Coh-Metrix

Educational Researcher - Tập 40 Số 5 - Trang 223-234 - 2011
Arthur C. Graesser1, Danielle S. McNamara1, Jonna M. Kulikowich2
1University of Memphis#TAB#
2Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education

Tóm tắt

Computer analyses of text characteristics are often used by reading teachers, researchers, and policy makers when selecting texts for students. The authors of this article identify components of language, discourse, and cognition that underlie traditional automated metrics of text difficulty and their new Coh-Metrix system. Coh-Metrix analyzes texts on multiple measures of language and discourse that are aligned with multilevel theoretical frameworks of comprehension. The authors discuss five major factors that account for most of the variance in texts across grade levels and text categories: word concreteness, syntactic simplicity, referential cohesion, causal cohesion, and narrativity. They consider the importance of both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of texts for assigning the right text to the right student at the right time.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Adams M., 1990, Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print

Beck I. L., 2002, Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction

Biancarosa G., 2004, Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy

10.1017/CBO9780511621024

10.1598/RRQ.44.1.1

10.1017/CBO9780511620539

10.1080/14640748108400805

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/

10.1126/science.1134513

10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_4

Der G., 2002, A handbook of statistical analyses using SAS

Goldman S., 1999, Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence, 10.4324/9781410603135

10.1093/poq/nfj012

10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01081.x

10.3758/BF03195564

10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371

10.1037/0096-3445.114.3.357

Halliday M. A. K., 1976, Cohesion in English

10.3200/JOER.101.1.3-11

Jurafsky D., 2008, Speech and language processing

Just M. A., 1987, The psychology of reading and language comprehension

Kintsch W., 1998, Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition

10.2307/747086

Koslin B. I., 1987, The DRP: An effective measure in reading

10.4324/9780203936399

Louwerse M. M., 2001, Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 291, 10.1515/cogl.2002.005

10.1177/0265532207080767

McNamara D. S., Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences

10.1080/01638539609544975

10.1080/01638530902959943

10.1598/RRQ.45.1.4

10.1093/ijl/3.4.235

10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_2

10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2001). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml

10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1200

10.1080/01638530709336895

10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003

10.3102/0013189X10370205

Pennebaker J. W., 2007, LIWC2007: Linguistic inquiry and word count

10.1598/RT.63.8.4

10.1080/10888430701530730

10.1207/s15326985ep2701_7

10.1080/10888430701530417

10.1111/1529-1006.00004

10.3102/0013189X10364671

Snow C., 2002, Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension

10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1

Stenner A. J. (2006). Measuring reading comprehension with the Lexile framework. Durham, NC: Metametrics, Inc. Paper presented at the California Comparability Symposium, October 1996. Retrieved from http://www.lexile.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?view=re

Tannen D., 1982, Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy

van Dijk T. A., 1983, Strategies of discourse comprehension

Wiley J., 2009, American Educational Research Journal, 27, 255

10.1037/a0013152

Zipf G. K., 1949, Human behavior and the principle of least effort

10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Educational Researcher

Tập 40 Số 5

223-234

Thông tin tác giả