The ability to comprehend and formulate expository writing is essential for students' achievement in school. This article reviews the research on text processing and proposes that the concepts derived from this body of work can provide a foundation for the design of more effective instructional programs for learning disabled learners. The practical implications of the research are characterized, and recommendations for instructional practice based on current conceptualizations of the reading and writing process are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ApplebeeA.N. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54,577-596.
2.
BaumannJ.F. (1982). Research on children's main idea comprehension: A problem of ecological validity. Reading Psychology, 3,167-177.
3.
BaumannJ.F. (1984). The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm for teaching main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20,93-115.
4.
BaumannJ.F., & SerraJ.K. (1984). The frequency and placement of main ideas in children's social studies textbooks. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16,32-35.
5.
BeanT.W., & SteenwykF.L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth graders’ summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16,297-306.
6.
BereiterC. (1980). Development in writing. In L.GreggD. & E.SteinbergR. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
BerkowitzS.J. (1986). Effects of instruction on text organization on sixth-grade students’ memory for expository reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,161-178.
8.
BirkmireD. R (1985). Text processing: The influence of text structure, background knowledge and purpose. Reading Research Quarterly, 20,314-326.
9.
BrownA.L.CampioneJ.C., & DayJ.D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from text. Educational Researcher, 10,14-21.
10.
BrownA.L., & DayJ.D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22,1-14.
11.
BrownA.L.DayJ.D., & JonesR.S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54, 968–979.
12.
BrownA.L., & PalincsarA.S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of informed, self-control training. (Tech. Rep. No. 262).Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
13.
CarlsonT.G., & AlleyG.R. (1981). Performance and competence of learning disabled and high-achieving high school students on essential cognitive skills. (Res. Rep. No. 53).Lawrence: University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
14.
DuffyG.G., & RolhlerL.R. (1982). Commentary: The illusion of instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 431–445.
15.
EnglertC.S., & RaphaelTE. (1988). Constructing well- formed prose: Process, structure and metacognitive knowledge. Exceptional Children, 54,513-520.
16.
FloodJ.E. (1978). The effects of first sentences on reader expectations in prose passages. Reading World, 18,306-315.
17.
FlowerL.S., & HayesJ.R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In GreggL. & SteinbergE. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
GarnerR. (1985). Text summarization deficiencies among older students: Awareness or production ability?American Educational Research Journal, 22,549-560.
19.
GarnerR.BelcherV.WinfieldE., & SmithT. (1985). Multiple measures of text summarization proficiency: What can fifth-grade students do?Research in the Teaching of English, 19,140-153.
20.
GarnerR., & McCalebJ.L. (1985). Effects of text manipulations on quality of written summaries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10,139-149.
21.
HareV.C., & BorchardtK.M. (1984). Direct instruction of summarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 20,62-78.
22.
HareV.C., & MulliganB. (1984). Main idea identification: Instructional explanations in four basal reader series. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16,189-204.
23.
HeibertE.H.EnglertC.S., & BrennanS. (1983). Awareness of text structure in recognition and production of expository discourse. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15,63-79.
24.
KierasD.E. (1981). Topicalization effects in cued recall of technical prose. Memory and Cognition, 9,541-549.
25.
KintschW., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
26.
KintschW., & YarbroughJ.C. (1982). Role of rhetorical structure in text comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,823-834.
27.
LorchR.F., & LorchE. R (1985). Topic structure representation and text recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 137–148.
28.
McGeeL.M. (1982). Awareness of text structures: Effects on children's recall for expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 17,581-590.
29.
MemoryD.M. (1983). Main idea prequestions as adjunct aids with good and low-average middle grade readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15,37-48.
30.
MeyerB.J.BrandtD.M., & BluthG.J. (1980). Use of toplevel structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.
31.
MeyerB.J., & FreedleR.O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 121–143.
32.
MillerJ.R., & KintschW. (1980). Readability and the recall of short prose passages: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16,335-354.
33.
MoranM. (1981). Performance of learning disabled and low achieving secondary students on formal features of a paragraph-writing task. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 271–280.
34.
OhlhausenM.M., & RollerC.M. (1988). The operation of text structure and content schemata in isolation and in interaction. Reading Research Quarterly, 23,70-88.
PalincsarA.S., & BrownA.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1,117-175.
37.
PearsonP.D. (1984). Direct explicit teaching of reading comprehension. In DuffyG.RoehlerL. & MasonE. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 222–233). New York: Longman.
RaphaelT.E.EnglertC.S., & KirschnerB.W. (1986). The impact of text structure instruction and social context on students’ comprehension and production of expository text. (Res. Ser. No. 171).East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
40.
RichgelsD.J.McGeeL.M.LomaxR.G., & SheardC. (1987). Awareness of four text structures: Effects on recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22,177-196.
41.
RinehartS.D.StahlS.A., & EricksonL.G. (1986). Some effects of summarization training on reading and studying. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,422-435.
42.
RoehlerL.R., & DuffyG.G. (1984). Direct explanation of comprehension processes. In DuffyG.RoehlerL. & MasonJ. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 265–280). New York: Longman.
