’s situation models across languages: Translation engenders richer structure. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20, 249–268.
20. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction- integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.
21. Laborda, J. G. (2009). Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language™. ELT Journal, 63(3), 291–294.
22. LaBrozzi, R. M. (2016). The effects of textual enhancement type on L2 form recognition and reading comprehension in Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 20, 75–91.
23. Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., Cross, D. R., & Reynolds, S. B. (1989). Multi-relational semantic maps. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 331–367.
24. Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57(1), 87–118.
25. Lee, J. W., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 713–739.
26. Lemarié, J., Lorch, J. R. F., & Péry-Woodley, M. P. (2012). Understanding how headings influence text processing. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique, (10).
27. Leow, R. P. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2?: An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496–509.
28. Li, S. C., Pow, J. W. C., & Cheung, W. C. (2015). A delineation of the cognitive processes manifested in a social annotation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 31, 1–13.
29. Li, P., Zhang, F., Tsai, E., & Puls, B. (2014). Language history questionnaire (LHQ 2.0): A new dynamic web-based research tool. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(03), 673–680.
30. Lorch, R., Lemarié, J., & Grant, R. (2011). Signaling hierarchical and sequential organization in expository text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(3), 267–284.
31. Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Lorch, E. P. (1995). Effects of organizational signals on text-processing strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 537.
32. Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., Ritchey, K., McGovern, L., & Coleman, D. (2001). Effects of headings on text summarization. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(2), 171–191.
33. Meyer, B. J., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.
34. Meyer, B. J. F., Ray, M. N., & Middlemiss, W. (2012). Children’s use of comparative text signals: The relationship between age and comprehension ability. Discours[Enligne]. Retrived from http://discours.revues.org/8637.
35. Meyer, B. J., & Rice, G. E. (1983). Learning and memory from text across the adult life span. In J. Fine & R. O. Freedle (Eds.), Developmental studies in discourse (pp. 291–306). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
36. Nist, S. L., & Hogrebe, M. C. (1987). The role of underlining and annotating in remembering textual information. Literacy Research and Instruction, 27(1), 12–25.
37. Overstreet, M. H. (2002). The effect of textual enhancement on second language learner reading comprehension and form recognition (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
38. Perfetti, C. A. (1989). There are generalized abilities and one of them is reading. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 307–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39. Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Automated knowledge visualization and assessment. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge. New York: Springer.
40. Ritchey, K., Schuster, J., & Allen, J. (2008). How the relationship between text and headings influences readers’ memory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 859–874.
41. Ryan, C. (2013). American Community Survey Reports: Language use in the United States: 2011. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf.
42. Shook, D. J. (1994). FL/L2 Reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5(2), 57–93.
43. Spector, J. M., Johnson, T. E., & Young, P. A. (2015). An editorial on replication studies and scaling up efforts. Education Technology Research and Development, 63, 1–4.
44. Spyridakis, J. H., & Standal, T. C. (1987). Signals in expository prose: Effects on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 285–298.
45. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies in discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
46. van Hell, J. G., & Kroll, J. F. (2013). Using electrophysiological measures to track the mapping of words to concepts in the bilingual brain: A focus on translation. In J. Altarriba & L. Isurin (Eds.), Memory, language, and bilingualism: Theoretical and applied approaches. New York: Cambridge University Press.
47. Villalon, J., & Calvo, R. A. (2011). Concept maps as cognitive visualizations of writing assignments. Educational Technology & Society, 14(3), 16–27.
48. Wilks, C., Meara, P., & Wolter, B. (2005). A further note on simulating word association behaviour in a second language. Second Language Research, 21(4), 359–372.
49. Wong, W. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 109–132.
50. Zareva, A. (2007). Structure of the second language mental lexicon: how does it compare to native speakers’ lexical organization? Second Language Research, 23(2), 123–153.
51. Zareva, A., & Wolter, B. (2012). The ‘promise’of three methods of word association analysis to L2 lexical research. Second Language Research, 28(1), 41–67.
52. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162.