Journal of Educational Innovations

Journal of Educational Innovations

Frequency of the indicators of local cohesion at different levels of text representation based on Kinch's construction-integration model: Evidence from Persian textbooks for primary school, first and second cycle secondary schools

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Somayye Nik Takhsami 1
Maryam Dānāye Tous 2
Mohammad Amin Sorāhi 2
1 MA Student in Linguistics at University of Guilān, Rasht, Iran
2 (PhD), University of Guilān, Rasht, Iran
10.22034/jei.2023.353079.2411
Abstract
Reading is an important language skill, as most learning occurs through it. To improve reading, the type and level of text difficulty should be in accordance with the mental ability of students. Therefore, determining the level of text difficulty (so-called readability) have been considered by researchers for a long time. One of the indicators of readability is related to text’s local cohesion. The present study aimed at investigating the significance of frequency of different types of indicators of local cohesion in Persian textbooks at different levels of its representation (surface, text-base and situation model) at primary school (6th grade), secondary school first cycle (9th grade) and second cycle (12th grade) based on Kintsch’s construction-integration model (1988-1998). It was a mixed-methods study. At the qualitative section of study, different types of local cohesion’s indicators of these textbooks were determined. Then, at the quantitative section of the study, the significance of their frequency was calculated by Chi-square. The results indicated a significant difference among the frequency of different types of such indicators in the Persian textbooks at all 3 levels of school education. As the text of books became longer from 6th grade to 9th and 12th grades, all indicators increased, however, such increase was not regular. Apparently, the educational approach of these textbooks is a skill-based one, meaning that they emphasize on education and strengthening the language skills (including reading), however, considering the results of the present study, perhaps it could be said that they have not been considered in practice, especially when developing the Persian textbooks.
Keywords
Readability
Different Levels of School Education
Kintsch’s Construction-Integration Model
Persian Textbooks
  • اکبری شِلدَره، فریدون.، چنگیزی، علیرضا، سنگری، محمدرضا و وفایی، عباسعلی. (1399). فارسی پایۀ نهم دورۀ اول متوسطه. چاپ و نشر کتاب‌های درسی ایران.
  • دبیرمقدم، محمد. (1384). پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناختی فارسی. مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
  • شکیبا، ابولقاسم و اسدزاده، حسن. (1392). بررسی تاثیر انسجام متن در سطح خرد و کلان بر بهبود درک مطلب. پژوهش و نگارش کتب دانشگاهی، 17(30)، 50-66.
  • طبیب‌زاده، امید. (1385). ساخت‌های اسنادی و سببی در زبان فارسی. نامه‌ی فرهنگستان، 8(4)، 61-68.
  • عبداللهی گیلانی، محمد. (1401). شاخص خوانایی وپیچیدگی متنی درکتابهای زبان انگلیسی دبیرستان. پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی، 12(2)، 37-59.
  • فلاح، غلامعلی و پوراکبرکسمایی، صدیقه. (1391). نقش عوامل ربط غیرزمانی در انسجام متن. مجله دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه خوارزمی، 20(73)، ۱۲۹-۱۵۲.
  • قاسم پورمقدم، حسین.، اکبری شِلدَره، فریدون.، بهروان، نازیلا، میرایی آشتیانی، مهتاب.، سجودی، مرجان، محمدی، راحله، ذوالفقاری، حسین و سنگری، محمدرضا. (1399). فارسی ششم دبستان. شرکت افست.
  • قاسم پور مقدم، حسین.، عبادتی، شهناز، سنگری، محمدرضا و تمیم‌داری، احمد. (1399). فارسی (3). پایۀ دوازدهم دورۀ دوم متوسطه. چاپ و نشر کتاب‌های درسی ایران.
  • گلشائی، رامین. (1392). ارزیابی نظریه های انسجام و پیوستگی متنی: به سوی چارچوبی برای ارزیابی خوانش پذیری در سطح گفتمان. پژوهش و نگارش کتب دانشگاهی، 17(31)، 31-57.
  • لازار، ژیلبر. (1384). دستور زبان فارسی معاصر. (ترجمۀ مهستی بحرینی و هرمز میلانیان). هرمس. (اثر اصلی در سال 2001 چاپ شده­است).
