Addressing the student
Voice elements in educational texts
Authors
-
Nina L. Sangers
Utrecht University
-
Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
-
Hans Hoeken
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51751/dujal11105Keywords:
voice elements, educational texts, author-student interaction;, distance, relatability educational content, quantitative corpus-based analysisAbstract
Voice elements are those elements of educational texts that authors use to interact with students, such as questions, evaluations, or direct address forms (“you”). These elements are intended to enhance students’ engagement and comprehension, but we know little about the extent to which they are used in present-day educational texts. Using a corpus of Dutch biology, geography, and history texts for grade 5 and grade 8 (N=1055), this study shows that voice elements are barely differentiated over grade levels. Conversely, voice elements are generally diversified over school subjects, as they are less frequent in history texts, which convey readily imaginable and relatable content, compared to biology and geography texts, which discuss less relatable content for which students need to exert more effort to connect it to their own world. This finding suggests that authors of educational texts have intuitions about the conditions under which voice elements are a desirable attribute.
Downloads
References
Andeweg, S., Hendrix, R., Van ‘t Hoff, V., & De Hoop, H. (2013). En dan vermoord je hem…: Over de invloed van grammaticale persoon op identificatie [And then you murder him…: On the influence of grammatical person on identification]. Neerlandistiek.nl, 13(1), 1-19.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
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(3), 251-276. https://doi.org/10.2307/747763
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Worthy, J. (1995). Giving a text voice can improve students’ understanding. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2), 220-238. https://doi.org/10.2307/748033
Bonvillain, N. (2020). Language, culture, & communication: The meaning of messages (8th ed.). The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group.
Brabham, E. G., & Villaume, S. K. (2002). Leveled text: The good and the bad news. The Reading Teacher, 55(5), 438-441.
Brozo, W. G., Shiel, G., & Topping, K. (2007). Engagement in reading: Lessons learned from three PISA countries. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(4), 304-315. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.51.4.2
Caram, C. A., & Davis, P. B. (2005). Inviting student engagement with questioning. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(1), 19-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2005.10532080
Chaudhari, U. S. (1974). The role of questions in thinking and learning from text: A research perspective. Educational Technology, 14(1), 7-11.
Clark, S., & Pointon, G. (2016). The Routledge student guide to English usage: A guide to academic writing for students. Routledge.
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 56-73). Oxford University Press.
Committee Meijerink (2009). Referentiekader taal en rekenen: De referentie-niveaus [Framework of reference for language and arithmetic: The reference levels]. Doorlopende Leerlijnen Taal en Rekenen.
De Hoop, H., & S. Tarenskeen (2012). It’s all about you in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.001
Deringer, L., Gast, V., Haas, F., & Rudolf, O. (2015). Impersonal uses of the second person singular and generalized empathy: An exploratory corpus study of English, German and Russian. In L. Gardelle & S. Sorin (Eds.), The pragmatics of personal pronouns (pp. 311-334). John Benjamins.
Dood, C., Gubbels, J. & Segers, P. C. J. (2020). PISA-2018 De verdieping: Leesplezier, zelfbeeld bij het lezen, leesgedrag en leesvaardigheid en de relatie daartussen [PISA-2018: The deepening: Enjoyment of reading, self-perception when reading, reading behavior and reading comprehension and the relationship between them]. Expertisecentrum Nederlands.
Evers-Vermeul, J. & Holtermann, M. (2013). Doorlopende leerlijnen: implicaties voor leveling van leer- en examenteksten voor het middelbaar onderwijs [Continuous learning: implications for the leveling of learning and examination texts in secondary education]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 35(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2013.1.EVER
Gast, V., Deringer, L., Haas, F., Rudolf, O. (2015). Impersonal uses of the second person singular: A pragmatic analysis of generalization and empathy effects, Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 148-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.009
Gubbels, J., Netten, A., & Verhoeven, L. (2017). Vijftien jaar leesprestaties in Nederland: PIRLS-2016 [Fifteen years of reading achievement in the Netherlands: PIRLS-2016]. Expertisecentrum Nederlands.
Gubbels, J., van Langen, A. M. L., Maassen, N. A. M., & Meelissen, M. R. M. (2019). Resultaten PISA-2018 in vogelvlucht [Results PISA-2018 in a bird’s eye view]. Universiteit Twente.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III (pp. 403-422). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Hidi, S. (2000). An interest researcher’s perspective on the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors on motivation. In C. Sansone, & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsinc motivation: controversies and new directions (pp. 309-339), Academic Press.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 191-209. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016667621114
Hogeweg, L., & De Hoop, H. (2015). Introduction: The flexibility of pronoun reference in context. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 133-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.009
Houtkoop, H., & Koole, T. (2000). Taal in actie: Hoe mensen communiceren met taal [Language in action: How people communicate through language]. Uitgeverij Coutinho.
Inspectorate of Education (2017). De staat van de leerling [The state of the student].
Inspectorate of Education (2020). De staat van het onderwijs 2020 [The state of education].
Inspectorate of Education (2021). De staat van het onderwijs 2021 [The state of education].
Kuijpers, M. (2014). Absorbing stories: The effects of textual devices on absorption and evaluative responses. [Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University].
Land, J., Sanders, T., Lentz, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2002). Tekstbegrip en tekstwaardering op het vmbo: Welke tekstkenmerken dragen bij aan de kwaliteit van studieboekteksten? [Text comprehension and appreciation in lower secondary professional education: Which textual features contribute to the quality of educational texts?]. Stichting Lezen; Utrecht University.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lenth, R. (2019). Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means (Version 1.4.1) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans
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(1), 79-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/747834
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis handbook. Sage Publications.
Nolen, S. B. (1995). Effects of a visible author in statistical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 47-65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.1.47
Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Academic Press.
Orvell, A., Kross, E., & Gelman, S. A. (2020). “You” speaks to me: Effects of generic-you in creating resonance between people and ideas. Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, 117(49), 31038-31045. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010939117
Pander Maat, H. (2002). Tekstanalyse: Wat teksten tot teksten maakt [Tekst analysis: what makes texts texts]. Uitgeverij Coutinho.
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing (Version 3.6.1) [Computer software]. https://www.r-project.org/
Sadoski, M. (2001). Resolving the effects of concreteness on interest, comprehension, and learning important ideas from text. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 263-281. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016675822931
Sangers, N. L. (2022). Vivid educational texts: Engaging students via narrative and voice elements [Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University]. LOT. https://dx.medra.org/10.48273/LOT0618
Sangers, N. L., Evers-Vermeul, J., Sanders, T. J. M., & Hoeken, H. (2020). Vivid elements in Dutch educational texts. Narrative Inquiry, 30(1), 185-209. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.18090.san
Sangers, N. L., Evers-Vermeul, J., Sanders, T. J. M., & Hoeken, H. (2021). Narrative elements in expository texts: A corpus study of educational textbooks. Dialogue & Discourse, 12(2), 115-144. https://doi.org/10.5210/dad.2021.204
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23-52. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009004801455
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol III: Speech acts (pp. 59-82). Academic Press.
Shanahan, T., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). The challenge of challenging text. In M. Scherer (Ed.), On developing readers: Readings from educational leadership (pp. 100-109). ASCD.
Smolkin, L. B., McTigue, E. M., Donovan, C. A., & Coleman, J. M. (2008). Explanation in science trade books recommended for use with elementary students. Science Education, 93(4), 587-610. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20313
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. CA: RAND.
Toolan, M. (2001). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Vološinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). Seminar Press.
Wechsler, S. (2010) What ‘you’ and ‘I’ mean to each other: person indexicals, self-ascription, and theory of mind. Language, 86(2), 332-365. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0220
Wickham, H. (2016). Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis [Computer software]. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org
Wickham, H., & Miller, E. (2019). Haven: Import and export “SPSS”, “Stata” and “SAS” Files (Version 2.1.1) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package = haven
Woldhuis, E., Rodenboog, M., Heijnen, M, & Fisser, P. (2018). Leerlingenmonitor 17/18: Leermiddelen in het po en vo [Studentmonitor 17/18: Instructional equipment in primary and secondary education]. SLO.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Nina L. Sangers, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, Hans Hoeken
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
