Connectives as Processing Signals: How Students Benefit in Processing Narrative and Expository Texts

References

• Berman, R. A., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43, 79–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Best, R., Ozuru, Y., Floyd, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Children's text comprehension. Effects of genre, knowledge, and text cohesion. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 37–42). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Brehm-Jurish, E. U. (2005). Connective ties in discourse: Three ERP-studies on causal, temporal, and concessive ties and their influence on language processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Potsdam University. Retrieved from http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2006/678/pdf/brehmjurdiss.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Britton, B. K., & Gülgöz, 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 489–503.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 683–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canestrelli, A. R.,Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2013). Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye-movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 1394–1413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cozijn, R. (2000). Integration and inference in understanding causal sentences. PhD dissertation, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degand, L., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 739–757.
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., León, J. A., & Otero, J. (2002). Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In J.Otero, J. A.León, & A. C.Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1–15). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 371–398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 & C. E.Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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 and Computers, 36, 193–202.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamoen, N. (2012). Positive versus negative: A cognitive perspective on wording effects for contrastive questions in attitude surveys (Doctoral dissertation). Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT. Retrieved from http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/004426/bookpart.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koornneef, A. W., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2012). Establishing coherence relations in discourse: the influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 1169–1206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Land, J. F. H. (2009). Zwakke lezers, sterke teksten? Effecten van tekst- en lezerskenmerken op het tekstbegrip en de tekstwaardering van vmbo-leerlingen [Less-skilled readers, well-built texts? Effects of text and reader characteristics on text comprehension and text appreciation]. Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye-movements and measures of reading time. In G.Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55–75). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Lorch, E. P. (1986). On-line processing of summary and importance signals in reading. Discourse Processes, 9, 489–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A multidimensional framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In D. S.McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 107–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• McMaster, K. L., den Broek, P. V., 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across genres and grades. In J.Sabatini, E.Albro, & T. O'Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 89–116). Lanham, MD: R&L Education.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition, 25, 227–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oakhill, J. V. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children's comprehension of stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 31–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T., Land, J., & Mulder, G. (2007). Linguistic markers of coherence improve text comprehension in functional contexts. Information Design Journal, 15, 219–235.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T., & Spooren, W. (2007). Discourse and text structure. In D.Geeraerts & J.Cuykens (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 916–941). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 93–133.
   Google Scholar
• Segal, E. M., Miller, G., Hosenfeld, C., Mendelsohn, A., Russell, W., Julian, J., … Delphonse, J. (1997). Person and tense in narrative interpretation. Discourse Processes, 24, 271–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheehan, K., & O'Reilly, T. (2012). The case for scenario-based assessments of reading competency. In J.Sabatini, T.O'Reilly, & L.Albro (Eds.), Reaching an understanding: Innovations in how we view reading assessment. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
   Google Scholar
• Spyridakis, J. H., & Standal, T. C. (1987). Signals in expository prose: Effects on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 285–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 50A, 481–497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Broek, P. (1994). Comprehension and memory for narrative texts: Inferences and coherence. In M. A.Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 539–588). New York, NY: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. (in press). Connectives and layout as processing signals: How textual features affect students' processing and text representation. Journal of Educational Psychology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2014). Establishing coherence in school book texts: How connectives and layout affect students' text comprehension. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3, 1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Voss, J., & Silfies, L. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 159–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, S. (2011). Understanding adult functional literacy: Connecting text features, task demands, and respondent skills. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar