This experimental study aimed to investigate the relationship between text structure (TS) in argumentations written by Hebrew-speaking primary school children and their reading comprehension (RC) performance. A total of 293 students from second to fifth grade wrote an argumentative text and completed two RC tasks. These tasks consisted of a passage followed by multiple-choice questions targeting different levels of reading comprehension: literal, inferential, evaluative, and gap-filling questions. The students’ scores on the RC tasks were calculated, and their arguments were classified into different levels of complexity based on various structural components. Significant associations were found between text structure and grade level, with the most complex texts produced by students in the highest grade. However, there were fluctuations in the elaboration of text components across different grade levels. Correlations between reading comprehension and text structure were found to be weak and dependent on grade level. Children who scored higher on inferential reading comprehension questions tended to produce texts that were better structured and provided lengthier support for the writer’s claims.
AbbottR. D.BerningerV. W.FayolM. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in Grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 281.
2.
AllenL. K.SnowE. L.CrossleyS. A.JacksonG. T.McNamaraD. S. (2014). Reading comprehension components and their relation to writing. L’Année Psychologique, 114(4), 663-691.
3.
AlonzoJ.BasarabaD.TindalG.CarriveauR. S. (2009). They read, but how well do they understand? An empirical look at the nuances of measuring reading comprehension. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(1), 34-44.
4.
BasarabaD.YovanoffP.AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2013). Examining the structure of reading comprehension: Do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension truly exist?Reading and Writing, 26, 349-379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9372-9
5.
BermanR. A.Nir-SagivB. (2009). The language of expository texts: Developmental perspectives. In NippoldM.ScottC. (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults: Development and disorders (pp. 101-123). Taylor & Francis.
6.
BermanR. A.SlobinD. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
BerningerV. W.AbbottR. D. (2010). Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, and written expression: Related yet unique language systems in Grades 1, 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 635-651.
8.
BrandãoA. C. P.OakhillJ. (2005). “How do you know this answer?”—Children’s use of text data and general knowledge in story comprehension. Reading and Writing, 18(7-9), 687.
9.
CarnineD.W.SilbertJ.Kame’enuiE.J.TarverS.G. (2010). Direct Instruction Reading (5th ed.). Merrill Prentice Hall.
10.
CrowhurstM. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/argumentative discourse. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de l’éducation, 15(4), 348-359.
11.
De La PazS.FerrettiR.WissingerD.YeeL.MacArthurC. (2012). Adolescents’ disciplinary use of evidence, argumentative strategies, and organizational structure in writing about historical controversies. Written Communication, 29(4), 412-454.
12.
DukeN. K.RobertsK. L. (2010). The genre-specific nature of reading comprehension and the case of informational text. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 419-433.
13.
EasonS. H.GoldbergL. F.YoungK. M.GeistM. C.CuttingL. E. (2012). Reader-text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 515-528.
14.
EnglertC.S.StewartS.R.HiebertE.H. (1988). Young writers’ use of text structure in expository text generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 143-151.
15.
FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.CattsH. W.TomblinJ. B. (2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension. In ParisS. G.StahlS. A. (Eds.), Center for improvement of early reading achievement (CIERA): Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 369-394). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
GuanC. Q.YeF.MengW.LeongC. K. (2013). Are poor Chinese text comprehenders also poor in written composition?Annals of Dyslexia, 63(3-4), 217-238.
17.
HebertM.BohatyJ. J.NelsonJ. R.BrownJ. (2016). The effects of text structure instruction on expository reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 609.
18.
KentS. C.WanzekJ. (2016). The relationship between component skills and writing quality and production across developmental levels: A meta-analysis of the last 25 years. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 570-601.
19.
KimY. S. G. (2020). Interactive dynamic literacy model: An integrative theoretical framework for reading and writing relations. In AlvesR.LimpoT.JoshiM. (Eds.), Reading-writing connections: Towards integrative literacy science (pp. 11-34). Springer.
20.
KimY. S. G.ParkS.ParkC. H. (2021). Developmental, component-based approach to writing: The role of transcription (spelling and handwriting) and higher-order cognitive skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(2), 229-250.
