Paul van Den Broek

The wrap-up effect, i.e., the inflation of reading times on sentence- or clause-final words relative to preceding words, is a robust finding in reading research, typically interpreted to reflect integrative processing of meaning. However, recent cross-linguistic evidence has cast doubt on its generalizability across languages, raising questions about the mechanisms that underlie it. Here, we test an information-theoretic account of the wrap-up effect, according to which the effect reflects readers’ adaptive behavior to where semantic information resides in their written language. We start by showing in a large-scale text reading database (N=1,234 from 20 languages) that there is, in fact, systematic cross-linguistic variation in wrap-up effects. Then, we use sentence-embeddings to quantify languages’ trajectories of semantic informativeness in sentence endings, showing that they closely align with the observed cross-linguistic variability in wrap-up effects. Specifically, languages with increasing informativeness in sentence endings also show canonical wrap-up effects, whereas languages with declining informativeness patterns have no or reversed effects. Lastly, we show that these correlations are driven by readers’ general expectations regarding the structure of their written language. This is revealed by models showing that global (i.e., language-specific mean) informativeness trajectories rather than local (i.e., sentence-level) changes predict the magnitude of the wrap-up effect in a given sentence. Together, these findings provide a novel interpretation of the mechanisms underlying the wrap-up effect, positioning it as a consequence of learning computations that readers use to assimilate their writing system’s structure, thus offering a principled explanation for its cross-linguistic variability.

The ability to comprehend texts is crucial for all areas of life, including education, work, and daily activities. Recent results from international assessment studies have highlighted a worrisome ...

This study investigated similarities and differences in children’s (N = 83, grades 4–6) narrative comprehension between text, audio, and non-verbal video, including measures of both comprehension products and processes. The aim was to understand how children engage with information across various media and, in doing so, address inconsistent findings in the existing literature. Comprehension products were assessed through open-ended questions and recall, and comprehension processes through think-aloud protocols. Results revealed that children answered more comprehension questions correctly for video versions of the narratives than for text versions, particularly children with lower reading comprehension skills. No advantage of video over text was found for the recall task. Think-aloud responses during narrative comprehension revealed similar processing patterns for text and video, with a general tendency to report information close to the story rather than elaborate based on background knowledge. However, video versions prompted children to activate background knowledge to a greater extent than did text versions, suggesting an advantage of video at the situation-model level. Notably, differences between video and text versions cannot be attributed solely to the absence of decoding demands in video, as similar differences were found between video and audio versions. These results suggest (a) considerable similarities in both process and product across media, but (b) non-verbal videos elicit more situation-model processes than texts do, (c) non-verbal videos have an advantage over text with regard to performance on the comprehension questions, especially for less-skilled comprehenders. These findings illustrate the nuanced relationship between media affordances and comprehension processes and outcomes.

Despite the many theoretical models and frameworks in the area of reading comprehension, there is considerable consensus that comprehension of a text revolves around the construction of a coherent ...

Purpose: Both hearing poor comprehenders (PCs) and deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) PCs have problems in understanding causal and temporal coherence relations signaled by connectives. The study examined whether hearing and DHH PCs' problems with connective understanding are similar and mainly related to their limited vocabulary, including knowledge of connective words, or to their poor reading comprehension abilities more generally.Method: Three groups of 7- to 10-year-old readers, matched on grade level (hearing PCs, DHH PCs, and hearing good comprehenders [GCs]) performed a reading comprehension task, a vocabulary task, and causal and temporal connective understanding tasks. Hearing and DHH PCs were also matched on reading comprehension and decoding abilities.Results: The DHH PCs performed significantly worse than both the hearing GCs and PCs in temporal and causal connective understanding. Significant differences between hearing PCs and GCs were found only in causal connective understanding. DHH readers' difficulties in causal connective understanding were significantly associated with poorer vocabulary knowledge. In contrast, vocabulary knowledge did not uniquely contribute to hearing PCs' difficulties with causal connective understanding, once their reading comprehension skillsConclusions: The results suggest that despite a similar reading profile, DHH PCs' difficulties with causal connective understanding are more closely related to their vocabulary delay, whereas hearing PCs' difficulties are more strongly influenced by their poor text integration processes (as indexed by their reading comprehension skills). Neither vocabulary knowledge nor reading comprehension skills contributed to the explanation of DHH readers and hearing PCs' temporal connective understanding.

Through classroom interactions, teachers provide their students with different opportunities to learn. Some kinds of interactions elicit more learning activities than others. With differential treatment of students, teachers may exacerbate or reduce achievement differences in their classroom. In addition, differential interactions may contribute to teacher expectation effects, with teachers treating their high-expectation students more favourably. This study investigated how differential teacher-student interactions are related to students mathematics achievement and teachers expectations. In eight fourth-grade classrooms in the Netherlands, interactions between teachers and students (N=152) were observed in maths lessons. Data regarding teachers expectations about their students and mathematics achievement tests scores were collected. Analyses indicated that there were relations between teacher expectations and teachers classroom interactions. Teachers gave more direct turns and more directive feedback to their low-expectation students, who were also the students who performed low in maths. After controlling for actual achievement, it appeared that students for whom the expectations were lower than could be expected based on their performance received more direct turns and directive task-related feedback. These results point to the existence of teacher expectation effects.

We report ERP evidence for local (preceding sentence) and global (thematic centrality) influences on word-to-text integration. Helder et al. (2019) found that the preceding sentence, rather than the central theme, is the primary source of integration, indexed by the N400 on the sentence-initial noun. The present experiments add evidence for thematic centrality effects. In Experiment 1, an N400 reduction occurred on the sentence-initial noun when an antecedent was remotely positioned in the preceding sentence and referred to the central theme, relative to Baseline. Experiment 2 further encouraged thematic processing by having participants select passage titles, producing an N400 reduction for sentence-initial nouns related to the central theme. Sentence-final nouns showed local influence on the N400 and P600, with no effect of centrality. We conclude that thematic centrality can influence integration across a sentence boundary when the antecedent is less accessible and the reader’s task encourages attention to global structure.

To build a coherent accurate mental representation of a text, readers routinely validate information they read against the preceding text and their background knowledge. It is clear that both sources affect processing, but when and how they exert their influence remains unclear. To examine the time course and cognitive architecture of text-based and knowledge-based validation processes, we used eye-tracking methodology. Participants read versions of texts that varied systematically in (in)coherence with prior text or background knowledge. Contradictions with respect to prior text and background knowledge both were found to disrupt reading but in different ways: The two types of contradiction led to distinct patterns of processes, and, importantly, these differences were evident already in early processing stages. Moreover, knowledge-based incoherence triggered more pervasive and longer (repair) processes than did text-based incoherence. Finally, processing of text-based and knowledge-based incoherence was not influenced by readers’ working memory capacity.

Research into students’ peer-feedback beliefs varies both thematically and in approaches and outcomes. This study aimed to develop a questionnaire to measure students’ beliefs about peer-feedback. Based on the themes in the literature four scales were conceptualised. In separate exploratory (N = 219) and confirmatory (N = 121) studies, the structure of the questionnaire was explored and tested. These analyses confirmed the a priori conceptualised four scales: (1) students’ valuation of peer-feedback as an instructional method, (2) students’ confidence in the quality and helpfulness of the feedback they provide to a peer, (3) students’ confidence in the quality and helpfulness of the feedback they receive from their peers and (4) the extent to which students regard peer-feedback as an important skill. The value of this Beliefs about Peer-Feedback Questionnaire (BPFQ) is discussed both in terms of future research and the practical insights it may offer higher education teaching staff.