This study compared remedial readers to more proficient readers in their meaning-making processes during the reading of literary text. Six children attending a university-based Literacy Center read aloud two stories and verbalized their thoughts during reading. Langer's categories (1990) were used to compare the resulting think alouds. Langer found readers assume four stances as they make meaning while reading literature: (a) being out and stepping into an envisionment, (b) being in and moving through an envisionment, (c) stepping back and rethinking what one knows, and (d) stepping out and objectifying the experience. Langer described readers as always working toward an evolving understanding of the whole, and their envisionment of the whole affects their momentary understandings. A qualitative analysis was also conducted as other categories emerged and all the responses were recategorized for difficulties experienced by remedial readers. Analysis revealed that the remedial readers spend a disproportionate amount of being out of envisionments—either attempting to step into one or failing to step in. Also, these readers consistently failed to construct evolving wholes and struggled with the language of literary discourse. The overall picture of remedial readers gained from this study is one of being on the outside looking in. Implications for and of instruction are discussed.
References
1.
AndersonR. C. (1984). Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In AndersonR. C.OsbornJ.TierneyR. J. (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers and content texts (pp. 243–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
AugustD. L.FlavellJ. H.CliftR. (1984). Comparison of comprehension monitoring of skilled and less skilled readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 39–53.
3.
BosC.FilipD. (1982). Comprehension monitoring skills in learning disabled and average students. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 79–85.
4.
CollinsA. M.LoftusE. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.
5.
CooperM.HoltzmanM. (1983). Talking about protocols. College Composition and Communication, 34, 284–293.
6.
CromerW. (1970). The difference model: A new explanation for some reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 471–483.
7.
DanemanM.CarpenterP. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
8.
FishS. (1989). Doing what comes naturally. Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press.
9.
FlavellJ. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In DicksonP. (Ed.), Children's oral communication skills (pp. 35–39). New York: Academic Press.
10.
FlowerL.HayesJ. R. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In GreggL. W.SteinbergE. R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
FryE. (1972). Reading instruction for classroom and clinic. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
GambrellL. B.HeathingtonB. S. (1981). Adult disabled readers' metacognitive awareness about reading tasks and strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 215–222.
13.
GardnerE. G.RudmanH. C.KarlsenB.MerwinJ. C. (1987). Stanford achievement test (Forms E/F). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
14.
GarnerR.ReisR. (1981). Monitoring and resolving comprehension obstacles: An investigation of spontaneous text lookbacks among upper grade good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 569–582.
15.
GolinkoffR. M. (1975-1976). A comparison of comprehension processes in good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 11, 623–659.
16.
HaasC. (1989). How the writing medium shapes the writing process: Effects of word processing on planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 181–207.
17.
HyndsS. (1989). Bringing life to literature and literature to life: Social constructs and contexts of four adolescent readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 30–61.
18.
IserW. (1978). The act of reading. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
19.
JohnstonP. (1985). Understanding reading disability: A case study approach. Harvard Education Review, 55. 153–177.
20.
JohnstonP.WinogradP. (1983, December). Passive failure in reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading conference, Austin, TX.
21.
LangerJ. (1989). The process of understanding literature (Report Series 2.1). Albany, NY: University at Albany, State University of New York, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.
22.
LangerJ. (1990). The process of understanding: Reading for literary and informative purposes. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 229–260.
23.
LongS. A.WinogradP. N.BridgeC. A. (1989). The effects of reader and text characteristics on imagery reported during and after reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 353–372.
24.
MeichenbaumD.AsarnowJ. (1979). Cognitive-behavior modification and metacognitive development: Implications for the classroom. In KendallP.HollanS. (Eds.), Cognitive research and procedures (pp. 11–35). New York: Academic Press.
25.
MinturnS. (1973). The house on the hill. In KleimanK. (Ed.), Double action (pp. 64–71). New York: Scholastic.
26.
MooreL. (1969). The real princess. In The ugly duckling and two other stories by Hans Christian Anderson. New York: Scholastic.
27.
NewellG. (1984). Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 265–287.
28.
NorthS. M. (1987). The making of knowledge in composition: Portrait of an emerging field. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
29.
O'BrienD. G.MartinM. A. (1988). Does figurative language present a unique comprehension problem?Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 63–88.
OwensR. A.PetersonG. A.BransfordJ. D.MorrisC. D.SteinB. S. (1980). Spontaneous monitoring and regulation of learning: A comparison of successful and less successful fifth graders. Journal of Education Psychology, 72, 250–256.
32.
PerfettiC. A.LesgoldA. M. (1977). Discourse comprehension and sources of individual differences. In JustM.CarpenterP. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp. 141–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33.
PerfettiC. A.LesgoldA. M. (1979). Coding and comprehension in skilled reading and implication for instruction. In ResnickL. B.WeaverP. A. (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 1, pp. 57–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
ReadenceJ. E.BaldwinR. S.MartinM. A.O'BrienD. G. (1984). Metaphorical interpretation: An investigation of the salience imbalance hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 659–667.
35.
RosenblattL. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
36.
RyanE. B. (1982). Identifying and remediating failures in reading comprehension: Toward an instructional approach for poor comprehenders. In WallerT. G.MacKinnonG. E. (Eds.), Advances in reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 223–261). New York: Academic Press.
37.
SelfeC. L. (1984). The predrafting processes of four high and four low-apprehensive writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 45–64.
38.
SmithF. (1985). Reading without nonsense. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
39.
VellutinoF. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
WagonerS. A. (1983). Comprehension monitoring: What it is and what we know about it. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 328–346.
ZeckerS.C.ZinnerT. E. (1987). Semantic code deficit for reading disabled children on an auditory lexical decision task. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 177–187.
