Cevasco J, de Simone J

Language: Spanish
References: 53
Page: 601-621
PDF size: 900.93 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to present a selection of studies that have investigated the effect of the introduction of text revisions and the modality of presentation of the material in the comprehension of expository discourse. With this aim, we will introduce studies that have focused on the effect of the implementation of systematic text revision procedures and the design of refutation texts on the comprehension of expository texts. Next, we will introduce studies that have examined the role of presenting the same expository discourse materials in different modalities in the establishment of discourse connections. The consideration of these investigations will allow us to highlight the importance of examining how the structure of the material, the prior knowledge of the student and the modality of presentation interact in the facilitation of student learning.

REFERENCES

1. Ariasi, N., y Mason, L. (2011). Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study. Instructional Science, 39, 581-601.

2. Barreyro, J.P., Molinari Marotto, C., Bechis, S., y Cevasco, J. (2012). Comprensión de textos expositivos y métodos sistemáticos de revisión de textos: el efecto del incremento de la densidad de relaciones y la repetición de términos. Investigaciones en Psicología, 17, 9-24.

3. Britton, B.K. y Gulgoz, 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, 83, 329-345.

4. Broughton, S.H., Sinatra, G.M., y Reynolds, R.E. (2010). The Nature of the Refutation Text Effect: An Investigation of Attention Allocation. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(6), 407-423.

5. Cevasco, J. y Azcurra-Arndt, P. (2013). El rol de la presentación oral-escrita simultánea en la comprensión del discurso expositivo. Poster presentado en el V Congreso Internacional de Investigación y Práctica Profesional en Psicología de la Universidad de Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

6. Cevasco, J. y van den Broek, P. (2008). The importance of causal connections in the comprehension of spontaneous spoken discourse. Psicothema, 20(4), 801-806.

7. Cevasco, J. y van den Broek, P. (2013a). Studies on the establishment of connections among spoken statements: What can they contribute to the promotion of students' construction of a coherent discourse representation? Psicología Educativa, 19(2), 67-74.

8. Cevasco, J. y van den Broek, P. (2013b). The role of adversative connectives and causal connections in the recall and recognition of written and spoken discourse. Poster presentado en la 22nda Reunión de la Society for Text and Discourse. Valencia: España.

9. Clark, H.H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10. Clark, H.H. (1997). Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes, 23, 567-598.

11. Chafe, W.(1994). Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

12. Diakidoy, I.N., Kendeou, P., y Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 335-356.

13. Ferreira, F. y Anes, M. (1994). Why study spoken language processing? In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

14. Fox Tree, J.E. y Clark, N.B. (2013). Communicative effectiveness of written versus spoken feedback. Discourse Processes, 50, 339-359.

15. Gaviria, G. y Cevasco, J. (2012). El rol del cambio de la modalidad de presentación y la conectividad causal de los enunciados en la comprensión de discurso espontáneo. Poster presentado en el IV Congreso Internacional de Investigación y Práctica Profesional en Psicología de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires: Argentina.

16. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., y Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructive inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371-395.

17. Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18. Halliday, M. y Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman, London.

19. Kendeou, P., Muis, K.R., y Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors in reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365- 383.

20. Kendeou, P. y van den Broek, P. (2005). The role of readers' misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 235-245,

21. Kendeou, P. y van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory y Cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577.

22. Kintsch, W. y van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.

23. Ladd, D.R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

24. Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

25. Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.

26. Mackie, J. L. (1980). The cement of the universe: A study of causation. London: Oxford University Press.

27. Mason, L., Gava, M., y Boldrin, A. (2008). On warm conceptual change: The interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 291-309.

28. McCloskey, M. (1982). Naive conceptions of motion (No. ED 223 415). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University, Department of Psychology.

29. McCrudden, M.T. (2012). Readers' use of online discrepancy resolution strategies, Discourse Processes, 49, 107-136.

30. McMaster, K.L., Espin, C.A. y van den Broek, P. (2014). Making connections: Linking cognitive psychology and intervention research to improve comprehension of struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 29(1), 17-24.

31. Millis, K.K. y Just, M. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147.

32. Mulder, G. y Sanders, T.J.M. (2012). Causal coherence relations and levels of discourse representation. Discourse Processes, 49(6), 501-522.

33. Radvansky, G. A., Tamplin, A. K., Armendarez, J., y Thompson, A. N. (2014). Different kinds of causality in event cognition. Discourse Processes, 51, 601-618.

34. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. New York : Cambridge University Press.

35. Stubbs, M. (1976), Language, Schools and Classrooms. London: Methuen.

36. Stubbs, M. (1980). Language and Literacy. London: Routledge y Kegan Paul.

37. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

38. Trabasso, T. y Sperry, L.L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595-611.

39. Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P., y Suh, S.Y. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1-25.

40. Van den Broek, P. (1988). The effects of causal relations and hierarchical position on the importance of story statements, Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 1-22.

41. Van den Broek, P. (1989). Causal reasoning and inference making in judging the importance of story statements. Child Development, 60, 286-297.

42. Van den Broek, P. (1990). The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. En: D.A. Balota, G.B. Flores d'Arcais y K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

43. Van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453-456.

44. Van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J. y Sanders, T. (2015). Connectives as processing signals: how students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52, 47-76.

45. Van Dijk, Teun A. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 447-456.

46. Vidal-Abarca, E.y Gilabert, R. (2003). Revisión de textos: cómo hacer mejores textos expositivos para el aprendizaje. En León, J.A. Conocimiento y discurso. Claves para inferir y comprender. (pp. 185-212). Madrid: Pirámide.

47. Vidal-Abarca, E., Gilabert, R., y Abad, N. (2002). Una propuesta para hacer buenos textos expositivos: Hacia una tecnología del texto. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 25(4), 499-514.

48. Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, G., y Gilabert, R. (2000). Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 107-116.

49. Vidal-Abarca, E., Reyes, H., Gilabert, R., Calpe, J., Soria, E., y Graesser, A. C. (2002). ETAT: expository text analysis tool. Behavior Research Methods,

50. Wolfe, M.F. y Mienko, J.A. (2007). Learning and memory of factual content from narrative and expository text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 541-564.

51. Wagner, M., y Watson, D.G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and cognitive processes, 25(7-9), 905-945.

52. Waring, H. Z. (2013). Managing the competing voices in the language classroom. Discourse Processes, 50, 316-338.

53. Zwaan, R.A., y Rapp, D.N. (2006). Discourse comprehension. In M. Traxler y M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd ed. (pp. 725-764). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.