While a considerable amount of research has been conducted on learning disabled populations to determine their ability to decode and learn words in isolation, limited research has addressed the reading comprehension of LD populations. Pany and Jenkins compared the effects of three instructional strategies on reading comprehension. Specifically, the study measured recall of word meanings and recall of facts from a story. The authors discuss the implications of their findings for remedial reading instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ThorndikeR.L.Reading as reasoning. Address delivered to Division 15, American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., September, 1971.
2.
StichtT.BeckL.HaukeR.KleinmanG.JamesJ.Auding and reading: A developmental model. Human Resources Research Organization, Alexandria, VA., 1974.
3.
JenkinsJ.R.PanyD.Reading comprehension in the middle grades: Instruction and research. Chapter to be included in SpiraR.BruceB.C.BrewerW.F. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
LiebermanJ.The effect of direct instruction in vocabulary concepts on reading achievement. ERIC Document ED 010985. Bloomington, IN.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, 1967.
5.
OttoW.Design for developing comprehension skills. In GuthrieJ. (Ed.), Cognition, curriculum and comprehension. Newark, DE.: International Reading Association, in press.
6.
JenkinsJ.R.PanyD.SchreckJ.Relative effectiveness of three instructional techniques on the acquisition of word meanings and sentence comprehension. Technical Report. Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois, 1978.
7.
AndersonR.Kulhavy, Learning concepts from definitions. American Education Research Journal, 1972, 9, 385–390.
8.
BarrettT.C.Taxonomy of cognitive and affective dimensions of reading comprehension. In ClymerT. (Ed.), What is “reading”? Some current concepts. Innovation and change in reading instruction. Sixty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.
9.
BeeryK.BuktenicaN.The developmental test of visual-motor integration. Chicago: Follett, 1967.
10.
ChapmanC.A test of a hierarchical theory of reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 1973, 9, 232–34. (Abstract).
11.
ClelandD.L.A construct of comprehension. In FigurelJ.S. (Ed.), Reading and inquiry. International Reading Association Conference Proceedings (Vol. 18). Newark: International Reading Association, 1965.
12.
CronbachL.J.Journal of Educational Research. 1942, 36, 206–17.
13.
DavisF.B.Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 1944, 9, 185–97.
14.
DavisF.B.Comprehension in reading. Baltimore Bulletin of Education, 1951, 28, 16–24.
15.
DavisF.B.Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 1968, 3, 499–545.
16.
DavisF.B.The literature of research in reading with emphasis on models. Graduate School of Education, Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick, NJ., 1971.
17.
DavisF.B.Psychometric research on comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 1972, 7, 628–678.
18.
Economy Co.Keys to reading. Oklahoma City: Economy Co., 1972.
19.
EicholzG.BarbeR.An experiment in vocabulary development. Educational Research Bulletin, 1961, 40, 1–7.
20.
EngelmannS.Preventing failure in the primary grades. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1969.
21.
GrayW.HolmesE.The development of meaning vocabularies in reading. Chicago: University of Chicago, Publications of the Laboratory Schools, No. 6, 1938.
22.
JacksonJ.DizneyH.Intensive vocabulary training. Journal of Developmental Reading, 1963, 6, 211–29.
23.
KelleyT.L.KreyA.C.Tests and measurements in the social sciences. New York: Schribner, 1934.
24.
KirkR.Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1968.
25.
MacGinitieW.H.Research suggestions from the “Literature Search.”Reading Research Quarterly, 1975, 11, 7–35.
26.
McCulloughC.What does research in reading reveal about practices in teaching reading?English Journal, 1969, 58, 688–705.
27.
Metropolitan Achievement Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1970.
28.
NelsonM.An experimental study of three methods of vocabulary instruction. Cited by R. Karlin, Research results and classroom practices. Reading Teacher, 1967, 21, 211–26.
29.
OttermanL.M.The value of teaching prefixes and word-roots. Journal of Educational Research, 1955, 48, 611–16.
30.
PettyW.HeroldC.StollE.The state of knowledge about the teaching of vocabulary. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1968.
31.
RystromR.Toward defining comprehension: A first report. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1970, 2, 56–74.
32.
SerraM.How to develop concepts and their verbal representations. Elementary School Journal. 1953, 53, 275–85.
33.
SpearrittD.Identification of subskills of reading comprehension by maximum likelihood factor analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 1972, 8, 92–111.
34.
Stanford Achievement Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1970.
35.
WittrockM.MarksC.DoctorowM.Reading as a generative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 484–89.