21.
KimY. S. G.PetscherY.WanzekJ.Al OtaibaS. (2018). Relations between reading and writing: A longitudinal examination from Grades 3 to 6. Reading and Writing, 31(7), 1591-1618.
22.
KintschW. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In RuddellR. B.NormanU. J. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270-1327). International Reading Association.
23.
KintschW.RawsonK. A. (2005). Comprehension. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209-226). Blackwell.
24.
LeitãoS. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments: Studies of children’s rhetorical awareness. Written Communication, 20(3), 269-306.
25.
MannW. C.ThompsonS. A. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. University of Southern California, Information Sciences Institute.
26.
MeyerB. J. F.CamposG.JiaY. (2023). Text structure. Reading, writing, cross-language perspective. In HorowitzR. (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of research on writing (2nd ed., pp. 163-183). Routledge.
27.
MeyerB. J. F.WijekumarK.MiddlemissW.HigleyK.LeiP.MeierC.SpielvogelJ. (2010). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for fifth- and sixth-grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 62-92.
28.
Ministry of Education. (2002). The curriculum in language education. Hebrew - language, literature, and culture. Curriculum for the State and State-Religious Elementary School. Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, Languages Division.
29.
NippoldM. A.Ward-LonerganJ. M.FanningJ. L. (2005). Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(2), 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2005/012)
30.
OakhillJ.CainK.ElbroC. (2015). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: A handbook. Routledge.
PerfettiC. A.LandiN.OakhillJ. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227-247). Blackwell.
34.
ReznitskayaA.AndersonR. C.KuoL. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449-472.
35.
SandersT.J.M.SchilperoordJ. (2006). Text structure as a window on the cognition of writing: How text analysis provides insights in writing products and writing processes. In MacArthurC.A.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp.386-402). Guilford Press.
36.
SilvaM.CainK. (2015). The relations between lower and higher-level comprehension skills and their role in prediction of early reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 321-331.
37.
StavansA.SeroussiB.Zadunaisky EhrlichS. (2019). Literacy-related abilities’ effects on argumentative text quality structure. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(3), 315-335.
38.
TengF. (Mark). (2020). Young learners’ reading and writing performance: Exploring collaborative modeling of text structure as an additional component of self-regulated strategy development. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 65, 100870.
39.
TolchinskyL.JohanssonV.ZamoraA. (2002). Text openings and closings in writing and speech: Autonomy and differentiation. Written Language & Literacy, 5(2), 219-253.
40.
TolchinskyL.StavansA. (2023). Cultural shaping of standpoint and reasoning in analytical writing. In RogersP. M.RussellD.CarlinoP.MarineJ. M (Eds.), Writing as a human activity: Implications and applications of the work of Charles Bazerman (pp. 143-166). The WAC Clearinghouse.
41.
ToulminS. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press. (First published in 1958)
42.
TurcotteC.BerthiaumeR.CaronP. O. (2018). Description and interactions of informative text structure knowledge and skills of French-speaking Grade 6 students. Reading and Writing, 31(9), 2147-2164.
43.
UccelliP. (2023). The language demands of analytical reading and writing at school. Written Communication, 40(2), 518-554.
44.
VaccaJ.L.VaccaR.T.GoveM.K.BurkeyL.C. (2011). Reading and learning to read (8th ed.). Pearson.
45.
Van den BroekP.YoungM.TzengY.LinderholmT. (2004). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In RuddellR. B.NormanU. J. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1249-1269). International Reading Association.
46.
Van DijkT. A.KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.
47.
Van EemerenF. H. (2016). Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 30(1), 1-23.
48.
van EemerenF. H.GrootendorstR.JohnsonR. H.PlantinC.WillardC. A. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments (1st ed.). Routledge.
49.
WelieC.SchoonenR.KuikenF. (2018). The role text structure inference skill plays for eighth graders’ expository text comprehension. Reading and Writing, 31(9), 2065-2094.
50.
WijekumarK. K.MeyerB. J. F.LeiP. W. (2013). High-fidelity implementation of web-based intelligent tutoring system improves fourth and fifth graders content area reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 68, 366-379.
