1887
image of Texto escolar y comprensión
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.20025.iba
2022-09-13
2022-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agencia de Calidad de la Educación
    Agencia de Calidad de la Educación (2012) Informe Técnico Simce 2012. archivos.agenciaeducacion.cl/documentos-web/Informe_Tecnico_Simce_2012.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Agencia de Calidad de la Educación
    Agencia de Calidad de la Educación (2014) Informe Técnico Simce 2014. archivos.agenciaeducacion.cl/InformeTecnicoSimce_2014.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Agencia de Calidad de la Educación
    Agencia de Calidad de la Educación (2016) PIRLS: Estudio Internacional del Progreso en Competencia Lectora. https://www.agenciaeducacion.cl/estudios/estudios-internacionales/pirls/
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Agencia de Calidad de la Educación
    Agencia de Calidad de la Educación (2017) Informe técnico Simce 2017. Recuperado dehttps://www.agenciaeducacion.cl
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Agencia de Calidad de la Educación
    Agencia de Calidad de la Educación (2018) Informe de resultados: Estudio Nacional de Inglés 2017. Recuperado dehttps://www.agenciaeducacion.cl
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. 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]
  8. 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. 10.1097/00011363‑200501000‑00007
    https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200501000-00007 [Google Scholar]
  9. Black, J., & Bower, G.
    (1980) Story understanding as problem-solving. Poetics, 9(1), 223–250. 10.1016/0304‑422X(80)90021‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(80)90021-2 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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. 10.1017/S0305000900002610
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900002610 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bowey, J.
    (1995) Socioeconomic status differences in preschool phonological sensitivity and first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 476. 10.1037/0022‑0663.87.3.476
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.476 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F.
    (2002) Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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. 10.1177/0004944113495500
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944113495500 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cain, K., & Nash, H.
    (2011) The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 429–441. 10.1037/a0022824
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022824 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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. 10.3758/BF03196414
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196414 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cain, K., Patson, N., & Andrews, L.
    (2005) Age- and ability-related differences in young readers’ use of conjunctions. Journal of Child Language, 32, 877–892. 10.1017/S0305000905007014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000905007014 [Google Scholar]
  17. 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. 10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.685885 [Google Scholar]
  18. 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. 10.4067/S0718‑07052011000100010
    https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052011000100010 [Google Scholar]
  19. Centro de Microdatos de la Universidad de Chile
    Centro de Microdatos de la Universidad de Chile (2011) Estudio sobre el comportamiento lector a nivel nacional. plandelectura.gob.cl/recursos/estudio-sobre-comportamiento-lector-a-nivel-nacional-2011/
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Cheng, Y., & Wu, X.
    (2017) The relationship between SES and reading comprehension in Chinese: A mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 672. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00672
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00672 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cohen, J.
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 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. 10.15366/reice2016.14.3.003
    https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2016.14.3.003 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cozijn, R.
    (2000) Integration and inferences in understanding causal sentences [Tesis doctoral, Tilburg University]. Repositorio de Tilburg University.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Cozijn, R., Noordman, L., & Vonk, W.
    (2011) Propositional integration and world-knowledge inference: Processes in understanding because sentences. Discourse Processes, 48(7), 475–500. 10.1080/0163853X.2011.594421
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.594421 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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, 29, 603–625. 10.1017/S0142716408080260
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716408080260 [Google Scholar]
  27. Degand, L., & Sanders, T.
    (2002) The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing, 15, 739–757. 10.1023/A:1020932715838
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020932715838 [Google Scholar]
  28. Degand, L., & Pander Maat, H.
    (2003) A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the speaker involvement scale. InA. Verhagen & J. van de Weijer (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to Dutch (pp.175–199). LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. De Vega, M.
    (2005) El procesamiento de oraciones con conectores adversativos y causales. Cognitiva, 17(1), 85–108. 10.1174/0214355053114745
    https://doi.org/10.1174/0214355053114745 [Google Scholar]
  30. 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. 10.1017/S0305000908009227
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908009227 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ferreres, A., Abusamra, V., & Squillace, M.
    (2010) Comprensión de textos y oportunidades educativas. InActas del Congreso Iberoamericano de Educación (pp.1–11). Universidad de Cádiz y Asociación Formación.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. Geva, E., & Ryan, E. B.
    (1985) Use of conjunctions in expository texts by skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 331–346. 10.1080/10862968509547549
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968509547549 [Google Scholar]
  34. Goldman, S. R.
    (1997) Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 357–398. 10.1080/01638539709544997
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709544997 [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldman, S., & Varnhagen, C.
    (1986) Memory for embedded and sequential story structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(4), 401–418. 10.1016/0749‑596X(86)90034‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90034-3 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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. 10.5209/rev_RCED.2017.v28.n3.51492
    https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_RCED.2017.v28.n3.51492 [Google Scholar]
  37. Graesser, A., & Clark, L.
    (1985) Structures and procedures of implicit knowledge. Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & Louwerse, M.
    (2003) What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text?InA. Sweet & C. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp.82–98). Guilford Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. Haberlandt, K.
