Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp 1115–1135 | Cite as

Students’ genre expectations and the effects of text cohesion on reading comprehension

  • Anke Schmitz
  • Cornelia Gräsel
  • Björn Rothstein
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study raises the question what makes school texts comprehensible by analyzing whether students’ genre expectations about literary or expository texts moderate the impact of different forms of text cohesion on reading comprehension, even when the texts are similar regarding their genre. 754 students (Grade 9) from comprehensive schools read one of four text versions with similar content, but different degrees of local and global text cohesion. The four more or less cohesive texts were introduced as literary texts (part of a story) or as expository texts (newspaper article), although the different genres were only purported and the texts contained both literary and expository passages. Reading comprehension was assessed with multiple-choice-items, semi-open, and open-ended questions. Results demonstrate that global cohesion was profitable for reading comprehension with expository expectations, but not with literary ones. Local text cohesion and both forms of cohesion in combination did not interact with students’ genre expectations and had no main effect on comprehension. When students reading skills and prior knowledge were considered, the interaction was still apparent. Moreover, students with lower levels of reading skills tended to profit especially from texts with global cohesion, whereas the readers with higher reading skills achieved equal means in reading comprehension irrespective of the degree of global text cohesion. The findings are discussed with respect to theoretical aspects of text–reader-interactions, cognitive and emotional components of genre expectations, and the composition and instruction of comprehensible school texts.

Keywords

Text cohesion Reading comprehension Genre expectations Text-reader-interaction Reading skills 

List of symbols

G

Global cohesion

L

Local cohesion

G+

Globally cohesive

G−

Globally less cohesive

L+

Locally cohesive

L−

Locally less cohesive

E

Expository expectations

L

Literary expecations

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Grant GR 1863/6-1 und RU 354/8-1 from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). We thank the staff and the students from the participating schools for their cooperation. We also thank university staff for supporting this study.

