Thirty-nine upper-primary disabled readers and 39 third-grade average readers matched with the disabled readers on word-recognition ability were randomly assigned to three training conditions — visualization instruction only (VI), visualization instruction plus pictorial display (VI+P), and a read-reread (RR) control condition. Training and testing took place over four 40-min. sessions in small groups of five. Results indicated that the VI+P condition, in which subjects were instructed to make pictures in their mind and were shown a pictorial display that illustrated the temporal-spatial sequence of the reading text, was particularly effective in facilitating disabled readers' comprehension performance. However, adequate time and practice are necessary for mastery of the strategy, and appropriate gradual fading of external support is critical to promote internalization and generalization of strategy use
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlesandriK. L. (1982). Imagery-eliciting strategy and meaningful learning. Journal of Mental Imagery, 6 (1), 125–141.
2.
AndrewsR. J. (1973). St. Lucia Graded Word Reading Test. Brisbane, Australia: Teaching and Testing Resources.
3.
BackmanJ. E.MamenM.FergusonH. B. (1984). Reading level design: Conceptual and methodological issues in reading research. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 560–568.
4.
BakerL. (1982). An evaluation of the role of metacognitive deficits in learning disabilities. Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities, 2 (1), 27–35.
5.
BakerL.BrownA. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In PearsonP. D. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.
6.
BockR. D. (1975). Multivariate statistical methods in behavioural research. New York: McGraw Hill.
7.
BransfordJ. D.SteinB. S.SheltonT. S.OwingsR. A. (1980). Cognition and adaptation: The importance of learning to learn. In HarveyJ. (Ed.), Cognition, social behaviour and the environment (pp. 181–221). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
BrownA. L.ArmbrusterB. B.BakerL. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In OrasanuJ. (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 49–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
BrownA. L.PalincsarA. S. (1982). Inducing strategy learning from text by means of informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2 (1), 1–17.
10.
BruceM. E.ChanL. K. S. (1989). A metacognitive approach to remedial education. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 21 (3), 27–30.
11.
ChanL. K. S.ColeP. G. (1986). The effects of comprehension monitoring training on learning disabled and regular class students. Remedial and Special Education, 7 (4), 33–40.
12.
ChanL. K. S.ColeP. G.BarfettS. (1987). Comprehension monitoring: Detection and identification of text inconsistencies by LD and normal students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10 (2), 114–124.
13.
CullenJ. L. (1985). Children's ability to cope with failure: Implications of a metacognitive approach for the classroom. In Forrest-PressleyD. L.MackinnonG. E.WallerT. G. (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition and human performance, Vol. 2: Instructional practices (pp. 267–300). Orlando: Academic Press.
14.
DunhamT. C.LevinJ. R. (1979). Imagery instructions and young children's prose learning: No evidence of support. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 107–113.
15.
FinnJ. D. (1978). Multivariance: Univariate and multivariate analysis of variance, covariance and regression Computer Program. Ann Arbor, MI: National Educational Resources.
16.
FlavellJ. H. (1970). Developmental studies of mediated memory. In ReeseH. W.LippittL. P. (Eds.), Advances in child development and behaviours, Vol. 5 (pp. 181–221). New York: Academic Press.
17.
GiesenC.PeeckJ. (1984). The effect of imagery instruction on reading and retaining of literary text. Journal of Mental Imagery, 8 (2), 79–90.
18.
HarrisA.SipayE. R. (1975). How to increase reading ability: A guide to developmental and remedial methods (6th ed.). New York: David Mckay.
19.
KerlingerF. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research, 3rd ed. New York: CBS Publishing.
20.
McClooneB. B.ZuckerS. F.ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1986). Memory strategy instruction and training with learning disabled adolescentsPaper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco.
21.
PetersE. E.LevinJ. R. (1986). The effects of a mnemonic strategy on good and poor readers' prose recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (2), 179–192.
22.
TorgesenJ. K. (1977). Memorization processes in reading disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 571–578.
23.
TorgesenJ. K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: educational implications. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2 (1), 45–52.
24.
WilliamsJ. P. (1986). The role of phonemic analysis in reading. In TorgesenJ. K.WongB. Y. L. (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 399–416). Orlando: Academic Press.
25.
WongB. Y. L. (1979). Increasing retention of main ideas through questioning strategies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 42–47.
26.
WongB. Y. L. (1985). Metacognition and learning disabilities. In Forrest-PressleyD. L.MackinnonG. E.WallerT. G. (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition and human performance, Vol. 2: Instructional practices (pp. 133–180). Orlando: Academic Press.
27.
WongB. Y. L.JonesW. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–240.
