Coherence Relations in Primary School Textbooks: Variation across School Subjects

References

• Atienza, E. (2007). Discurso e ideología en los libros de texto de ciencias sociales. Discurso & Sociedad, 1(4), 543–574.
   Google Scholar
• Ayllón, M., Gómez, I., & Ballesta-Claver, J. (2016). Mathematical thinking and creativity through mathematical problem posing and solving. Propósitos y representaciones, 4(1), 169–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barletta, N., & Chamorro, M. (Eds.). (2011). El texto escolar y el aprendizaje: Enredos y desenredos. Barranquilla, Colombia: Universidad del Norte.
   Google Scholar
• Barrios, B. (2012). Actividades de lectura y escritura en el texto escolar El Cardenalito para primer grado. Investigación y postgrado, 27(1), 111–138.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Class, codes & control (Vol.IV). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre based view. London, UK: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Black, J., & Bower, G. H. (1980). Story understanding as problem-solving. Poetics, 9, 223–250. doi:10.1016/0304-422X(80)90021-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, K., & Fiess, K. (1980). Complex sentences: Acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of Child Language, 7(2), 235–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1999). Contrafuegos. Reflexiones para servir a la resistencia contra la invasión neoliberal. Barcelona, Spain: Anagrama.
   Google Scholar
• Bublitz, W. (1998). Cohesion and coherence. In J. Verschueren, J. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Cain, K., Patson, N., & Andrews, L. (2005). Age-and ability-related differences in young readers’ use of conjunctions. Journal of Child Language, 32(4), 877–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canestrelli, A., Mak, W., & Sanders, T. (2013). Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 1394–1413. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
   Google Scholar
• Chamorro, D., Mizuno, J., & Moss, G. (2011). Tergiversaciones y correspondencias: La metáfora y sus bemoles. In D. Chamorro & N. Barletta (Eds.), El texto escolar y el aprendizaje. Enredos y desenredos (pp. 101–122). Barranquilla, Colombia: Editorial Universidad del Norte.
   Google Scholar
• Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis. London, UK: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Cleophas, F. (2014). Writing and contextualising local history. A history narrative of the Wellington horticultural society (Coloured)’. Yesterday and Today, 11, 21–53.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological. Measurement, 20, 37–46.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 475–493. doi:10.1002/tesq.2008.42.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruse, I. (2011). Debate on 20 October: Teaching of history in schools, house of lords library note. Retrieved December 09, 2018, from https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-library/Library%20Notes/2011/LLN%202011-030%20TeachingHistorySchoolsFP2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Daneman, M. (1991). Working memory as a predictor of verbal fluency. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(6), 445–464. doi:10.1007/BF01067637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das, D., & Taboada, M. (2017). Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes, 55(8), 1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davson-Galle, P. (2002). Science, values and objectivity. Science and Education, 11(2), 191–202. doi:10.1023/A:1014412500803
   Google Scholar
• Dufty, D., Graesser, A., Louwerse, M., & McNamara, D. (2006). Assigning grade levels to textbooks: Is it just readability? In R. Son (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th annual meetings of the cognitive science society (pp. 1251–1256). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Evers-Vermeul, J. (2005). The development of Dutch connectives: Change and acquisition as windows on form-function relations (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Utrecht University, LOT, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2009). The emergence of Dutch connectives; how cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 36(4), 829–854. doi:10.1017/S0305000908009227
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2011). Discovering domains – On the acquisition of causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1645–1662. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleiss, J. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Flowerdew, J. (2002). Academic discourse. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gauld, C. (1982). The scientific attitude and science education: A critical reappraisal. Science Education, 66, 109–121. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
   Google Scholar
• Gorgorió, N., & Planas, N. (2001). Teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(1), 7–33. doi:10.1023/A:1017980828943
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A., & Clark, L. (1985). Structures and procedures of implicit knowledge. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.
   Google Scholar
• Güçler, B., Wang, S., & Kim, D. (2015). Conceptualizing mathematics as discourse in different educational settings. International Education Studies, 8(12), 25–32. doi:10.5539/ies.v8n12p25
   Google Scholar
• Hammarlund, K. G. (2012). Promoting procedural knowledge in history education. In D. Ludvigsson (Ed.), Enhancing student learning in history: Perspectives on university history teaching (pp. 117–130). Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.
   Google Scholar
• Hoek, J., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2017). Segmenting discourse: Incorporating interpretation into segmentation? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Ahead of Print Retrieved December 09, 2018, from. doi: 10.1515/cllt-2016-0042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, A., & Nitecki, M. H. (1987). Introduction: Neutral models as a biological research strategy. In M. H. Nitecki & A. Hoffman (Eds.), Neutral models in biology (pp. 3–8). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hovy, E., Lavid, J., Maier, E., Mittal, V., & Paris, C. (1992). Employing knowledge resources in a new text planning architecture. In R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rösner, & O. Stock (Eds.), Aspects of automated natural language generation (pp. 57–72). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. London, UK: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41, 543–562. doi:10.1017/S0261444808005235
   Google Scholar
• Ibáñez, R., & Moncada, F. (2017). El resumen de artículos de investigación científica: Variación disciplinar a nivel local y global. Spanish in Context, 14, 273–308. doi:10.1075/sic
   Google Scholar
• Ibáñez, R., Moncada, F., Cornejo, F., & Arriaza, V. (2017). Los géneros del conocimiento en textos escolares de educación primaria. Calidoscópio, 15(3), 462–476. doi:10.4013/cld.2017.153.06
   Google Scholar
• Ibáñez, R., Moncada, F., & Santana, S. (2015). Variación disciplinar en el discurso académico de la biología y del derecho: Un estudio a partir de las relaciones de coherencia. Onomázein, 32, 101–131. doi:10.7764/onomazein.32.6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoepke, J., Richter, T., Isberner, M. B., Naumann, J., Neeb, Y., & Weinert, S. (2017). Processing of positive-causal and negative-causal coherence relations in primary school children and adults: A test of the cumulative cognitive complexity approach in German. Journal of Child Language, 44(2), 297–328. doi:10.1017/S0305000915000872
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis, R., & Koch, G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33, 363–374. doi:10.2307/2529786
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louwerse, M. (2001). An analytic and cognitive parametrization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(3), 291–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, P., & Gardner, R. (2000). Type I error rate comparisons of post hoc procedures for I j Chi-square tables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 735–754. doi:10.1177/00131640021970871
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281. doi:10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
   Google Scholar
• Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London, UK: Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2013). Pedagogic discourse: Contexts of schooling. RASK: International Journal of Language and Communication, 38, 219–264.
