Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of Linguistic Features in Science Textbooks across Grade Levels: Focus on Text Cohesion

과학교과서의 학년 간 언어적 특성 분석 -텍스트 정합성을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2021.01.26
  • Accepted : 2021.04.19
  • Published : 2021.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Learning efficiency can be maximized by careful matching of text features to expected reader features (i.e., linguistic and cognitive abilities, and background knowledge). The present study aims to explore whether this systematic principle is reflected in the development of science textbooks. The current study examined science textbook texts on 20 measures provided by Auto-Kohesion, a Korean language analysis tool. In addition to surface-level features (basic counts, word-related measures, syntactic complexity measures) which have been commonly used in previous text analysis studies, the present study included cohesion-related features as well (noun overlap ratios, connectives, pronouns). The main findings demonstrate that the surface measures (e.g., word and sentence length, word frequency) overall increased in complexity with grade levels, whereas the majority of the other measures, particularly cohesion-related measures, did not systematically vary across grade levels. The current results suggest that students of lower grades are expected to experience learning difficulties and lowered motivation due to the challenging texts. Textbooks are also not likely to be suitable for students of higher grades to develop the ability to process difficulty level texts required for higher education. The current study suggests that various text-related features including cohesion-related measures need to be carefully considered in the process of textbook development.

교과서를 통한 학습의 효율성을 최대화하기 위해서는 교과서에 수록된 텍스트 특성이 예상된 학습자의 특성(i.e., 언어적 및 인지적 능력, 배경지식 수준)에 따라 체계적으로 조절되어야 한다. 이에 따라 현재 연구에서는 과학교과서 개발에 이러한 체계적인 원칙이 반영되어 있는지를 알아보기 위하여 중학교 1, 2, 3학년 과학교과서의 학년 간 언어적 특성을 비교 분석하였다. 구체적으로 한국어 분석 프로그램인 Auto-Kohesion 시스템을 활용하여 기존 텍스트 분석 연구에 많이 활용되었던 텍스트 표층 구조 측정치, 어휘 관련 측정치, 통사적 복잡성 측정치와 같은 피상적 측정치에 더하여 여러 정합성 관련 측정치(e.g., 명사 반복, 접속사, 대명사)를 분석하였다. 주요 분석 결과, 대체로 어절 및 문장 길이, 어휘 빈도와 같은 피상적으로 두드러지는 특성에 대해서는 학년이 증가함에 따라 텍스트 복잡도가 상승하는 방향으로 단계적으로 조절이 이루어졌지만, 그 외의 많은 언어적 특질에 대해서는 체계적으로 조절되지 않은 것으로 나타났다. 특히 여러 정합성 측정치들이 교과서 개발 과정에서 충분히 고려되지 않은 것으로 시사되었다. 이러한 결과는 저학년 학습자들이 교과서를 사용할 때 발달 단계에 맞지 않는 어려운 텍스트를 접할 가능성이 있어서 학습 의욕 및 효율성 저하 현상이 발생할 수 있다는 것을 제시한다. 아울러 고학년 교과서가 고등 교육을 대비하여 더욱 복잡한 텍스트를 처리할 수 있는 능력을 개발시키기 위한 용도로 적절하지 않을 수 있음을 시사한다. 본 연구는, 추후 교과서 개발 과정에서, 예상된 독자 특성의 변화에 따라 정합성 측정치를 포함한 여러 언어적 특성이 단계적으로 조절되어야 함을 제안한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 251-276 https://doi.org/10.2307/747763
  2. Berendes, K., Vajjala, S., Meurers, D., Bryant, D., Wagner, W., Chinkina, M., & Trautwein, U. (2018). Reading demands in secondary school: Does the linguistic complexity of textbooks increase with grade level and the academic orientation of the school track?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(4), 518. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000225
  3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200501000-00007
  4. Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2003). Topic knowledge, text coherence, and interest: How they interact in learning from instructional texts. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 126-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970309602060
  5. Caron, J., Micko, H., & Thuring, M.(1988). Conjunctions and the recall of composite sentence. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 309-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90057-5
  6. Chall, J. S., Conard, S. S. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students? The case for easier or harder textbooks. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  7. Chang, H., & Lim, M. (2016). An analysis on suitability of words and sentences in mathematics textbooks for elementary first grade. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 26(2), 247-267.
  8. Chiesi, H. L., Spilich, G. J., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(3), 257-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90146-4
  9. Cirilo, R. K. (1981). Referential coherence and text structure in story comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(3), 358-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90505-3
  10. Dufty, D. F., Graesser, A. C., Louwerse, M. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Assigning grade levels to textbooks: is it just readability?. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 28, No. 28).