    (1982) Reader expectations in text comprehension. InJ. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and language comprehension (pp.239–249). North-Holland. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(09)60055‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60055-8 [Google Scholar]
  41. 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, 59, 73–112. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00501.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00501.x [Google Scholar]
  42. 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, 33, 231–246. 10.1111/j.1467‑9817.2009.01410.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01410.x [Google Scholar]
  43. 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]
  44. Ibáñez, R., Moncada, F., & Arriaza, V.
    (2018) Recontextualización del conocimiento en textos escolares chilenos. Revista Signos, 51(98), 430–456. 10.4067/S0718‑09342018000300430
    https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342018000300430 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ibáñez, R., Moncada, F., & Cárcamo, B.
    (2019) Coherence relations in primary school textbooks: Variation across school subjects. Discourse Processes, 56(8), 764–785. 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1565278
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1565278 [Google Scholar]
  46. Jegerski, J., & VanPatten, B.
    (Eds.) (2013) Research methods in second language psycholinguistics. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203123430
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123430 [Google Scholar]
  47. Jiang, N.
    (2012) Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 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. 10.1037/0096‑3445.111.2.228
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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. 10.1080/01638530802145486
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802145486 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kieffer, M.
    (2010) Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late-emerging reading difficulties. Educational Research, 39(6), 484–486. 10.3102/0013189X10378400
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10378400 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kintsch, W.
    (1998) Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Knott, A.
    (2001) Semantic and pragmatic relations and their intended effects. InT. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp.127–152). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.8.08kno
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.08kno [Google Scholar]
  53. Knott, A., & Dale, R.
    (1994) Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse processes, 18(1), 35–62. 10.1080/01638539409544883
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544883 [Google Scholar]
  54. Knott, A., & Sanders, T.
    (1998) The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics30, 135–175. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00023‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00023-X [Google Scholar]
  55. Lau, K., & Chan, D.
    (2003) Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 177–190. 10.1111/1467‑9817.00195
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00195 [Google Scholar]
  56. 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. 10.1075/rcl.15.1.02li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.02li [Google Scholar]
  57. Loman, N., & Mayer, R.
    (1983) Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 402–412. 10.1037/0022‑0663.75.3.402
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.3.402 [Google Scholar]
  58. Lorch, R., & Lorch, E.
    (1986) On-line processing of summary and importance signals in reading. Discourse Processes, 9, 489–496. 10.1080/01638538609544654
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538609544654 [Google Scholar]
  59. Louwerse, M. M.
    (2004) Un modelo conciso de cohesión en el texto y coherencia en la comprensión. Revista signos, 37(56), 41–58. 10.4067/S0718‑09342004005600004
    https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342004005600004 [Google Scholar]
  60. McDowell, K., Lonigan, C., & Goldstein, H.
    (2007) Relations among socioeconomic status, age, and predictors of phonological awareness. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1079–1092. 10.1044/1092‑4388(2007/075)
    https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/075) [Google Scholar]
  61. McNamara, D.
    (2001) Reading both high and low coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51–62. 10.1037/h0087352
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087352 [Google Scholar]
  62. McNamara, D. & Kintsch, W.
    (1996) Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288. 10.1080/01638539609544975
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975 [Google Scholar]
  63. 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. 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1 [Google Scholar]
  64. Meneses, A., Montenegro, M., & Ruiz, M.
    (2013) Textos escolares para aprender Ciencias: habilidades, contenidos y lenguaje académico. InEvidencias para políticas públicas en educación: Selección de investigaciones Sexto Concurso FONIDE (pp.233–278). Centro de Estudios MINEDUC.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 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, 16, 72–103. 10.2307/747349
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747349 [Google Scholar]
  66. Meyer, B. & Freedle, R.
    (1984) Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121–143. 10.3102/00028312021001121
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021001121 [Google Scholar]
  67. Meyer, T. & Webber, B.
    (2013) Implicitation of discourse connectives in (machine) translation. InProceedings of the Workshop on Discourse in Machine Translation (pp.19–26). Bulgaria.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Millis, K. & Just, M.
    (1994) The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128–147. 10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1007 [Google Scholar]
  69. MINEDUC
    MINEDUC (2018) ¿Qué debemos saber sobre los textos escolares?https://www.supereduc.cl/contenidos-de-interes/que-debemos-saber-sobre-los-textos-escolares
  70. Moncada, F.
    (2018) Interacción entre conectores y conocimiento previo en el procesamiento de la coherencia causal. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada de la Comunicación, 76, 179–196. 10.5209/CLAC.62504
    https://doi.org/10.5209/CLAC.62504 [Google Scholar]
  71. 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. InE. 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]
  72. Mulder, G.
    (2008) Understanding causal coherence relations [Tesis Doctoral, Utrecht University]. Repositorio de la Universidad de Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Murray, J. D.
    (1995) Logical connectives and local coherence. InR. F. Lorch & E. J. O’brieen (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp.107–125). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Noordman, L., & De Blijzer, F.
    (2000) On the processing of causal relations. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp.35–56). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  75. Noordman, L., & Vonk, W.