References

  1. Alexander, P., & Jetton, T. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). The logics of conversation. Cambridge, MA: University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 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(3), 251–276. doi: 10.2307/747763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representations. Discourse Processes, 25(1), 1–53. doi: 10.1080/01638539809545019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Einführung in die textlinguistik [Introduction to text linguistics]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flesch, R. A. (1949). The art of readable writing. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  7. 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, NJ: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guthrie, J. T., McCough, K., Bennett, L., & Rice, E. M. (1996). Concept-oriented reading instruction: An integrated curriculum to develop motivations and strategies for reading. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in school and home communities (pp. 165–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English (Vol. 9). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Haviland, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1974). What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 512–521. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80003-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hohn, K., Schiepe-Tiska, A., Sälzer, C., & Artelt, C. (2013). Lesekompetenz in PISA 2012: Veränderungen und perspektiven [Reading comprehension in PISA 2012. Changes and perspectives]. In M. Prenzel, C. Sälzer, E. Klieme, & O. Köller (Eds.), PISA 2012. Fortschritte und herausforderungen in Deutschland [PISA 2012. Progress and challenges in Germany] (pp. 217–244). Münster: Waxmann. Retrieved from: http://www.pisa.tum.de/fileadmin/w00bgi/www/Berichtband_und_Zusammenfassung_2012/PISA_EBook_ISBN3001.pdf.
  13. Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistic and poetics. In T. A. Seboek (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2012). Inference in mental models. In K. J. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 134–154). Oxford, NY: University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.001.0001.Google Scholar
  16. Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L. (2008). Coherence marking, prior knowledge and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45(4), 323–345. doi: 10.1080/01638530802145486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kintsch, W. (1992). A cognitive architecture for comprehension. In L. P. Herbert, P. van den Broek, & D. C. Knill (Eds.), Cognition. Conceptual and methodological issues (pp. 143–163). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kirsch, I. S. (2001). The international adult literacy survey (IALS): Understanding what was measured (Report No. RR-01-25). Retrieved from: Educational Testing Service: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-01-25-Kirsch.pdf.
  20. Kleinbub, I. (2010). Unterrichtsqualität im leseunterricht. Eine videobasierte analyse in vierten klassen [Quality of instruction in reading lessons. A video-based analysis in Grade 4]. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
  21. Kunter, M., Schümer, G., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Klieme, E., Neubrand, M., et al. (2002). PISA 2000: Dokumentation der erhebungsinstrumente. [PISA 2000: Documentation of survey instruments]. Retrieved from: https://www.iqb.hu-berlin.de/fdz/studies/PISA-2000/pisa2000_SH.pdf.
  22. Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College students’ conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 239–252. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDaniel, G. O., & Einstein, M. A. (1989). Material-appropriate processing: A contextualist approach to reading and studying strategies. Educational Psychology Review, 1(2), 113–145. doi: 10.1007/BF01326639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high and low coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(1), 51–62. doi: 10.1037/h0087352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247–288. doi: 10.1080/01638539609544975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interaction of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Kennedy, A. M., Trong, K. L., & Sainsbury, M. (2009). PIRLS 2011 assessment framework. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  28. Naumann, J., Artelt, C., Schneider, W., & Stanat, P. (2010). Lesekompetenz von PISA 2000 bis 2009 [Reading comprehension from PISA 2000 to 2009]. In E. Klieme, C. Artelt, J. Hartig, N. Jude, O. Köller, M. Prenzel, W. Schneider, & P. Stanat (Eds.), PISA 2009. Bilanz nach einem jahrzehnt [PISA 2009. Balance after a decade] (pp. 23–72). Münster, New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann. Retrieved from: http://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2011/3526/pdf/DIPF_PISA_ISBN_2450_PDFX_1b_D_A.pdf.
  29. Ness, M. K. (2008). Supporting secondary readers: When teacher provide the “what” and not the “how”. American Secondary Education, 37(1), 80–95.Google Scholar
  30. 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(2), 121–152. doi: 10.1080/01638530709336895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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(3), 228–242. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petros, T., Bentz, B., Hammes, K., & Zehr, H. D. (1990). The components of text that influence reading times and recall in skilled and less skilled college readers. Discourse Processes, 13(4), 387–400. doi: 10.1080/01638539009544767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What it is and how education can promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(8), 857–867. doi: 10.1016/0883-0355(89)90069-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth-grade classroom in Upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 159–194. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0202_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rothstein, B., Kröger-Bidlo, H., Schmitz, A., Gräsel, C., & Rupp, G. (2014). Desiderata zur erforschung des einflusses von kohäsion auf das leseverständnis. In M. Averintseva-Klisch & C. Peschel (Eds.), Informationsstruktur in der schule. Thema sprache—wissenschaft für den unterricht [Information structures at school. Language—research for instruction at school] (pp. 75–86). Hohengehren: Schneider.Google Scholar
  36. Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 99–136). New York, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Sanders, T., & Spooren, W. (2001). Text representation as an interface between language and its users. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmitz, A. (2016). Verständlichkeit von sachtexten. wirkung der globalen textkohäsion auf das textverständnis von schülern [Comprehensibility of expository texts. Effects of global text cohesion on students’ reading comprehension] (Doctoral dissertation). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-12016-0.
  39. Schmitz, A., & Gräsel, C. (2016). Bei welchen lernenden fördert globale textkohäsion das verständnis von sachtexten? Eine studie zu wechselwirkungen zwischen globaler textkohäsion und kognitiven verständnisvoraussetzungen [Which students profit from global text cohesion when comprehending expository texts? Interactions between global text cohesion and cognitive abilities]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 44(3), 267–281.Google Scholar
  40. Schneider, W., Schlagmüller, M., & Ennemoser, M. (2007). Lesegeschwindigkeits- und verständnistest für die klassen 6–12 [Reading speed and reading comprehension test for students in Grade 6–12]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  41. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–69). Cambridge: University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139547369.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schnotz, W. (2006). Was geschieht im Kopf des Lesers? Mentale konstruktionsprozesse beim leseverständnis aus der sicht der psychologie und der kognitiven linguistik [What goes on in readers’ minds? Mental construction processes during reading comprehension from psychology and cognitive linguistics viewpoint]. In H. Blühdorn, E. Breindl, & U. H. Waßner (Eds.), Text-Verstehen. Grammatik und darüber hinaus [Text-comprehension. Grammar and more] (pp. 222–238). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  43. Sweet, A., & Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB8024/index1.html.
  44. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Textwissenschaft [Text research]. München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Dijk, T. A. (1995). On macrostructures, mental models and other inventions. A brief personal history of the Kintsch-van Dijk theory. In C. Weaver III, S. Mannes, & C. R. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension. Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 383–410). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NJ: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  48. van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. (2014). Connectives and layout as processing signals: How textual features affect students’ processing and text representation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1036–1048. doi: 10.1037/a0036293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wolfe, M. B. M., & Mienko, J. A. (2007). Learning and memory of factual content from narrative and expository text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 541–564. doi: 10.1348/000709906X143902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zwaan, R. (1991). Some parameters of literary and news comprehension: Effects of discourse-type perspective on reading rate and surface-structure representation. Poetics, 20(2), 139–156. doi: 10.1016/0304-422X(91)90003-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zwaan, R. (1993). Aspects of literary comprehension. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zwaan, R. (1994). Effects of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 920–933. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zwaan, R. (1996). Toward a model of literary comprehension. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 241–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for German Language and LiteratureUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Educational Research, School of EducationUniversity of WuppertalWuppertalGermany
  3. 3.German Linguistics and DidacticsUniversity of BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options