This study evaluated the effectiveness of a comprehension program integrated with social studies instruction designed for at-risk second graders. The program included instruction in cause—effect text structure, emphasizing clue words, generic questions, graphic organizers, and the close analysis of specially constructed cause—effect target paragraphs. This program was compared (a) to a content-only program that focused only on social studies and did not include text structure instruction and (b) to a no-instruction control. Fifteen classroom teachers, randomly assigned to treatment, provided the instruction. The program improved the comprehension of instructional cause— effect texts, and there were transfer effects on some comprehension measures. The performance of the 2 instructed groups did not differ on any of the content measures, indicating that such integrated instruction can be accomplished without a loss in the amount of content acquired. This study supports our previous findings on the effectiveness of explicit instruction at the primary-grade level.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bakken, J.P., Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 300—324.
2.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Gromoll, E.W. (1989). Learning from social studies texts. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 99—158.
3.
Brophy, J. (1992). The de facto national curriculum in U.S. elementary social studies: Critique of a representative example. TheJournal of Curriculum Studies, 24, 401—447.
4.
Brophy, J., & Alleman, J. (2002). Learning and teaching about cultural universals in primary-grade social studies. The Elementary School Journal , 103, 99—114.
5.
Bryant, D.P., Ugel, N., Thompson, S., & Hamff, A. (1999). Instructional strategies for content-area reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 293—302.
6.
Campbell, J.R., Kapinus, B., & Beatty, A.S. (1995). Interviewing children about their literacy experiences: Data from NAEP's integrated reading performance at Grade 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
7.
Caseley, J. (2002). On the town: A community adventure. New York: Greenwillow.
8.
Center on Education Policy. (2006). From the capitol to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act . Washington, DC: Author.
9.
Chall, J.S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline .
10.
Chall, J.S., Jacobs, V.A., & Baldwin, L.E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ciardiello, A.V. (2002). Helping adolescents understand cause/effect text structure in social studies. Social Studies, 93, 31—36.
13.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
De La Paz, S., & MacArthur, C.A. (2003). Knowing the how and why of history: Expectations for secondary students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 142—154.
15.
Dickson, S. (1999). Integrating reading and writing to teach compare—contrast text structure: A research-based methodology. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, 49—79.
16.
Duke, N.K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202—224.
17.
Ferretti, R.P., & Okolo, C.M. (1996). Authenticity in learning: Multimedia design projects in the social studies for students with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 45—60.
18.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279—320.
19.
Goldman, S.R., & Rakestraw, J.A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson , & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 311—335). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
Hoffman, J.V., McCarthy, S.J., Abbott, J., Christian, C., Corman, L., Curry, C., et al. (1994). So what's new in the new basals? A focus on first grade. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 47—73.
21.
McCormick, S. (2003). Instructing students who have literacy problems (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: MerrillPrentice Hall.
22.
Meyer, B.J.F., & Poon, L.W. (2001). Effects of structure training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 141—159.
23.
Moss, B. (2005). Making a case and a place for effective content area literacy instruction in the elementary grades. The Reading Teacher, 59, 46—55.
24.
Myers, M.P., & Savage, T. (2005). Enhancing student comprehension of social studies material. Social Studies, 96, 18—24.
25.
Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564—570.
26.
Perfetti, C.A., Marron, M.A., & Foltz, P.W. (1996). Sources of comprehension failure: Theoretical perspectives and case studies. In C. Cornoldi & J. V. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and remediation (pp. 137—165). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
Richgels, D.J., McGee, L.M., Lomax, R.G., & Sheard, C. (1987). Awareness of four text structures: Effects on recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 177—196.
28.
Stein, N.L., & Trabasso, T. (1981). What's in a story: An approach to comprehension and instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 213—267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
Vogler, K. (2003). Where does social studies fit in a high-stakes testing environment?Social Studies, 94, 207—211.
30.
Williams, J.P. (1998). Improving the comprehension of disabled readers . Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 213—238.
31.
Williams, J.P., Hall, K.M., & Lauer, K. (2004). Teaching expository text structure to young at-risk learners: Building the basics of comprehension instruction. Exceptionality, 12, 129—144.
32.
Williams, J.P., Hall, K.M., Lauer, K.D., Stafford, K.B., DeSisto, L.A., & deCani, J.S. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 235— 248.
33.
Woodcock, R.W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery tests—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