   Google Scholar
• Marzábal, A. (2012). Las actividades de los libros de texto de química para la teoría corpuscular y su contribución a la evolución de modelos explicativos. Estudios Pedagógicos, XXXVIII(1), 181–196. doi:10.4067/S0718-07052012000100011
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51–62. doi:10.1037/h0087352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D., 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 Instruction, 14, 1–43. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millis, K., & Just, M. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 33, 128–147. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MINEDUC. (2012). Bases Curriculares para la Enseñanza Básica. Retrieved December 09, 2018, from http://www.curriculumnacional.cl/inicio/
   Google Scholar
• Mueller, M., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C. (2014). Teachers promoting student mathematical reasoning. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 7(2), 1–20. doi:10.1080/24727466.2014.11790339
   Google Scholar
• Norqvist, M. (2016). On mathematical reasoning—Being told or finding out (Unpublished PhD thesis). Umea University, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• O’Halloran, K. (2004). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism, and visual images. London, UK: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Ohlsson, S. (2002). Generating and understanding qualitative explanations. In J. Otero, J. León, & A. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of scientific text comprehension (pp. 91–128). London, UK: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Otero, J., León, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2002). The psychology of science text comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Özsoy, G., Kuruyder, H., & Çakiroglu, A. (2015). Evaluation of student’s mathematical problem solving skills in relation to their reading levels. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(1), 113–132.
   Google Scholar
• Petrucci, A. (2001). Leer por leer: Un porvenir para la lectura. In G. Cavallo & R. Chartier (Eds.), Historia de la lectura en el mundo occidental (pp. 591–625). Madrid, Spain: Taurus.
   Google Scholar
• Poesio, M., & Artstein, R. (2005). The reliability of anaphoric annotation, reconsidered: Taking ambiguity into account. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotations II: Pie in the sky (pp. 76–83). Ann Arbor, MI: ACL.
   Google Scholar
• Pretorius, E. (1994). A text linguistic perspective on causality in discourse: Toward a taxonomy of causal relations. South African Journal of Linguistics, 12(sup22), 81–120. doi:10.1080/10118063.1994.9724513
   Google Scholar
• Ramírez, T. (2012). El texto escolar como arma política. Venezuela y su gente: Ciencias sociales 6to. grado. Investigación y Postgrado, 27(1), 163–194.
   Google Scholar
• Redeker, G. (2000). Coherence and structure in text and discourse. In H. Bunt & W. Black (Eds.), Abduction, belief and context in dialogue. Studies in computational pragmatics (pp. 233–263). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Redeker, G., & van der Vliet, N. (2014). Explicit and implicit coherence relations in Dutch texts. In H. Gruber & G. Redeker (Eds.), The pragmatics of discourse coherence: Theory and applications (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series; Vol. 254, pp. 23–52). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Renkema, J. (2009). The texture of discourse: Towards an outline of connectivity theory. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, D. (2014). Analysing pedagogic discourse: An approach from genre and register. Functional Linguistics, 1(11), 1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Sáiz, J. (2011). Actividades de libros de texto de Historia, competencias básicas y destrezas cognitivas, una difícil relación: Análisis de manuales de 1º y 2º de ESO. Didáctica de las ciencias experimentales y sociales, 25, 37–64.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon, W. (1998). Causality and explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24, 119–148. doi:10.1080/01638539709545009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T., & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37–60. doi:10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T., & Pander Maat, H. (2006). Cohesion and coherence. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 591–595). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1–35. doi:10.1080/01638539209544800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(2), 93–133. doi:10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93
   Google Scholar
• Scholman, M., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2016). A step-wise approach to discourse annotation: Towards a reliable categorization of coherence relations. Dialogue & Discourse, 7(2), 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727–771. doi:10.1080/09500690701225801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spooren, W., & Degand, L. (2010). Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 241–266. doi:10.1515/cllt.2010.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spooren, W., & Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12), 2003–2026. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taboada, M., & Das, D. (2013). Annotation upon annotation: Adding signalling information to a corpus of discourse relations. Dialogue and Discourse, 4(2), 249–281. doi:10.5087/dad.2013.211
   Google Scholar
• Taboada, M., & Gómez-González, M. (2012). Discourse markers and coherence relations: Comparison across markers, languages and modalities. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 6(1–3), 17–41. doi:10.1558/lhs.v6i1-3.17
   Google Scholar
• Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L. L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595–611. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(85)90048-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, M., Bybee, M., & Pickering, M. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 481–497. doi:10.1080/027249897391982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Den Broek, P. (1990). The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 423–446). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2015). Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 47–76. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zufferey, S., & Gygax, P. M. (2016). The role of perspective shifts for processing and translating discourse relations. Discourse Processes, 53(7), 532–555. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar