Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 35:2 (2022) ► pp.596–625

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

Texto escolar y comprensión

Efecto de las características de las relaciones de coherencia en estudiantes chilenos con diferente nivel socioeconómico

ORCiD logo with link | Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
 | Universidad del Bío Bío
ORCiD logo with link | Universidad de las Américas

Article language: Spanish

Published online: 13 September 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.20025.iba
Resumen
El presente estudio tuvo dos objetivos. El primero fue determinar el efecto de la subjetividad y de la explicitud de las relaciones de coherencia causal en el procesamiento y en la comprensión de estudiantes chilenos de educación básica. El segundo fue determinar si tal efecto varía dependiendo del nivel socioeconómico (NSE). Para ello, se implementó un experimento de lectura autocontrolada con ventana cumulativa en el que participaron estudiantes de educación básica provenientes de colegios públicos (NSE bajo) y privados (NSE alto) chilenos. Los datos revelaron un bajo nivel general en comprensión, el que incluso es más bajo en estudiantes con NSE bajo. También se observó que el efecto de la subjetividad de la relación es mayor que el de su explicitud. En cuanto a la diferencia entre colegios, se observó que los estudiantes con NSE alto presentan mejores resultados al procesar y comprender las relaciones subjetivas en comparación con relaciones objetivas.
Abstract
School textbook and comprehension: The effect of the characteristics of coherence relations on students with different socioeconomic backgrounds
The objective of this study was twofold. First, it aimed to determine the effects of the level of subjectivity and explicitness of causal coherence relations on primary students’ processing and comprehension. Second, it explored whether those effects vary depending on the students’ socioeconomic status (SES). For that purpose, a self-paced reading experiment with cumulative window was carried out, in which primary students from public (low SES) and private (high SES) schools participated. Data reveal that, in general, students achieve low levels of comprehension, which is even lower in low SES students. It was also observed that the effects of the subjectivity of the coherence relation were bigger than those of the explicitness of the relation. With regard to the difference across types of school, high SES students performed better than low SES students when processing and comprehending subjective relations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introducción
  • 2.Marco teórico
    • 2.1TE y relaciones de coherencia
    • 2.2Subjetividad de la relación de coherencia causal
    • 2.3Explicitud de la relación de coherencia causal
    • 2.4Nivel socioeconómico y comprensión lectora
  • 3.Metodología
    • 3.1Participantes
    • 3.2Materiales
    • 3.3Tarea
    • 3.4Procedimiento
    • 3.5Análisis estadístico
  • 4.Resultados
  • 5.Discusión
  • 6.Conclusión
  • Agradecimientos
  • Referencias
References (117)
Referencias
Agencia de Calidad de la Educación. (2012). Informe Técnico Simce 2012. [URL]
. (2014). Informe Técnico Simce 2014. [URL]
. (2016). PIRLS: Estudio Internacional del Progreso en Competencia Lectora. [URL]
(2017). Informe técnico Simce 2017. Recuperado de [URL]
(2018). Informe de resultados: Estudio Nacional de Inglés 2017. Recuperado de [URL]
Aravena, J. (2014). Conciencia fonológica en dos grupos de escolares que cursan primer año básico en colegios municipales y particulares. Revista Chilena de Fonoaudiología, 40–49.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Balbi, A., Von Hagen, A., Ruiz, C., & Cuadro, A. (2019). Precursores de la Competencia Lectora Inicial en Escolares Hispanoparlantes de Nivel Socioeconómico Vulnerable. Psykhe, 29(1), 1–15.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
Black, J., & Bower, G. (1980). Story understanding as problem-solving. Poetics, 9(1), 223–250. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowey, J. (1995). Socioeconomic status differences in preschool phonological sensitivity and first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 476. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 531, 371–399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buckingham, J., Wheldall, K., & Beaman-Wheldall, R. (2013). Why poor children are more likely to become poor readers: The school years. Australian Journal of Education, 57(3), 190–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cain, K., & Nash, H. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1031, 429–441. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 850–859. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cain, K., Patson, N., & Andrews, L. (2005). Age- and ability-related differences in young readers’ use of conjunctions. Journal of Child Language, 321, 877–892. Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 28(9), 1394–1413. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Castillo, P., González, A., & Puga, I. (2011). Gestión y efectividad en educación: evidencias comparativas entre establecimientos municipales y particulares subvencionados. Estudios Pedagógicos, 37(1), 187–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Centro de Microdatos de la Universidad de Chile. (2011). Estudio sobre el comportamiento lector a nivel nacional. [URL]
Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classic study on poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14–15.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, Y., & Wu, X. (2017). The relationship between SES and reading comprehension in Chinese: A mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 81, 672. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coschiza, C. C., Martín Fernández, J., Gapel Redcozub, G., Nievas, M. E., & Ruiz, H. E. (2016). Características socioeconómicas y rendimiento académico. El caso de una universidad argentina. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia Y Cambio En Educación, 14(3), 51–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cozijn, R. (2000). Integration and inferences in understanding causal sentences [Tesis doctoral, Tilburg University]. Repositorio de Tilburg University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cozijn, R., Noordman, L., & 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
Crosson, A. C., Lesaux, N. K., & Martiniello, M. (2008). Factors that influence comprehension of connectives among language minority children from Spanish-speaking backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics, 291, 603–625. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing, 151, 739–757. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, L., & Pander Maat, H. (2003). A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the speaker involvement scale. In A. Verhagen & J. van de Weijer (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to Dutch (pp. 175–199). LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Vega, M. (2005). El procesamiento de oraciones con conectores adversativos y causales. Cognitiva, 17(1), 85–108. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreres, A., Abusamra, V., & Squillace, M. (2010). Comprensión de textos y oportunidades educativas. In Actas del Congreso Iberoamericano de Educación (pp. 1–11). Universidad de Cádiz y Asociación Formación.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fonseca, L., Pujals, M., Lasala, E., Migliardo, G., Aldrey, A., Buonsanti, L., & Barreyro, J. P. (2014). Desarrollo de habilidades de comprensión lectora en niños de escuelas de distintos sectores socioeconómicos. Neuropsicología Latinoamericana, 6(1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geva, E., & Ryan, E. B. (1985). Use of conjunctions in expository texts by skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 171, 331–346. 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
Goldman, S., & Varnhagen, C. (1986). Memory for embedded and sequential story structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(4), 401–418. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
González, A., & Dupriez, V. (2016). Acceso a las universidades selectivas en Chile: ¿pueden las estrategias institucionales de los establecimientos secundarios atenuar el peso del capital cultural?. Revista Complutense de Educación, 28(3), 947–964. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A., & Clark, L. (1985). Structures and procedures of implicit knowledge. Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & Louwerse, M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text? In A. Sweet & C. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). Guilford Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guardia, P. (2002). Relaciones entre kabilidades de alfabetización emergente y la lectura desde nivel de transición mayor a primero básico [Tesis de magíster, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile]. Repositorio de la Universidad Católica de Chile.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haberlandt, K. (1982). Reader expectations in text comprehension. In J. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and language comprehension (pp. 239–249). North-Holland. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Havik, E., Roberts, L., Van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing subject-object ambiguities in the L2: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 591, 73–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Henning, C., McIntosh, B., Arnott, W., & Dodd, B. (2010). Long-term outcome of oral language and phonological awareness intervention with socially disadvantaged preschoolers: The impact on language and literacy. Journal of Research in Reading, 331, 231–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ibáñez, R. (2008). Comprensión de textos académicos escritos en inglés: Relación entre nivel de logro y variables involucradas. Signos, 41(67), 203–229.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ibáñez, R., Moncada, F., & Arriaza, V. (2018). Recontextualización del conocimiento en textos escolares chilenos. Revista Signos, 51(98), 430–456. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ibáñez, R., Moncada, F., & Cárcamo, B. (2019). Coherence relations in primary school textbooks: Variation across school subjects. Discourse Processes, 56(8), 764–785. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jegerski, J., & VanPatten, B. (Eds.). (2013). Research methods in second language psycholinguistics. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 111(2), 228–238. 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, 45(4–5), 323–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kieffer, M. (2010). Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late-emerging reading difficulties. Educational Research, 39(6), 484–486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knott, A. (2001). Semantic and pragmatic relations and their intended effects. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 127–152). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse processes, 18(1), 35–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knott, A., & Sanders, T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics 301, 135–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lau, K., & Chan, D. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 261, 177–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, F., Mak, W., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2017). On the online effects of subjectivity encoded in causal connectives. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, 15(1), 34–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loman, N., & Mayer, R. (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., & Lorch, E. (1986). On-line processing of summary and importance signals in reading. Discourse Processes, 91, 489–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. M. (2004). Un modelo conciso de cohesión en el texto y coherencia en la comprensión. Revista signos, 37(56), 41–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McDowell, K., Lonigan, C., & Goldstein, H. (2007). Relations among socioeconomic status, age, and predictors of phonological awareness. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 501, 1079–1092. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. (2001). Reading both high and low coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 551, 51–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 221, 247–288. Google Scholar logo with link to 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 and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meneses, A., Montenegro, M., & Ruiz, M. (2013). Textos escolares para aprender Ciencias: habilidades, contenidos y lenguaje académico. In Evidencias para políticas públicas en educación: Selección de investigaciones Sexto Concurso FONIDE (pp. 233–278). Centro de Estudios MINEDUC.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, B., Brandt, D., & Bluth, G. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 161, 72–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, B. & Freedle, R. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, T. & Webber, B. (2013). Implicitation of discourse connectives in (machine) translation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse in Machine Translation (pp. 19–26). Bulgaria.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Millis, K. & Just, M. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 331, 128–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MINEDUC (2018). ¿Qué debemos saber sobre los textos escolares? [URL]
Moncada, F. (2018). Interacción entre conectores y conocimiento previo en el procesamiento de la coherencia causal. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada de la Comunicación, 761, 179–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morera, Y., & de Vega, M. (2006). Los conectores ¿conectan o no conectan? La dinámica de fuerzas en la construcción de frases con conectores causales y adversativos: un estudio normativo. In E. Gámez & J. Díaz (Eds.), Investigaciones en Psicología Básica ULL: Psicolingüística, Razonamiento y Emoción (pp. 53–64). Universidad de La Laguna y Asociación Cultural Cabrera y Galdós.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulder, G. (2008). Understanding causal coherence relations [Tesis Doctoral, Utrecht University]. Repositorio de la Universidad de Utrecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murray, J. D. (1995). Logical connectives and local coherence. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O’brieen (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 107–125). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noordman, L., & De Blijzer, F. (2000). On the processing of causal relations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 35–56). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noordman, L., & Vonk, W. (1997). The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. In J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships. Studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp. 75–93). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olivera Vidal, M. P. (2016). Estudio de uso y valoración de textos escolares: Informe final. MINEDUC y Oficina Regional de Educación para América Latina y el Caribe (UNESCO).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. (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
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2010). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background. Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (Vol. 21). OECD.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oversteegen, L. (2005). Causality and tense – Two temporal structure builders. Journal of Semantics, 221, 307–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parodi, G. (2005). Comprensión de textos escritos. Eudeba.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peronard, M. (2007). Lectura en papel y en pantalla de computador. Revista signos, 40(63), 179–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, T. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In M. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. Draoulec, & L. Vieu (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning SEM-05 (pp. 31–44). University of Toulouse-le-Mirail.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, T., & Canestrelli, A. R. (2012). The processing of pragmatic information in discourse. In H. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp. 201–232). Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, T., & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 291, 37–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, T., Land, J., & Mulder, G. (2007). Linguistics 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., Spooren, W. P., & Noordman, L. G. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse processes, 15(1), 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, T., 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
Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14(3), 245–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Soaje de Elías, R. (2018). Textos escolares: consideraciones didácticas. Educación y Educadores, 21(1), 73–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25(4), 359–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spooren, W., & Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition of coherence relations: on cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12), 2003–2026. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spyridakis, J. H. (1989). Signaling effects: A review of the research – Part I. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 19(3), 227–240. 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, 22(3), 285–298. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stukker, N., & Sanders, T. (2012). Subjectivity and prototype structure in causal connectives: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 169–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stukker, N., Sanders, T., & Verhagen, A. (2008). Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives: Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7), 1296–1322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taboada, M. (2009). Implicit and explicit coherence relations. In J. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse, of Course (pp. 127–140). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 241, 595–611. Google Scholar logo with link to 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(3), 481–497. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traxler, M., Sanford, A., Aked, J., & Moxey, L. (1997). Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 88–101.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van den Broek, P. (1990). The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. In D. Balota, G. Flores & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 423–445). Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328(5977), 453–456. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Vliet, N., & Redeker, G. (2014). Explicit and implicit coherence relations in Dutch texts. In H. Gruber & G. Redeker (Eds.), The pragmatics of discourse coherence (pp. 23–52). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., Mak, W. & 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Villalón, M. (2008). Alfabetización Inicial: Claves de acceso al aprendizaje de la lengua escrita. Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Voss, J., & Silfies, L. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 141, 45–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wei, Y., Mak, W. M., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. (2019). Causal connectives as indicators of source information: Evidence from the visual world paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 1981, 102866. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfe, M. B., Magliano, J. P., & Larsen, B. (2005). Causal and semantic relatedness in discourse understanding and representation. Discourse Processes, 39(2–3), 165–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zunino, G. (2016). Construcción de causalidad y contracausalidad en sujetos con distinto nivel educativo. Acta de investigación psicológica, 6(2), 2412–2421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zunino, G., Abusamra, V., & Raiter, A. (2016). Causality, iconicity and continuity: the effects of prior world knowledge on the understanding of causal relations. Alfa: Revista de Linguística, 60(2), 261–285.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zunino, G., & Raiter, A. (2012). Construcción de coherencia textual. Un estudio preliminar acerca de la causalidad y sus implicancias neuropsicolingüísticas. Revista Neuropsicología Latinoamericana, 4(2), 1–15.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
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Martínez-Flores, Ricardo, Cristóbal Julio, Romualdo Ibáñez, César Campos-Rojas, Marcela Jarpa, Hans Supèr, Benjamin Tari & Carlos Cristi-Montero
2025. Impact of Physical Activity Modalities on Text Processing and Comprehension in Adolescents. The Journal of Experimental Education ► pp. 1 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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 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