  11. Gasparinatou, A., & Grigoriadou, M. (2013). Exploring the effect of background knowledge and text cohesion on learning from texts in computer science. Educational Psychology, 33(6), 645-670. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.790309
  12. Gilabert, R., Martinez, G., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2005). Some good texts are always better: Text revision to foster inferences of readers with high and low prior background knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 15(1), 45-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.12.003
  13. Graesser, A. C., & Clark, L. F. (1985). The generation of knowledge-based inferences during narrative comprehension. Advances in Psychology, 29, 53-94. doi:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62732-6
  14. Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Automatic analyses of language, discourse, and situation models. In J. Auracher & W. van Peer (Eds.), New beginnings in literary studies (pp. 72-88). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  15. Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., Yan, Y., & Cai, Z. (2007). Discourse cohesion in text and tutorial dialogue. Information Design Journal, 15(3), 199-213. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.15.3.02gra
  16. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564
  17. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
  18. Hall, S. S., Maltby, J., Filik, R., & Paterson, K. B. (2016). Key skills for science learning: the importance of text cohesion and reading ability. Educational Psychology, 36(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.926313
  19. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80003-4
  20. Kang, S., & Koh, H. (2014). An analysis on the readability of the texts in elementary school science textbooks in terms of word and sentence units. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(3), 549-557. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2014.33.3.549
  21. Kang, S., & Park, S. (2009). Comparison of the readabilities of science and social studies textbooks. Journal of the Society for the International Gifted in Science, 3(1), 55-65.
  22. Kang, Y., & Back, S. (2020). A comparative analysis of the word depth appearing in representations used in the definitions of mathematical terms and word problem in elementary school mathematics textbook. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 24(2), 231-257.
  23. Kendeou, P., & Van Den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193491
  24. Kim, B., Ryu, J., & Kang, H. (2005). On optimality text of how well Korean readers fit children in the elementary: with focus on graders from third to sixth. Journal of Reading Research, 14, 151-172.
  25. Kim, J., Park, S., Cho, Y., & Song, S. (2014). Analysis of text difficulty in social studies textbook. Theory and Research in Citizenship Education, 46(1), 27-57. https://doi.org/10.35557/trce.46.1.201403.002
  26. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
  27. Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294-303. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.4.294
  28. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Koh, H., Song, J., & Kang, S. (2010). A study on the readability of elementary school science textbooks. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 29(2), 134-143.
  30. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd.
  31. Lee, J., Maeng, S., Kim, H., Kim, H., & Kim, C. (2007). The systemic functional linguistics analysis of texts in elementary science textbooks by curriculum revision. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education. 27(3), 242-252.
  32. Lee, S. (2011). A comparative study on readabilities of elementary school textbooks. Korean Language Education Research, 41, 169-193. https://doi.org/10.20880/kler.2011..41.169
  33. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 79-93.
  34. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Experimentale, 55(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087352
  35. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975
  36. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across the ages and genres. In J. P. Sabatini & E. Albro (Eds.), Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.
  37. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
  38. Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 128-147. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
  39. O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional "high-stakes" measures of high school students' science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 161-196. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831206298171
  40. Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and instruction, 19(3), 228-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
  41. Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., Sayroo, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Effects of text cohesion on comprehension of biology texts. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1696-1701).
  42. Pearson, P. D. (2013). Research foundations of the Common Core State Standards in English language arts. In S. Neuman & L. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the age of Common Core State Standards (pp. 237-262). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/0496.17
  43. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychology, 27, 91-109. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_7
  44. Ryu, J., & Jeon, M. (2020). An analysis of the continuity of middle school Korean textbooks with Auto-Kohesion. Language and Linguistics, 89, 31-60. https://doi.org/10.20865/20208902
  45. Ryu, J., Lee, H., & Jeon, M. (2020). A comparative analysis of the genres in Korean textbooks using a Korean analysis tool. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 163-185.
  46. Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33(2), 149-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316631527
  47. Suh, H., & Ryu, S. (2014). A study on types and complexity of textbooks. Korean Language Education Research, 49(1), 445-470. https://doi.org/10.20880/kler.2014.49.1.445
  48. To, V. (2018). Linguistic complexity analysis: A case study of commonlyused textbooks in Vietnam. Sage Open, 8(3), 2158244018787586.
  49. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.
  50. van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. (2014). Establishing coherence in schoolbook texts: How connectives and layout affect students' text comprehension. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.3.1.01sil
  51. Veliutino, E R. (2003). Individual differences as sources of variability in reading comprehension in elementary school children. In A. P Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 51-81). New York: Guilford Press.
  52. Voss, J. F., & Silfies, L. N. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 45-68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_2
  53. Vygotsky L (1976) Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In J. Bruner, A. Jolly & K. Sylva (Eds.) Play, its role in development and evolution (pp. 537-554). Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.
  54. Yun, E. (2019). Analysis the sentences of definition in physics units of science textbooks. EMLC, 82, 269-291.