Cover not available

Article published In: Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 3:1 (2014) ► pp.1–29

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Establishing coherence in schoolbook texts

How connectives and layout affect students’ text comprehension

 | Utrecht University
Published online: 23 June 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.3.1.01sil
This article focuses on the influence of connectives (because, so) and layout (continuous placement of sentences versus each sentence beginning on a new line) on the quality of students’ mental representations. By using multiple comprehension tasks, we found that cohesive text features have different effects on each facet of deeper text comprehension. On local comprehension tasks (i.e. bridging inference questions), all students performed better after reading history texts containing connectives than after reading texts without these markers. On global comprehension tasks (i.e. sorting tasks), pre-vocational students performed better when coherence relations were marked, regardless of layout, while pre-un iversity students did not need connectives as long as texts were presented in a natural, continuous way. These findings indicate that connectives are an important factor in creating comprehensible texts, in particular for pre-vocational students. Finally, we conclude there is a mismatch between these findings and the current practice in designing optimal educational texts, at least in the Netherlands.
References (79)
Anderson, J.R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 261, 251–275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ben-Anath, D. (2005). The role of connectives in text comprehension. Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 1–27.Google Scholar logo with link to 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(2), 137–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Best, R.M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D.S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 65–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohn-Gettler, C.M., Rapp, D.N., Van den Broek, P.W., Kendeou, P., & White, M.J. (2011). Adults’ and children’s monitoring of story events in the service of comprehension.Memory and Cognition, 391, 992–1011. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowen, B.A. (1999). Four puzzles in adult literacy: Reflections on the national adult literacy survey. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 421, 314–323.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Britton, B.K. (1994). Understanding expository text. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 641–674). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 831, 329–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broer, N.A., Aarnoutse, C.A.J., Kieviet, F.K., & Van Leeuwe, J.F.J. (2002). The effect of instructing the structural aspect of texts. Educational Studies, 28(3), 213–238. Google Scholar logo with link to 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(2), 429–441. Google Scholar logo with link to 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(1), 31–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canestrelli, A., Mak, W.M., & Sanders, T.J.M. (2012). Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye-movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1394–1413. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to 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), 1–53. Google Scholar logo with link to 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(7), 475–500. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daneman, M. (1991). Individual differences in reading skills. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 512–538). White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 151, 739–757. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fletcher, C.R. (1994). Levels of representation in memory for discourse. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 589–607). New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.K., & Jenkins, J.R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M.A. (1990). Language comprehension as a structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Martínez, G., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2005). Some good texts are always better: Text revision to foster inferences of readers with high and low prior background knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 151, 45–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldman, S.R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 357–398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A.C., & McNamara, D.S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 31, 371–398. Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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, 361, 193–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A.C., Millis, K.K., & Zwaan, R.A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 481, 163–189. Google Scholar logo with link to 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: North-Holland. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hacquebord, H.I. (2004). Taalproblemen en taalbehoeften in het voortgezet onderwijs. Leerlingen- en docentenvragenlijsten als instrumenten voor taalbeleid [Language problems and language needs in secondary education: Student and teacher questionnaires as instruments for language policy]. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 5(2), 17–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, England: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamalski, J. (2007). Coherence marking, comprehension and persuasion. On the processing and representation of discourse. Utrecht: LOT. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 451, 323–345 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamoen, N. (2012). Positive versus negative: A cognitive perspective on wording effects for contrastive questions in attitude surveys. Utrecht: LOT. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendeou, P., & Van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers’ misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 235–245. Google Scholar logo with link to 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(4), 765–778. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1992). A cognitive architecture for comprehension. In H.L. Pick, P. van den Broek, & D.C. Knill (Eds.), The study of cognition: Conceptual and methodological issues (pp. 143–164). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 491, 292–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 851, 363–394. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koornneef, A.W., & Sanders, T.J.M. (2013). Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 281, 1169–1206. Google Scholar logo with link to 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: Eburon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
LeVasseur, V.M., Macaruso, P., Palumbo, L.C., & Shankweiler, D. (2006). Syntactically cued text facilitates oral reading fluency in developing readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 271, 423–445. Google Scholar logo with link to 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(4), 525–556. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loman, N.L., & Mayer, R.E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 402–412. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorch, R.F., Jr., & Lorch, E.P. (1986). On-line processing of summary and importance signals in reading. Discourse Processes, 91, 489–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lord, F.M., & Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley: Reading Mass.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Maury, P., & Teisserence, A. (2005). The role of connectives in science text comprehension and memory. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(3), 489–512. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McMaster, K.L., Van den Broek, P., Espin, C.A., White, M.J., Rapp, D.N., Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettlere, C.M., Bohn-Gettler, C.M., & Carlson, S. (2012). Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(1), 100–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D.S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(1), 51–62. Google Scholar logo with link to 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), 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myers, J.L., Shinjo, M., & Duffy, S. (1987). Degree of causal relatedness and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 261, 453–465. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Millis, K.K., Golding, J.M., & Barker, G. (1995). Causal connectives increase inference generation. Discourse Processes, 201, 29–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Millis, K.K., & Just, M.A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 128–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulder, G., & Sanders, T.J.M. (2012). Causal coherence relations and levels of discourse representation. Discourse Processes, 49(6), 501–522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murray, J.D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s Report Card: Reading 2011. National assessment of educational progress at grades 4 and 8. Retrieved from [URL]
Noordman, L.G.M., & Vonk, W. (1997). The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. In M. Fayol, & J. Costermans (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships in production and comprehension texts (pp. 75–93). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oakhill, J.V. (1994). Individual differences in children’s text comprehension. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 821–848). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oakhill, J.V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P.E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 181, 443–468. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do: Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. 1). Retrieved from [URL].
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pander Maat, H., & Sanders, T. (2006). Connectives in text. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 31 (33–41). London: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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(4), 289–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 1241, 372–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, T., & Canestrelli, A.R. (2012). The processing of pragmatic information in discourse. In H.J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp. 201–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, T.J.M., Land, J., & Mulder, G. (2007). Linguistic markers of coherence improve text comprehension in functional contexts. Information Design Journal, 15(3), 219–235. Google Scholar logo with link to 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(1), 37–60. Google Scholar logo with link to 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: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, T.J.M., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(2), 93–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schram, D. (2002). Moeilijke tekst en moeilijke lezer? Over het lezen van een verhaal op het vmbo [Difficult text and difficult reader? About reading a story in pre-vocational secondary education]. In A.M. Raukema, D. Schram, & C. Stalpers (Eds.), Lezen en leesgedrag van adolescenten en jongvolwassenen [Reading and reading behavior of adolescents and young adults] (pp. 105–118). Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spyridakis, J.H., & Standal, T.C. (1987). Signals in expository prose: Effects on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 221, 285–298. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van den Broek, P., Lynch, J.S., Naslund, J., Ievers-Landis, C.E., & Verduin, K. (2003). The development of comprehension of main ideas in narratives: Evidence from the selection of titles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 707–718. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R.A., & Radvansky, G.A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R.A., & Singer, M. (2003). Text comprehension. In A.C. Graesser, M.A. Gernsbacher, & S.R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 83–121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 other publications

Barua, Nivedita Malini
2025. Role of Collaborative Reading in Learners’ Home Language(S) in Developing Reading Comprehension in English. Sustainable Multilingualism 26:1 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Fei, SiShi
2025. The role of causal and concessive connectives in comprehending and producing L2 English discourse. Reading and Writing 38:9 ► pp. 2483 ff. DOI logo
Moncada, Fernando, Romualdo Ibáñez, Andrea Santana & Claudia Guerra
2024. Spanish adaptation of a cloze procedure to assess reading comprehension beyond the sentence level. Reading and Writing 37:10 ► pp. 2595 ff. DOI logo
Tskhovrebova, Ekaterina, Sandrine Zufferey & Elena Tribushinina
2023. Vocabulary size and exposure to print predict mastery of connectives in teenage years. Discourse Processes 60:10 ► pp. 722 ff. DOI logo
Yapp, Deborah, Rick de Graaff & Huub van den Bergh
2023. Effects of reading strategy instruction in English as a second language on students’ academic reading comprehension. Language Teaching Research 27:6 ► pp. 1456 ff. DOI logo
Koornneef, Arnout & Astrid Kraal
2022. Does BeeLine Reader’s gradient-coloured font improve the readability of digital texts for beginning readers?. Computers in Human Behavior Reports 6 ► pp. 100197 ff. DOI logo
Tskhovrebova, Ekaterina, Sandrine Zufferey & Pascal Gygax
2022. Individual Variations in the Mastery of Discourse Connectives from Teenage Years to Adulthood. Language Learning 72:2 ► pp. 412 ff. DOI logo
Volodina, Anna, Birgit Heppt & Sabine Weinert
2021. Relations between the comprehension of connectives and school performance in primary school. Learning and Instruction 74 ► pp. 101430 ff. DOI logo
Wetzel, Mathis, Sandrine Zufferey & Pascal Gygax
2020. Second Language Acquisition and the Mastery of Discourse Connectives: Assessing the Factors That Hinder L2-Learners from Mastering French Connectives. Languages 5:3 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Wetzel, Mathis, Sandrine Zufferey & Pascal Gygax
2024. The role of complexity in the ability to notice incoherent uses of connectives for L2. Journal of Second Language Studies 7:1 ► pp. 44 ff. DOI logo
Abel, Roman & Martin Hänze
2019. Generating Causal Relations in Scientific Texts: The Long-Term Advantages of Successful Generation. Frontiers in Psychology 10 DOI logo
Kleijn, Suzanne, Henk L.W. Pander Maat & Ted J.M. Sanders
2019. Comprehension Effects of Connectives Across Texts, Readers, and Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 56:5-6 ► pp. 447 ff. DOI logo
Koornneef, Arnout, Astrid Kraal & Marleen Danel
2019. Beginning readers might benefit from digital texts presented in a sentence-by-sentence fashion. But why?. Computers in Human Behavior 92 ► pp. 328 ff. DOI logo
Zufferey, Sandrine & Pascal M. Gygax
2017. Processing Connectives with a Complex Form-Function Mapping in L2: The Case of French “En Effet”. Frontiers in Psychology 8 DOI logo
van Silfhout, Gerdineke, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted Sanders
2015. Connectives as Processing Signals: How Students Benefit in Processing Narrative and Expository Texts. Discourse Processes 52:1 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Zufferey, Sandrine, Willem Mak, Liesbeth Degand & Ted Sanders
2015. Advanced learners’ comprehension of discourse connectives: The role of L1 transfer across on-line and off-line tasks. Second Language Research 31:3 ► pp. 389 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue