This study investigated elementary-age LD children's ability to comprehend narrative text when information explicitly identified as being important to resolving a goal statement was systematically dispersed or centralized within a text. Responses to comprehension questions and recall measures specific to a resolution of the goal statements were analyzed after LD children read and listened to six passages. Repeated-measures ANOVA revealed no statistically significant effect for input mode on either measure. A statistically significant effect was found for proximity of information on both the comprehension and the recall measure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarclayC.R.HagenJ.W. (1982). The development of mediated behavior in children: An alternative view of learning disabilities. In DasJ.P.MulcahyR.F.WallA.E. (Eds.), Theory and research in learning disabilities (pp. 61–84). New York: Plenum Press.)
2.
BartlettF.C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: University Press.
3.
CarnineD.W.KameenuiE.J.WoolfsonN. (1982). Training textual dimensions related to text-based inferences. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 335–340.
4.
CromerW. (1970). The difference model: A new explanation for some reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 471–483.
5.
DickinsonD.K.WeaverP.A. (1979, April). Remembering and forgetting: Story recall abilities of dyslexic children. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
6.
FryE. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513–516.
7.
GoetzE.T. (1977). Inferences in the comprehension of and memory for text. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. (ERIC Document and Reproduction Service No. ED 150 548)
8.
HagenJ.W.BarclayC.R.SchwethelmB. (1981). In EllisN. (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation. New York: Academic Press.)
9.
HarrisA.J.SipayE.R. (1980). How to increase reading ability. New York: Longman, Inc.
10.
KameenuiE.J. (1985). Direct instruction of reading comprehension: Beyond teacher performance variables to the design-of-instruction. In NilesJ.LalikR. (Eds.), Thirty-fourth yearbook of the national reading conference, issues in literacy: A research perspective (pp. 257–262). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.)
11.
KeoghB.K. (1982). Research in learning disabilities: A view of status and need. In DasJ.P.MulcahyR.F.WallA.E. (Eds.), Theory and research in learning disabilities (pp. 27–44). New York: Plenum Press.)
12.
KintschW. (1976). Memory for prose. In CoferC.N. (Ed.), The structure of human memory (pp. 90–113). New York: Freeman.)
13.
McConaughyS.H. (1985). Good and poor readers' comprehension of story structure across different input and output modalities. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 219–232.
ShankR.C. (1976). The role of memory in language processing. In CoferC.N. (Ed.), The structure of human memory (pp. 162–189). New York: Freeman.)
16.
SmileyS.S.OakleyD.D.WorthenD.CampioneJ.C.BrownA.L. (1977). Recall of thematically relevant material by adolescent good and poor readers as a function of written versus oral presentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 381–387.
17.
StanovichK.E. (1983). Individual differences in the cognitive processes of reading: II. Text-level processes. In SenfG.M.TorgesenJ.K. (Eds.), Annual review of learning disabilities, Vol. 1 (pp. 66–71). Chicago: Educational Press Association of America.)
18.
TorgesenJ.K.DiceC. (1980). Characteristics of research on learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 531–535.
19.
VellutinoF.R. (1977). Alternative conceptualizations of dyslexia: Evidence in support of a verbal-deficit hypothesis. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 334–354.
20.
WinerB.J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
