Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

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

References

  • 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 

  • Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). The logics of conversation. Cambridge, MA: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Einführung in die textlinguistik [Introduction to text linguistics]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Flesch, R. A. (1949). The art of readable writing. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    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, NJ: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English (Vol. 9). London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  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(3), 228–242. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Textwissenschaft [Text research]. München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NJ: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. (1993). Aspects of literary comprehension. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for German Language and Literature, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Anke Schmitz

  2. Institute for Educational Research, School of Education, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany

    Cornelia Gräsel

  3. German Linguistics and Didactics, University of Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    Björn Rothstein

Authors
  1. Anke Schmitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cornelia Gräsel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Björn Rothstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anke Schmitz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmitz, A., Gräsel, C. & Rothstein, B. Students’ genre expectations and the effects of text cohesion on reading comprehension. Read Writ 30, 1115–1135 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9714-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9714-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation