Rhetorical devices in Nature Science text in the 2nd and 3rd years of Primary Education
- PDF (Español (España)) 68
- EPUB (Español (España)) 10
- VISOR (Español (España))
- MÓVIL (Español (España))
- XML (Español (España)) 9
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2025.v22.i1.1104Info
0
- Judit García-Martín (ES) Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación. Universidad de Salamanca https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2255-9633
- José Ricardo García Pérez (ES) Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación. Universidad de Salamanca https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1421-4571
- María Isabel Cañedo Hernández (ES) Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación. Universidad de Salamanca https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8355-9285
Abstract
An analysis of expository texts in primary school science textbooks is carried out, given their notorious role in the acquisition and progressive mastery of scientific concepts. More specifically, we analyse the presence of two types of rhetorical resources that facilitate comprehension and learning, especially in readers with little or erroneous prior knowledge: i) those that facilitate the creation of a coherent representation of the text (anaphora, connectors and organisational cues) and ii) those that promote the co-activation of textual ideas and prior knowledge to facilitate their integration. The corpus consisted of 46 expository texts from a 2nd and a 3rd year primary school textbook. The analysis shows that: i) the presence of rhetorical resources that promote co-activation is very low in both years; ii) the number and percentage of resources that facilitate coherence is higher in third grade books than in second grade books, but without increasing their density (number of resources per 1000 words) despite being more complex; and iii) the number of resources that promote co-activation decreases in third grade. It is recommended that the use of these rhetorical resources in expository texts in school textbooks be increased and that teachers provide aids for interpreting their meaning, as this could favour understanding and, ultimately, the learning of scientific content.
Keywords
Downloads
Supporting Agencies
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Judit García-Martín, José Ricardo García Pérez, María Isabel Cañedo Hernández
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Require authors to agree to Copyright Notice as part of the submission process. This allow the / o authors / is non-commercial use of the work, including the right to place it in an open access archive. In addition, Creative Commons is available on flexible copyright licenses (Creative Commons).
Reconocimiento-NoComercial
CC BY-NC
References
Andersson-Bakken, E., Jegstad, K.M. y Bakken, J. (2020). Textbook tasks in the Norwegian school subject Natural Sciences: What views of science do they mediate? International Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1320-1338. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1756516
Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D., y Hanesian, H. (1983). Psicología educativa: un punto de vista cognoscitivo. Trillas
Barinas, G.V., Cañada, F., Costillo, E. y Amórtegui, E.F. (2023). Diseño y validación de una prueba objetiva para evaluar competencias específicas en Ciencias Naturales de Educación Primaria. Ápice. Revista De Educación Científica, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.17979/arec.2023.7.1.9353
Borko, H., Gómez Zaccareli, F. y Reigh, E. (2021). Teacher facilitation of elementary science discourse after a professional development initiative. The Elementary School Journal,121(4), 561-585. https://doi.org/10.1086/714082
Cain, K. (2003). Text comprehension and its relation to coherence and cohesion in children’s fictional narratives. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 335-351. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151003322277739
Chanivet, I. Y Aragón, M.M. (2024). Visión de la ciencia ofrecida por los libros de texto de Física y Química. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 21(2), 2701. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.-2024.v21.i2.2701
García, J. R., García-Serrano, M. y Rosales, J. (2023). Exploring the relation between the structure strategy and source attention in single expository text comprehension: A cross-sectional study in Secondary Education. Reading and Writing, 36, 195-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10310-5
García, J. R., Montanero, M., Lucero, M., Cañedo, I. y Sánchez, E. (2018). Comparing rhetorical devices in History textbooks and teachers’ lessons: Implications of the development of academic language skills. Linguistics and Education, 45, 16-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged. 2018.07.004
García, J. R., Sánchez, E., Cain, K. y Montoya, J. M. (2019). Cross-sectional study of the contribution of rhetorical competence to children’s expository texts comprehension between third- and sixth grade. Learning and Individual Differences, 71, 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LINDIF.2019.03.005
García, S., Martínez, C. y Rivadulla, J. (2021). Actividades de textos escolares. Su contribución al desarrollo de la competencia científica. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 39(1), 219-238. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3099
Gil, C. y Cortés, A.L. (2021) Preguntas sobre alimentación y nutrición planteadas en los libros de texto de Ciencias de la Naturaleza en Educación Primaria. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 18(3), 3104. https://doi.org/3104. 10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2021.v18.i3.3104
Givon, T. (1992). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 30, 5-55. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.5
Hattan, C. y Alexander, P. A. (2020). Prior knowledge and its activation in elementary classroom discourse. Reading and Writing, 33, 1617–1647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10022-8
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Izquierdo, M. (2017). Estructuras retóricas en los libros de ciencias. Tarbiya, Revista de Investigación e Innovación Educativa, 36, 11-33. https://revistas.uam.es/-tarbiya/article/view/7231
Just, M.A. y Carpenter, P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Knight, B.A. (2015). Teachers’ use of textbooks in the digital age. Cogent Education, 2, 101581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1015812
Kooiker-den Boer, H., Sanders, T. y Evers-Vermeul, J. (2023). Teaching text structure in Science Education: What opportunities do textbooks offer? Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12. https://doi.org/10.51751/dujal11325
Korsager, M., Fiskum, K., Reitan, B. y Erduran, S. (2022). Nature of Science in science textbooks for vocational training in Norway. Research in Science & Technological Education, 42(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2135498
Krippendorff, K. (2013) Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed). Sage Publications.
Lemarié, J., Lorch, R.F., Eyrolle, H. y Virbel, J. (2008). SARA: A text-based and reader-based theory of signaling. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 27– 48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756321
López, A. (2011). Libros de texto y profesionalidad docente. Avances en supervisión educativa: Revista de la Asociación de Inspectores de Educación de España, 6, 1-13. https://avances.adide.org/index.php/ase/article/view/282/244
López-Valentín, D.M. y Guerra-Ramos, M.T. (2013). Análisis de las actividades de aprendizaje incluidas en libros de texto de Ciencias Naturales para Educación Primaria utilizados en México. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 31(2), 173-191. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ec/v31n2.815
McCrudden, M.T. y Schraw, G. (2010). The effects of relevance instructions and verbal ability on text processing. Journal of Experimental Education, 78(1), 96–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903224529
McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B. y 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, 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
Meyer, B.J. y Ray, M.N. (2011). Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 127-152. https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/217
Molina, S. y Alfaro, A. (2019). Ventajas e inconvenientes del uso del libro de texto en las aulas de Educación Primaria. Percepciones y experiencias de docentes de la región de Murcia. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 22(2), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.22.2.332021
Montanero, M., Salguero, M. y Lucero, M. (2022). La anáfora directa en las explicaciones históricas. Un análisis comparativo entre el discurso oral y escrito. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, 55 (109), 605–630. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342022000200605
Occelli, M. y Valeiras, N. (2013). Los libros de texto de ciencias como objeto de investigación: Una revisión bibliográfica. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 31(2), 133-152.
OCDE (2023) PISA 2025 Science Framework (Second Draft). Editorial
OCDE. https://pisa-framework.oecd.org/science-2025/
Osborne, J. (2023). Science, scientific literacy, and science education. En N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler y J. S. Lederman (Ed.). Handbook of research on science education (pp. 785-816). Routledge.
Patterson, A., Roman, D., Friend, M. Osborne, J. y Donovan, B. (2018). Reading for meaning: The foundational knowledge every teacher of science should have. International Journal of Science Education, 40(3), 291-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/095 00693.2017.1416205
Pérez, S. y Meneses, J.A. (2020). La competencia científica en las actividades de aprendizaje incluidas en los libros de texto de Ciencias de la Naturaleza. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 17(2), 2101-2117. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2020.v17.i2.2101
Pine, K. J., Messer, D. y John, K. (2001). Children’s misconceptions in Primary Science: A survey of teachers’ views. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 19(1), 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140120046240
Rapp, D.N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K.L., Kendeou, P. y Espin, C.A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530417
Ripoll, J.C., Tapia, M.M. y Aguado, G. (2020). Reading rate in Spanish-speaking students: A meta-analysis. Revista de Psicodidactica, 25(2), 158-165. https://doi.org/-10.1016/j.psicod.2020.01.002
Rojas, D., Ibáñez, R., Moncada, F. y Santana, A. (2020). Los géneros del conocimiento en el texto escolar de Lenguaje y Comunicación: un análisis semiautomático de su lecturabilidad. RLA. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada, 58(2), 41-67. https://doi.org/10.29393/RLA58-14GCDR40014
Sánchez, E., García, J. R. y Bustos, A. (2017). Does rhetorical competence moderate the effect of rhetorical devices on the comprehension of expository texts beyond general comprehension skills? Reading and Writing, 30(3), 439–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9684-2
Sánchez, E., García, J. R. y Bustos, A. (2020). Written versus oral cues: The role of rhetorical competence in learning from texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(1), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.368
Sánchez, E., Rosales, J. y Cañedo, I. (1999). Understanding and communication in expositive discourse: An analysis of the strategies used by expert and pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 37-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00033-X
Sinatra, G. M. y Broughton, S.H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in Science Education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.005
Snow, C.E. (2018). Simple and not-so-simple views of reading. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 313–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518770288
van den Broek, P. y Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1418
van Dijk, T.A. y Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.
Vojír, K. y Rusek, M. (2019). Science Education textbook research trends: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1496-1516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1613584