  • موسوی، ندا. (1397). روایی و سازگاری فرمول های خوانش‌پذیری در ارزیابی متون فارسی. پژوهش و نگارش کتب دانشگاهی، 22(43 )، 21-41.
  • میرزایی حصاریان، محمدباقر.، آقاگل زاده، فردوس، کرد زعفرانلو کامبوزیا، عالیه.، و ارسلان، گلفام. (1395). سطح بندی متون پزشکی فارسی برای غیرفارسی زبانان: انگاره‌ای برپایلی دستور نظام‌مند-نقش‌گرای هلیدی. پژوهش‌نامه‌ی آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر فارسی‌زبانان (علمی-پژوهشی)، 5(2)، 48-74.
  • نجفی پازوکی، معصومه،  درزی، علی، دستجردی، مهدی،  سعادتی شامیر، ابوطالب.، و دانای طوسی، مریم. (1392). درک نحوی، حافظه فعال و درک متن. نوآوری‌های آموزشی، 12(45)، 61-83.
  • نوروزی، حامد، و غلامحسین‌زاده، غلامحسین. (1388). نقش عوامل ربط زمانی در انسجام متن. کاوش نامه زبان و ادبیات فارسی (کاوش نامه)، 10(مسلسل 19)، 97-121.
  • نیک تخسمی، سمیه.، دانای طوسی، مریم و صراحی، محمدامین. (1401). خوانش پذیری کتاب های درسی فارسی در چارچوب نظریۀ ساخت-تلفیق کینچ: شواهدی از پایه‌های ششم، نهم و دوازدهم (پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد). دانشگاه گیلان.
  • Hakim, A. A., Setyaningsih, E., & Cahyaningrum, D. (2021). Examining the readability level of reading texts in English textbook for Indonesian senior high school. Journal of English Language Studies, 6(1), 18-35.
  • Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 22(3), 261-295.
  • Black, J. B., & Wilensky, R. (1979). An evaluation of story grammars. Cognitive science, 3(3), 213-229.
  • Chall, J. S. & H. E. Dial (1948). Predicting listener understanding and interest in newscasts. Educational Research Bulletin, 27(6), 141-153.
  • de Vega, M. (1995). Backward updating of mental models during continuous reading of narratives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 373–385.
  • Eisner, E. W. (1998). Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement?. Arts Education Policy Review, 100(1), 32-40.
  • Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of applied psychology, 32(3), 221-233.
  • Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne Jr, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch.
  • Freebody, P. & R. C. Anderson (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading research quarterly, 18(3), 277-294.
  • Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of reading, 11(7), 513-578.
  • Fry, E. (2002). Readability versus leveling. The reading teacher, 56(3), 286-291.
  • Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Coherence cues mapping during comprehension. In J. Costermans and M. Fayol (Eds), Processing interclausal relationships. Studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp. 3-22). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Gernsbacher, M.A., & Robertson, R.W. (2002). The definite article the as a cue to map thematic information. In M. Louwerse & W. Van Peer (Eds.), Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 119–136). John Benjamins Publishing Company
  • Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 430- 445.
  • Givón, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction. John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Glass, A. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1974). Alternative conceptions of semantic theory. Cognition, 3(4), 313-339.
  • Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, P., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2001). Constructing inferences and relations during text comprehension. Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 8, 249-271.
  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing Multilevel Analyses of Text Characteristics. Educational, 40(5), 223-234.
  • Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M. (2004).Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193-202.
  • Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371
  • Gunning, R. (1952). The Technique of Clear Writing. McGraw-Hill.
  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in english. Longman.
  • Haviland, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 13(5), 512-521.
  • Hurford, J. R., Heasley, B., & Smith, M. B. (2007). Semantics: a coursebook. Cambridge University Press.
  • Instone, E. A. (2011). The variance amongst the results of readability formulas regarding us history textbooks. Bowling Green State University.
  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.
  • Keenan, J. M., Baillet, S. D., & Brown, P. (1984). The effects of causal cohesion on comprehension and memory. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 23(2), 115-126.
