Sensitivity to Causal Cohesion in Stories by Children with Mild Mental Retardation,Children with Learning Disabilities,and Children without Disabilities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 1991
Sensitivity to Causal Cohesion in Stories by Children with Mild Mental Retardation,Children with Learning Disabilities,and Children without Disabilities
This study investigated whether children with mild disabilities, compared with children without disabilities, are sensitive to the causal structure of stories. Participants were 16 children with mild mental retardation, 29 children with learning disabilities, and 37 children without disabilities who were good readers. The Causal Network Model (Trabasso, Secco, & van den Broek, 1984) was adopted to analyze the participants' causal understanding of stories. Two stories were manipulated to obtain cohesive and noncohesive versions. Cohesion was defined as the proportion of statements included in the causal chain, which is a central path that leads from the beginning to the end of a story. Although children with mild disabilities recalled less than children without disabilities, overall, similar patterns of causal understanding were observed in all groups. All groups recalled cohesive story versions better than noncohesive versions. Statements in the causal chain were better recalled and judged as more important than statements not in the causal chain. Statements with more causal connections were better recalled than statements with fewer causal connections.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (1988). Toward meaningful accounts in history texts for young learners. Educational Researcher, 17, 31–39.
2.
Black, J.B., & Bower, G.H. (1980). Story understanding as problem solving. Poetics, 9, 223–250.
3.
Bloom, C.P., Fletcher, C.R., van den Broek, P.W., Reitz, L., & Shapiro, B.P. (1990). An online assessment of causal reasoning during comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 18, 65–71.
4.
Bos, C.S., & Tierney, R.J. (1984). Inferential reading abilities of mildly mentally retarded and nonretarded students. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89(1), 75–82.
5.
Brown, A. (1981). Metacognition: The development of selective attention strategies for learning from texts. In M.L. Kamil (Ed.), Directions in reading: Research and instruction (pp. 21–43). National Reading Conference.
6.
Deno, S.L., & Fuchs, L.S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8), 1–16.
7.
Dickinson, D.K., & Weaver, P.A. (1979). Remembering and forgetting: Story recall abilities of dyslexic children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 174 960)
8.
Fletcher, C.R., & Bloom, C.P. (1988). Causal reasoning in the comprehension of simple narrative texts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 235–244.
9.
Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513–516.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., & Maxwell, L. (1988). Interactive effects of reading mode, production format, and structural importance of text among LD pupils. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(2), 97–106.
11.
Graesser, A.C., & Clark, L.F. (1985). The structures and procedures of implicit knowledge. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12.
Hinchley, J., & Levy, B.A. (1988). Developmental and individual differences in reading comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 5(1), 3–47.
13.
Jorm, A.F. (1983). Specific reading retardation and working memory: A review. British Journal of Psychology, 74, 311–342.
14.
Lehnert, W.G. (1978). The process of question answering. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
Lipson, M.Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 243–261.
16.
Luftig, R.L., & Greeson, L.E. (1983). Effects of structural importance and idea saliency on discourse recall of mentally retarded and nonretarded pupils. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 414–421.
17.
Mackie, J.L. (1980). The cement of the universe: A study of causation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
18.
Maria, K., & MacGinitie, W. (1980). Prior knowledge as a handicapping condition. (Tech. Rep. No. 11). New York: Columbia University, Research Institute for the Study of Learning Disabilities. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 210 840)
19.
McConaughy, S.H. (1985). Good and poor readers' comprehension of story structure across different input. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 219–232.
20.
McGee, L.M. (1981). Good and poor readers' ability to distinguish among and recall ideas on different levels of importance. In M.L. Kamil (Ed.), Directions in reading: Research and instruction (pp. 162–169). National Reading Conference.
21.
Memory, D.M. (1983). Main idea prequestions as adjunct aids with good and low-average middle grade readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(2), 37–48.
22.
Newcomer, P.L., Barenbaum, E.M., & Nodine, B.F. (1988). Comparison of the story production of LD, normal-achieving, and low-achieving children under two modes of production. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(2), 82–96.
23.
Nodine, B.F., Barenbaum, E., & Newcomer, P. (1985). Story composition by learning disabled, reading disabled, and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 167–179.
24.
O'Brien, E.J., & Myers, J.L. (1987). The role of causal connections in the retrieval of text. Memory & Cognition, 15, 419–427.
25.
Omanson, R.C. (1982a). An analysis of narratives: Identifying central, supportive, and distracting content. Discourse Processes, 5, 195–224.
26.
Omanson, R.C. (1982b). The relation between centrality and story category variation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 326–337.
27.
Paris, S.G., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13(10), 5–22.
28.
Schank, R.C. (1975). The structure of episodes in memory. In D.G Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding (pp. 237–272). New York: Academic Press.
Trabasso, T., Secco, T., & van den Broek, P. (1984). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandl, N. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 83–111). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595–611.
32.
Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612–630.
33.
Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P.W., & Liu, L. (1988). A model for generating questions that assess and promote comprehension. Questioning Exchange, 2(1), 25–38.
34.
Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P., & Suh, S.Y. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1–25.
35.
van den Broek, P. (1988). The effects of causal relations and hierarchical position on the importance of story statements. Journal of Memory and Language 27, 1–22.
36.
van den Broek, P. (1989a). Causal reasoning and inference making in judging the importance of story statements. Child Development, 60, 286–297.
37.
van den Broek, P. (1989b). The effects of causal structure on the comprehension of narratives: Implications for education. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 10, 19–44.
38.
van den Broek, P.W. (in press). The causal inference maker: Toward a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. In D. Balota, G. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
van den Broek, P., & Trabasso, T. (1986). Causal networks versus goal hierarchies in summarizing text. Discourse Processes, 9, 1–15.
40.
Varnhagen, C.K., & Goldman, S.R. (1986). Improving comprehension: Causal relations instruction for learning handicapped learners. The Reading Teacher, 39, 896–904.
41.
Warren, W., Nicholas, D., & Trabasso, T. (1979). Events chains and inferences in understanding narratives. In R. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 23–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
Weaver, P.A., & Dickinson, D.K. (1982). Scratching below the surface structure: Exploring the usefulness of story grammars. Discourse Processes, 5, 225–243.
43.
Worden, P.E., Malgren, I., & Gabourie, P. (1982). Memory for stories in learning disabled adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15(3), 145–152.
