This study examined the effectiveness of a summarization strategy for increasing comprehension of expository prose in students with learning disabilities. Thirty students with learning disabilities from Grades 6 through 9 were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. In addition, 15 students without disabilities served as a normal comparison group for comprehension. Students in the experimental condition were trained to criterion on five rules of summarization. Direct instruction in the summarization strategy significantly increased reading comprehension of the students in the experimental group. Strategy usage was maintained over time, and students were reported to generalize its use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlleyG.DeshlerD. (1979). Teaching the learning disabled adolescent: Strategies and methods. Denver, CO: Love.
2.
ArmbrusterB. B.AndersonT. H.OsterlagJ. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text?Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 331–336.
3.
BeanT. W.SteenwykF. L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth graders' summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior. 16, 297–307.
4.
BloomB. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
5.
BosC. S.FilipD. (1984). Comprehension monitoring in learning disabled and average students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 229–233.
6.
BransfordJ. D.SteinB. S.VyeN. J. (1982). Helping students learn how to learn from written texts. In SingerM. (Ed.), Competent reader, disabled reader: Research and application (pp. 141–150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
BretzingB. B.KulhavyR. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 145–153.
8.
BrownA. L.DayJ. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14.
9.
CicciR. (1983). Disorders of written language. In MyklebustH. R. (Ed.), Progress in learning disabilities. (pp. 207–232). New York: Grune & Stratton.
10.
ClarkF. L.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B.AlleyG. R.WarnerM. M. (1984). Visual imagery and self-questioning: Strategies to improve comprehension of written material. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 145–149.
11.
DiVestaF. J.HaywardK. G.OrlandoV. P. (1979). Developmental trends in monitoring texts for comprehension. Child Development, 50, 97–105.
12.
FryE. (1977). Fry's readability graph: Clarification, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21, 242–252.
13.
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.
14.
GravesA. W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1(1), 92–100.
15.
GuthrieJ. T. (1973). Reading comprehension and syntactic responses in good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 294–299.
16.
HansenC. L. (1978). Story retelling used with average and LD readers as a measure of reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 62–69.
17.
HareV. C.BorchardtK. M. (1984). Direct instruction of summarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 62–78.
18.
JenkinsJ. R.HeliotisJ.HaynesM.BeckK. (1986). Does passive learning account for disabled readers' comprehension deficits in ordinary reading situations?Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 69–76.
19.
KintschW.van DijkT. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and productionPsychological Review, 85, 363–394.
20.
LindenM.WittrockM. C. (1981). The teaching of reading comprehension according to the model of generative learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 44–57.
21.
LindseyJ. D.KerlinM. (1979). Learning disabilities and reading disorders. A brief review of the secondary level literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 408–415.
22.
MacArthurC.GrahamS. (1987). Learning disabled students composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42.
McCormickC.SamuelsS. J. (1979). Word recognition by second graders: The unit of perception and interrelationships among accuracy, latency, and comprehension. The Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 107–118.
25.
McGeeL. M. (1982). Awareness of text structure: Effects on children's recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 581–590.
26.
PalincsarA. S. (1982). Improving the reading comprehension of junior-high students through the reciprocal teaching of comprehension monitoring strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
27.
ParisS. G.MyersM. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 5–22.
28.
PearsonP. D. (1984). Direct explicit teaching of reading comprehension. In DuffyG. G.RochlerL. R.MasonJ. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 222–233) New York: Longman.
29.
PerfettiC. A.HogaboamT. (1975). Relationship between single word decoding and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 461–469.
30.
RinehartS. D.StahlS. A.EricksonL. G. (1986). Some effects of summarization training on reading and studying. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 422–438.
31.
RosenshineB. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43, 60–69.
32.
RosenshineB.StevensR. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In PearsonP. D. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 745–798). New York: Longman.
33.
SchumakerJ. B.DentonP.DeshlerD. D. (1984). The paraphrasing strategy. Lawrence: The University of Kansas Press.
34.
SmileyS. S.OakleyD. D.WorthenD.CampioneJ. C.BrownA. L. (1977). Recall of thematically relevant material by adolescent good and poor readers as a function of written vs. oral presentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 381–387.
35.
SmithP. L.FriendM. (1986). Training LD adolescents in strategy for using text structure to aid recall of instructional prose. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 38–44.
TaylorB. M. (1982). Text structure and children's comprehension and memory for expository material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(3) 323–340.
38.
TaylorB. M.BeachR. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle grade students' comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 135–146.
39.
TorgesenJ. K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 45–52.
40.
WongB. Y. L.JonesW. (1982) Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–240.
41.
WongB. Y. L.WongR.PerryN.SawatskyD. (1986). The efficacy of a self-questioning summarization strategy for use by underachievers and learning disabled adolescents in social studies. Learning Disability Focus, 2, 20–35.
42.
WordenP. E.NakamuraG. V. (1983). Story comprehension and recall in learning disabled vs. normal college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 633–641.
