Abstract:This study explores factors influencing the degree to which language minority (LM) children from Spanish-dominant homes understand how connectives, such as in contrast and because, signal relationships between text propositions. Standardized tasks of vocabulary, listening comprehension, word reading, and a researcher-designed text cohesion task were administered to 90 fourth-grade LM students. Understanding of connectives was influenced by vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension. The degree of challen… Show more
“…The knowledge of 43 connectives from various semantic classes was tested. Connectives expressed additive–positive (7), additive–negative (6, also known as contrastive ), temporal (8), causal (10) and adversative (4) relationships (e.g., Crosson, Lesaux, & Martiniello, ; Halliday & Hasan, ; Sanders & Spooren, ; Sanders, Spooren, & Noordman, ). In addition, in accordance with McNamara, Graesser, and Louwerse (), the test contained additive‐clarifying (8) connectives.…”
The present study examined whether knowledge of connectives contributes uniquely to expository text comprehension above and beyond reading fluency, general vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive knowledge. Furthermore, it was examined whether this contribution differs for readers with different language backgrounds or readers who vary in reading fluency, general vocabulary knowledge or metacognitive knowledge levels. Multilevel regression analyses revealed that knowledge of connectives explained individual differences in eighth graders' text comprehension (n = 171) on top of the variance accounted for by the control variables. Moreover, the contribution of knowledge of connectives to text comprehension depended on a reader's level of metacognitive knowledge: more metacognitive knowledge resulted in a larger association between knowledge of connectives and text comprehension. Reading fluency, vocabulary knowledge and language background did not interact with knowledge of connectives. Findings are interpreted in the context of the strategic use of connectives during expository text reading.
What is already known about this topic?
Connectives (words such as moreover, because and although) help the reader in establishing coherence between text parts.
In primary school, for fifth graders, knowledge of connectives has been shown to be uniquely related to English text comprehension controlling for reading fluency and general vocabulary knowledge.
For fifth graders, the relationship between knowledge of connectives and English text comprehension was higher for English‐only students than for their peers who learned English as a second language.
What this paper adds:
The present study found that knowledge of connectives also has a unique relation with Dutch expository text comprehension for eighth graders above and beyond reading fluency, general vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive knowledge (about text structure and reading and writing strategies).
The relationship between knowledge of connectives and text comprehension was not moderated by reading fluency, general vocabulary knowledge and language background (monolingual versus bilingual Dutch).
Metacognitive knowledge did impact the relationship between knowledge of connectives and text comprehension: the higher the metacognitive knowledge, the higher the association between knowledge of connectives and text comprehension.
Implications for theory, policy or practice
Secondary school readers are assumed to benefit from knowing connectives because these words are frequent in expository texts and signal relationships that students may often not infer without the help of these devices (i.e., with the use of background knowledge). This seems to apply in particular for expository texts that are intended to convey new information and relationships to students (see also Singer & O'Connell, ).
We found a significant interaction between knowledge of connectives and metacognitive knowledge, which seems to indicate that knowing more connectives does not help much in improvi...
“…The knowledge of 43 connectives from various semantic classes was tested. Connectives expressed additive–positive (7), additive–negative (6, also known as contrastive ), temporal (8), causal (10) and adversative (4) relationships (e.g., Crosson, Lesaux, & Martiniello, ; Halliday & Hasan, ; Sanders & Spooren, ; Sanders, Spooren, & Noordman, ). In addition, in accordance with McNamara, Graesser, and Louwerse (), the test contained additive‐clarifying (8) connectives.…”
The present study examined whether knowledge of connectives contributes uniquely to expository text comprehension above and beyond reading fluency, general vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive knowledge. Furthermore, it was examined whether this contribution differs for readers with different language backgrounds or readers who vary in reading fluency, general vocabulary knowledge or metacognitive knowledge levels. Multilevel regression analyses revealed that knowledge of connectives explained individual differences in eighth graders' text comprehension (n = 171) on top of the variance accounted for by the control variables. Moreover, the contribution of knowledge of connectives to text comprehension depended on a reader's level of metacognitive knowledge: more metacognitive knowledge resulted in a larger association between knowledge of connectives and text comprehension. Reading fluency, vocabulary knowledge and language background did not interact with knowledge of connectives. Findings are interpreted in the context of the strategic use of connectives during expository text reading.
What is already known about this topic?
Connectives (words such as moreover, because and although) help the reader in establishing coherence between text parts.
In primary school, for fifth graders, knowledge of connectives has been shown to be uniquely related to English text comprehension controlling for reading fluency and general vocabulary knowledge.
For fifth graders, the relationship between knowledge of connectives and English text comprehension was higher for English‐only students than for their peers who learned English as a second language.
What this paper adds:
The present study found that knowledge of connectives also has a unique relation with Dutch expository text comprehension for eighth graders above and beyond reading fluency, general vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive knowledge (about text structure and reading and writing strategies).
The relationship between knowledge of connectives and text comprehension was not moderated by reading fluency, general vocabulary knowledge and language background (monolingual versus bilingual Dutch).
Metacognitive knowledge did impact the relationship between knowledge of connectives and text comprehension: the higher the metacognitive knowledge, the higher the association between knowledge of connectives and text comprehension.
Implications for theory, policy or practice
Secondary school readers are assumed to benefit from knowing connectives because these words are frequent in expository texts and signal relationships that students may often not infer without the help of these devices (i.e., with the use of background knowledge). This seems to apply in particular for expository texts that are intended to convey new information and relationships to students (see also Singer & O'Connell, ).
We found a significant interaction between knowledge of connectives and metacognitive knowledge, which seems to indicate that knowing more connectives does not help much in improvi...
“…In this context, also the connectives' respective difficulty should be considered. Not only the reader's age but also the context as well as the connectives' semantic class and occurrence frequency have been shown to influence the understanding of connectives (Becker & Musan, 2014;Blything, Davies, & Cain, 2015;Cain, Patson, & Andrews, 2005;Crosson & Lesaux, 2013;Crosson, Lesaux, & Martiniello, 2008;Florit, Cain, & Levorato, 2017;Gardner, 1980;Knoepke et al, 2016;Schuth, Heppt, Köhne, Weinert, & Stanat, 2015). However, it would be beneficial to state these findings more consistently, for example, with respect to defining semantic classes.…”
Section: Limitations and Further Researchmentioning
Background
Connectives, such as because or although, explicitly indicate how to semantically link individual segments of a text. Knowledge of connectives has been shown to significantly contribute to variance explanation in comprehension of English and Dutch texts, particularly amongst monolingual students and students with high metacognitive knowledge. The present study assessed the applicability of these findings to German narrative texts.
Methods
Structural equation modelling was performed on a study of 456 ninth graders. Tasks mainly consisted of standardised tests.
Results
Controlling for general vocabulary knowledge, reading fluency and knowledge of reading strategies, knowledge of connectives significantly and positively related to text comprehension for monolingual students, whereas there was no significant effect for bilinguals. Knowledge of connectives did not interact with knowledge of reading strategies.
Conclusions
It may be beneficial to teach deep knowledge of connectives, in combination with further language knowledge essential to understand individual elements of a text, for example, vocabulary.
“…First, providing a list and definitions of connectives, as in Figure , is not enough. Students must understand how to use the connective, and this is especially true of English learners (Crosson et al., ). Here is an example of an explanation with Jennifer's sentence:I see that the words even though are linking the two sentence parts about being excited and having fun.…”
This article reveals subtle, often-ignored text features affecting comprehension and provides engaging strategies for maintaining a thread of comprehension at the sentence level.L ike many teachers across the United States, Teresa (all names are pseudonyms), a fifthgrade teacher in Florida, has been working on close reading with her students. In many ways, the instruction has deepened her practice. With extended time to read and reread texts, annotate passages, and model thinking, Teresa has been able to challenge students to higher levels of analysis and reflection. But recently, in working with her class, Teresa discovered that she was making assumptions about their understanding.The class was reading an article about the demise of the dinosaurs, a one-page piece describing three causes of extinction: an asteroid blast, decreases in herbivore populations, and a heating of the earth. As Theresa was pushing for students to analyze word choices, summarize paragraphs, and relate sentences to the sections of text, she soon learned that they were not making connections between sentences or even understanding complex sentences with diverse constructions. For example, in one sentence, the writer used an appositive to give readers the more scientific term for plant eaters and to describe them: "The plant-eating Triceratops, gentle herbivores, were finding less and less food available." Students did not pick up on the appositive construction or understand that Triceratops and "gentle herbivores" were the same.In another section, sentences across a paragraph used different terms to refer to the Tyrannosaurus rex. In one sentence, they were "carnivores," and in another, they were "meat-eating beasts." This was even harder because, with the separation of a sentence, students could not carry forward an understanding that the term meat-eating beasts was being substituted for carnivores. They did not understand this anaphoric relationship. Even connective words such as although, however, and despite were tripping students up. Teresa saw that students could make sense of sentences using direct explanations (e.g., "The Tyrannosaurus rex was a meat-eating carnivore") but could not comprehend more implicit relationships."What I realized," explained Teresa, "was that I was not going to get anywhere with close reading until my students understood how to handle these sentence-level issues. I was putting the cart before the horse, and I needed to back up." As a former third-grade teacher/university faculty member and a former kindergarten and fifth-grade teacher, we have noticed the same thing in our work with schools. With the current rage for close reading and its press for word choice scrutiny, rereading, and annotating, lessons are assuming basic sentence-level comprehension, overlooking the obvious. To meet the goals of Anchor Standard 5 of the Common Core State Standards and create a new and deeper level of reading, students must be explicitly taught how to use specific structures to make inferences at the sentence level (i.e.,...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