    (1997) The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. InJ. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships. Studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp.75–93). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 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]
  77. 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. 10.1080/01638530709336895
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530709336895 [Google Scholar]
  78. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
    Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2010) PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background. Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (Vol.2). OECD.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Oversteegen, L.
    (2005) Causality and tense – Two temporal structure builders. Journal of Semantics, 22, 307–337. 10.1093/jos/ffh021
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffh021 [Google Scholar]
  80. Parodi, G.
    (2005) Comprensión de textos escritos. Eudeba.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Peronard, M.
    (2007) Lectura en papel y en pantalla de computador. Revista signos, 40(63), 179–195. 10.4067/S0718‑09342007000100009
    https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342007000100009 [Google Scholar]
  82. Renkema, J.
    (2004) Introduction to discourse studies. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.124
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.124 [Google Scholar]
  83. Sanders, T.
    (2005) Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. InM. 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]
  84. Sanders, T., & Canestrelli, A. R.
    (2012) The processing of pragmatic information in discourse. InH. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp.201–232). Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214215.201
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.201 [Google Scholar]
  85. Sanders, T., & Noordman, L.
    (2000) The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37–60. 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3 [Google Scholar]
  86. Sanders, T., Land, J., & Mulder, G.
    (2007) Linguistics markers of coherence improve text comprehension in functional contexts. Information Design Journal, 15(3), 219–235. 10.1075/idj.15.3.04san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.15.3.04san [Google Scholar]
  87. Sanders, T. J., Spooren, W. P., & Noordman, L. G.
    (1992) Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse processes, 15(1), 1–35. 10.1080/01638539209544800
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800 [Google Scholar]
  88. Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L.
    (1993) Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(2), 93–133. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93 [Google Scholar]
  89. Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W.
    (1994) On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14(3), 245–302. 10.1006/drev.1994.1010
    https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1994.1010 [Google Scholar]
  90. Sirin, S. R.
    (2005) Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. 10.3102/00346543075003417
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417 [Google Scholar]
  91. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P.
    (Eds.) (1998) Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Soaje de Elías, R.
    (2018) Textos escolares: consideraciones didácticas. Educación y Educadores, 21(1), 73–92. 10.5294/edu.2018.21.1.4
    https://doi.org/10.5294/edu.2018.21.1.4 [Google Scholar]
  93. Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D.
    (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25(4), 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  94. Spooren, W., & Sanders, T.
    (2008) The acquisition of coherence relations: on cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12), 2003–2026. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021 [Google Scholar]
  95. Spyridakis, J. H.
    (1989) Signaling effects: A review of the research – Part I. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 19(3), 227–240. 10.2190/UA49‑PQ9K‑H1MN‑DYK9
    https://doi.org/10.2190/UA49-PQ9K-H1MN-DYK9 [Google Scholar]
  96. Spyridakis, J. H., & Standal, T. C.
    (1987) Signals in expository prose: Effects on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 285–298. 10.2307/747969
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747969 [Google Scholar]
  97. Stukker, N., & Sanders, T.
    (2012) Subjectivity and prototype structure in causal connectives: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 169–190. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  98. 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. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005 [Google Scholar]
  99. Sweetser, E.
    (1990) From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  100. Taboada, M.
    (2009) Implicit and explicit coherence relations. InJ. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse, of Course (pp.127–140). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.148.13tab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.148.13tab [Google Scholar]
  101. Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L.
    (1985) Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595–611. 10.1016/0749‑596X(85)90048‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90048-8 [Google Scholar]
  102. 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. 10.1080/027249897391982
    https://doi.org/10.1080/027249897391982 [Google Scholar]
  103. 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]
  104. Van den Broek, P.
    (1990) The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. InD. Balota, G. Flores & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp.423–445). Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. (2010) Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328(5977), 453–456. 10.1126/science.1182594
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182594 [Google Scholar]
  106. Van der Vliet, N., & Redeker, G.
    (2014) Explicit and implicit coherence relations in Dutch texts. InH. Gruber & G. Redeker (Eds.), The pragmatics of discourse coherence (pp.23–52). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.254.02vli
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.254.02vli [Google Scholar]
  107. 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. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237 [Google Scholar]
  108. 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. 10.1037/a0036293
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036293 [Google Scholar]
  109. Villalón, M.
    (2008) Alfabetización Inicial: Claves de acceso al aprendizaje de la lengua escrita. Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Voss, J., & Silfies, L.
    (1996) Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 45–68. 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_2 [Google Scholar]
  111. 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, 198, 102866. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102866
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102866 [Google Scholar]
  112. 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. 10.1207/s15326950dp3902&3_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3902&3_4 [Google Scholar]
  113. Zufferey, S.
    (2010) Lexical pragmatics and theory of mind: the acquisition of connectives (Vol.201). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.201
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.201 [Google Scholar]
  114. Zunino, G.
    (2016) Construcción de causalidad y contracausalidad en sujetos con distinto nivel educativo. Acta de investigación psicológica, 6(2), 2412–2421. 10.1016/j.aipprr.2016.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aipprr.2016.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  115. 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]
  116. 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]
  117. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A.
    (1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. 10.1037/0033‑2909.123.2.162
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/resla.20025.iba
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.20025.iba
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error