  • Kim, J., & Lim, K. (2019). A comparative analysis of Koreans’ English writings and Google translations using Coh-Metrix 3.0. 영어학, 19(3), 452-474.
  • Kintsch, W. (1979). On modeling comprehension. Educational psychologist, 14(1), 3-14.
  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. Psychological review, 95(2), 163-182.
  • Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American psychologist, 49(4), 294-303.
  • Kintsch, W., Kozminsky, E., Streby, W. J., McKoon, G., & Keenan, J. M. (1975). Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 14(2), 196-214.
  • Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85(5), 363-394.
  • Kintsch, W. & C. Walter Kintsch (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
  • Kintsch, W., Welsch, D., Schmalhofer, F., & Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and language, 29(2), 133-159.
  • Klare, G. R. (1976). A second look at the validityl of readability formulas. Journal of reading behavior, 8(2), 129-152.
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. sage.
  • Louwerse, M. (2002). An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations.
  • Magliano, J. P., & Schleich, M. C. (2000). Verb aspect and situation models. Discourse processes, 29(2), 83-112.
  • McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading-a new readability formula. Journal of reading, 12(8), 639-646.
  • McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Coh-Metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing. In Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation and resolution (pp. 188-205). IGI Global.
  • McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy , Ph. M., & Cai, Zh. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press.
  • McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse processes, 22(3), 247-288.
  • McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2002). Coh-Metrix: Automated cohesion and coherence scores to predict text readability and facilitate comprehension. Technical report, Institute for Intelligent Systems. University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
  • Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Designing your study and selecting a sample. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, 67(1), 73-104.
  • Mohebbi, H., Nayernia, A., Nemati, M., & Mohebbi, B. (2017). Readability of ESP textbooks in Iran: A neglected issue or a taken-for-granted one? Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 4(3), 641–654.
  • Myers, J. L., Shinjo, M., & Duffy, S. A. (1987). Degree of causal relatedness and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(4), 453-465.
  • Ohtsuka, K., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Discourse organization in the comprehension of temporal order in narrative texts. Discourse Processes, 15(3), 317-336.
  • Ryu, J., & Jeon, M. (2020). An analysis of text difficulty across grades in Korean middle school English textbooks using Coh-Metrix. Journal of Asia TEFL, 17(3), 921-936.
  • Smith, D. A., & Graesser, A. C. (1981). Memory for actions in scripted activities as a function of typicality, retention interval, and retrieval task. Memory & Cognition, 9(6), 550-559.
  • Solnyshkina, M. I., Harkova, E. V., & Kiselnikov, A. S. (2014). Comparative Coh-Metrix Analysis of Reading Comprehension Texts: Unified (Russian) State Exam in English vs. Cambridge First Certificate in English. English Language Teaching, 7(12), 65-76.
  • Srisunakrua, T., & Chumworatayee, T. (2019). Readability of reading passages in english textbooks and the thai national education English test: A comparative study. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 10(2), 257-269. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no2.20
  • Strunk, W., Jr., & White, E. B. (1972). The Elements of Style: illustrated. The macmillan company.
  • Todirascu, A., François, T., Gala, N., Fairon, C., Ligozat, A. L., & Bernhard, D. (2013, October). Coherence and cohesion for the assessment of text readability. In Proceedings of 10th International Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Cognitive Science (NLPCS 2013) (pp. 11-19). https://hal.science/hal-00860796/file/Todirascuetal_NLPCS2013.pdf
  • van den Broek, P. (1994). Comprehension and memory of narrative texts: Inferences and coherence. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 539–588). Academic Press.
  • Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.
  • Wang, L. W., Miller, M. J., Schmitt, M. R., & Wen, F. K. (2013). Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 9(5), 503-516.
  • Wood, T. L., & Wood, W. L. (1988). Assessing Potential Difficulties in Comprehending Fourth Grade Science Textbooks. Science education, 72(5), 561-74.
  • Yule, G. (2017). The study of language. Cambridge University Press.
  • Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological bulletin, 123(2), 162-185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162.
  • Zwaan, R. A. (1996). Processing narrative time shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 22(5), 1196-1207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.5.1196

  • Receive Date 24 July 2022
  • Revise Date 14 September 2022
  • Accept Date 18 June 2023