Implications of Schemata Theory for Learning Disabled Readers

Abstract

Reading disability is not a unitary phenomenon, and the actual causes of difficulty in learning to read vary. Efficient reading requires the acquisition and integration of different skills at different points in the reading process. There are some poor readers who acquire word recognition skills but seem unable to comprehend what they read. The transitional reader who is experiencing difficulties with reading comprehension may not have developed those cognitive strategies that are necessary for the effective processing of written material. Recognizing the specific performance deficits of a disabled reader and the processes that may be implicated in the disability is critical for the development of relevant instructional interventions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson, R.C. Schema-Directed Processes in Language Comprehension (Technical Report NO. 50). Urbana, III.: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois, July 1977.

Bloom, L. Language development. In F. D. Horowitz (Ed.), Review of Clued Development Research (Vol. 4). Chicago, III.: University of Chicago Press, 1975.

Denner, B. Representational and syntactic competence of problem readers. Child Development, 1970, 41, 881–887.

Ehri, L. , Wilee, L.S.

Do beginners learn to read function words better in sentences or in lists?

Reading Research Quarterly, 1980, 13(4), 451–475.

Fleisher, L.S. , Jenkins, J.R. , & Pany, D. Effects on poor readers' comprehension of training in rapid decoding. Reading Research Quarterly., 1979, 15(1), 30–48.

Hammill, A.D. , & Larsen, S.C. The effectiveness of psycholinguistic training: An affirmation of position. Exceptional Children, 1978, 41, 5–14.

LaBerge, D. , & Samuels, J. Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 1974, 6, 293–323.

Levin, H. , & Kaplan, E. Grammatical structure and reading. In H. Levin , J. Williams (Eds.), Basic Studies in Reading. New York: Basic Books, 1970.

Mason, J.M. , & Kendall, J.R. Facilitating Reading Comprehension through Text Structure Manipulation (Technical Report No. 92). Urbana. III.: Center for the Study of Reading. University of Illinois. 1978.

10.

Mellon, J.C. Transformational Sentence-combining: A Method for Enhancing the Development of Syntactic Fluency in English Composition (Research Report No. 10). Urbana, III.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1967.

11.

Miller, B.D. , & Ney, J.W. The effect of systematic oral exercises on the writing of fourth-grade students. Research in English, 1968, 2, 44–61.

12.

Neisser, U. Cognitive Psychology. New York: Appelton-Century-Crofts, 1967.

13.

Neville, M.H. , & Pugh, A.K. Context in reading and listening: Variations in approach to cloze tasks. Reading Research Quarterly., 1976–1977, 12, 13–31.

14.

O'Hare, F. Sentence Combining: Improving Student Writing without Formal Grammar Instruction (Research Report No. 15). Urbana. III.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1973.

15.

Rigney, J.W. , & Munro, A. On Cognitive Strategies for Processing Text. Los Angeles: Bchavioral Technology Labs, University of Southern California, March 1977.

16.

Rode, S. Development of phrase and clause boundary reading in children. Reading Research Quarterly, 1974–1975, 10, 124–141.

17.

Weinstein, R. , & Rabinovitch, M. Sentence structure and retention in good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology., 1971, 62, 25–30.