The Effects of an Interactive Instructional Strategy for Enhancing Reading Comprehension and Content Area Learning for Students with Learning Disabilities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 1989
The Effects of an Interactive Instructional Strategy for Enhancing Reading Comprehension and Content Area Learning for Students with Learning Disabilities
This study investigated the effectiveness of an interactive vocabulary instructional strategy, semantic-feature analysis (SFA), on the content area text comprehension of adolescents with learning disabilities. Prior to reading a social studies text, students in resource classes either completed a relationship chart as part of the SFA condition or used the dictionary to write definitions and sentences as part of the contrast condition. Passage comprehension was measured on a multiple-choice test consisting of two types of items, vocabulary and conceptual. Comprehension was measured immediately following teaching and again 6 months after teaching. Prior knowledge for the content of the passage served as a covariate. Results indicated that students in the SFA instructional condition had significantly greater measured comprehension immediately following and 6 months after initial teaching. These results are discussed in relation to concept-driven, interactive strategies for teaching content and facilitating text comprehension.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anders, P.L., & Bos, C.S. (1986a). The effects of semantic feature analysis on the vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension of junior high students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
2.
Anders, P.L., & Bos, C.S. (1986b). Semantic feature analysis: An interactive strategy for vocabulary development and text comprehension. Journal of Reading, 29, 610–616.
3.
Anderson, J.R., & Reder, L.M. (1979). An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. In L.C. Cermak & F.I.M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 385–404). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
Anderson, R.C., Reynolds, R.E., Schallert, D.L., & Goetz, E.T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 367–382.
5.
Beck, I.L., Perfetti, C.A., & McKeown, M.G. (1982). The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506–521.
6.
Bos, C.S., & Anders, P.L. (1987). Semantic feature analysis: An interactive teaching strategy for facilitating learning from text. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3, 55–59.
7.
Bos, C.S., Anders, P.L., Filip, D., & Jaffe, L.E. (1985). Semantic feature analysis and long term learning. In J.A. Niles & R.V. Lalick (Eds.), Issues in literacy: A research perspective (34th yearbook) (pp. 42–46). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
8.
Bos, C.S., & Filip, D. (1984). Comprehension monitoring in learning disabled and average students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 229–233.
9.
Craik, F.I.M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.
10.
Davis, F.B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 9, 185–197.
11.
Davis, F.B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 499–545.
12.
Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., & Lenz, K. (1984). Academic and cognitive interventions for learning disabled adolescents: Part I. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 108–117.
13.
Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., Lenz, K., & Ellis, E. (1984). Academic and cognitive interventions for learning disabled adolescents: Part II. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 170–179.
14.
Frayer, D.A., Frederick, W.C., & Klausmeier, H.J. (1969). A schema for testing the level of concept mastery (Working Paper No. 16). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning.
15.
Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513–516.
16.
Gipe, J.P. (1978–79). Investigating techniques for teaching word meanings. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 624–644.
17.
Goodman, K.S. (1984). Unity in reading. In A.C. Purves & O. Niles (Eds.), Becoming readers in a complex society (83rd yearbook) (pp. 79–114). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
18.
Johnson, D.D., Toms-Bronowski, S., & Pittelman, S.D. (1982). An investigation of the effectiveness of semantic mapping and semantic feature analysis with intermediate grade children (Program Report). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for Educational Research.
19.
Longer, J.A. (1981). From theory to practice: A prereading plan. Journal of Reading, 25, 152–156.
20.
Lipson, M.Y., & Wixson, K.K. (1986). Reading disability research: An interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56, 111–136.
21.
Martz, C., & Novelli, R. (1978). Criminal justice. New York: Scholastic Inc.
22.
McKeown, M.B., Beck, I.L., Omanson, R.C., & Pople, M.T. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 522–535.
23.
Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: Effects of vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 53, 253–279.
24.
Miller, S.F. (1987). Vocabulary instruction: Teacher perceptions and classroom observations. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson.
25.
Osako, G.N., & Anders, P.L. (1983). The effect of reading interest on comprehension of expository materials with controls for prior knowledge. In J.A. Niles & L.A. Harris (Eds.), Thirty-second yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 56–60). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
26.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, D.A. (1987). Enhancing instructional time through attention to metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 66–75.
27.
Pany, D., & Jenkins, J.J. (1978). Learning word meanings: A comparison of instructional procedures and effects on measures of reading comprehension with learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 21–32.
28.
Pany, D., Jenkins, J.J., & Schreck, J. (1982). Vocabulary instruction: Effects on word knowledge and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 202–215.
29.
Ravens, J.C. (1960). Standard progressive matrices. New York: Psychological Corp.
30.
Rumelhart, D.E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce, & W.F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
Stahl, S.A., & Fairbanks, M.M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110.
32.
Torgesen, J., & Licht, B.G. (1983). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Retrospect and prospects. In J.D. McKinney & L. Feagans (Eds.), Current topics in learning disabilities (pp. 3–31). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
33.
Tyler, S.W., Hertel, P.T., McCallum, M.C., & Ellis, H.C. (1979). Cognitive effort and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 5, 607–617.
34.
Wong, B.Y.L. (1979). Increasing retention of main ideas through questioning strategies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 42–47.
35.
Wong, B.Y.L. (1980). Activating the inactive learner: Use of questions/prompts to enhance comprehension and retention of implied information in learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 29–37.
36.
Woodcock, R.C. (1973). Woodcock reading mastery tests. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
