Instructional programming for LD adolescents has recently focused on strategy training to facilitate the acquisition and retention of curricular material. The purpose of this study was to examine the potential of a specific strategy, text structure recognition and use, for increasing LD high school students' recall of expository prose. Fifty-four participants were assigned to one of two groups. The experimental group received training in recognizing and using text structure, and the comparison group received training in problem-solving strategies as they apply to reading. Immediate posttest and delayed posttest data entered in four separate 2 (reading level: low, high) x2 (treatment: experimental, comparison) analyses of covariance indicated that LD learners can be trained to use text structure strategies and that such training has a positive impact on immedia te and delayed recall performance. Implications for instructional programs are discussed.
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: Love Publishing.
2.
AlvermanD.E., & BoothbyP.R. (1984, April). Knowledge of text structure and its influence on a transfer task. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
3.
ArmbrusterB.B., & AndersonT.H. (1980). The effect of mapping on the free recall of expository text (Tech. Rep. No. 160).Champaign: University of lllinios, Center for the Study of Reading.
4.
BartlettB.J. (1979). Top-level structure as an organiza tional strategy for the recall of classroom text (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University). Dissertation Ab stracts International, 39,11 A.
5.
BrandtD.M. (1978). Prior knowledge of the author's schema and the comprehension of prose (Doctoral dis sertation, Arizona State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39,11A.
6.
CovingtonM.V.CrutchfieldR.F.DaviesL., & OltonR.M. (1974). The productive thinking program. Colum bus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
7.
DaleE., & ChallJ.S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27,11–20.
8.
DeshlerD.D.AlleyG.R.WarnerM.M., & SchumakerJ.B. (1981). Instructional practices for promoting skill acquisition and generalization in severely learning dis abled adolescents. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 4, 415–421.
9.
DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B.AlleyG.R.WarnerM.M., & ClarkF.L. (1982). Learning disabilities in adolescent and young adult populations: Research implications. Focus on Exceptional Children, 75 (1), 1–10.
10.
DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B.LenzB.K., & EllisE. (1984). Academic and cognitive interventions for LD adolescents: Part II. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 170-179.
11.
DeshlerD.D.WarnerM.M.SchumakerJ.B., & AlleyG.R. (1983). Learning strategies intervention model: Key components and current status. In McKinneyJ.D. & L. Feagans (Eds.), Current topics in learning disabilities (Vol. 2). Norwood NJ: Ablex.
12.
EnglertC.S., & HiebertE.H. (1984). Children's developing awareness of text structures in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,65-74.
13.
FriendM.SmithP.L., & BaileyJ. (1985). Learning disabled and nonLD adolescents' use of text structure in recalling and retaining expository prose. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14.
GrimesJ.E. (1975). The thread of discourse.The Hague: Mouton.
15.
LindseyJ.D., & KerlinM.A. (1979). Learning disabilities and reading disorders: A brief review of the secondary level literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 408-415.
16.
MarshG.E., & PriceB.J. (1980). Methods for teaching the mildly handicapped adolescent.St. Louis: C.V. Mosby.
17.
McGeeL.M. (1982). Awareness of text structure: Effects on children's recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 581–590.
18.
MeyerB.J.F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory.Amsterdam: North-Holland.
19.
MeyerB.J.F.BrandtD.M., & BluthG.J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.
20.
MeyerB.J.F., & FreedleR.O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21,121-143.
21.
NieN.H.HullC.H.JenkinsJ.G.SteinbrennerK., & BentD.H. (1975). Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
22.
NilesO.S. (1965). Organization perceived. In HerberH.L. (Ed.), Developing study skills In secondary schools.Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
23.
SmithC.R. (1983). Learning disabilities: The interaction of learner, task, and setting.Boston: Little, Brown.
24.
StanovichK.E. (1983). Individual differences in the cognitive processes of reading II: Text level processes. Annual Review of Learning Disabilities, 1, 66–71.
25.
SwansonC.C. (1979). Readability and top-level structure: Effects on reading comprehension (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 03A.
26.
TaylorB.M. (1980). Children's memory for expository text after reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 399-411.
27.
TorgesenJ.K. (1977). Memorization processes in reading disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 571–578.
28.
TorgesenJ. K (1979). Factors related to poor performance on memory tasks in reading disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2,17-23.
29.
WongB.Y.L., & WilsonM. (1984). Investigating awareness of and teaching passage organization in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 477-482.
30.
WoodwardD.M., & PetersD.J. (1983). The learning disabled adolescent: Learning success in content areas(pp. 235–245). Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corporation.
