This article reports on a comprehension procedure that makes visible to students their prior knowledge about a topic and the structures in expository text. The procedure used reciprocal-like teaching formats for the design of group interactions during instruction, as well as semantic mapping to make text structures apparent to students. Results suggested that strategy instruction using this procedure significantly affected recall of expository ideas and knowledge of comprehension strategies among students with learning disabilities. More importantly, it was the extent to which teachers were able to transfer control of reading strategies to students that appeared to affect students' developing strategy knowledge.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlvermannD. E. (1989). Teacher-student mediation of content area texts. Theory into Practice, 28 (2), 142–147.
2.
AndersP. L.BosC. S. (1984). In the beginning: Vocabulary instruction in content classrooms. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 3, 53–65.
3.
ArmbrusterB. B. (1984). The problem of “inconsiderate” text. In DuffyG. G.RoehlerL. R.MasonJ. M. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 202–217). New York: Longman.
4.
ArmbrusterB. B.AndersonT. H.OstertagJ. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text?Reading Research Quarterly, 22 (3), 331–346.
5.
BakerL.BrownA. L. (1986). Metacognitive skills and reading. In PearsonP. D. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.
6.
BosC. S.FilipD. (1984). Comprehension monitoring in learning disabled and average students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 229–233.
7.
BosC. S.AndersP.L. (1990). Interactive practices for teaching content and strategic knowledge. In ScruggsT. E.WongB. Y. L. (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 116–185). New York: Springer-Verlag.
8.
BosC. S.AndersP. L.FilipD.JaffeL. E. (1989). The effects of an interactive instructional strategy for enhancing reading comprehension and content area learning for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 384–390.
9.
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.
10.
BruffeeK. A. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A bibliographic essay. College English, 48, 773–790.
11.
EnglertC. S.HiebertE. H. (1984). Children's developing awareness of text structure in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65–74.
12.
EnglertC. S.MariageT. (1990). Send for the POSSE: Structuring the comprehension dialogue. Academic Therapy, 25, 473–487.
13.
EnglertC. S.RaphaelT. E.AndersonL. M.FearK.GreggS. L. (1988). A case for writing intervention: Strategies for writing informational text. Learning Disabilities Focus, 8, 98–113.
14.
EnglertC. S.RaphaelT. E.AndersonL. M.AnthonyH. M.StevensD. D. (in press). Making writing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in writing in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal.
15.
EnglertC. S.RaphaelT. E.AndersonL. M.GreggS. L.AnthonyH. M. (1989). Exposition: Reading, writing, and the metacognitive knowledge of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 5, 5–24.
16.
EnglertC. S.ThomasC. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 93–105.
17.
GrahamS.JohnsonL. A. (1989). Teaching reading to learning disabled students: A review of research-supported procedures. Focus on Exceptional Children, 21 (6), 1–12.
18.
KirkR. E. (1968). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
19.
LangerJ. A. (1981). From theory to practice: A pre-reading plan. Journal of Reading, 25, 152–156.
20.
MeyerB. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
21.
MeyerB. J. F.BrandtD. H.BluthG. J. (1980). Use of author's textual schema: Key for ninth-graders' comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.
22.
PalincsarA. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 73–98.
23.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
24.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher, 711–777.
25.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self-regulated comprehension. In BrophyJ. (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 1, pp. 35–71). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
26.
PrawatR. S. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59 (1), 1–41.
27.
PressleyM.GoodchildF.FleetJ.ZajchowkiR.EvansE. D. (1989). The challenges of classroom strategy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 301–342.
28.
PressleyM.SymonsS.SnyderB. L.Cariglia-BullT. (1989). Strategy instruction research comes of age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16–31.
29.
ReisR.SpekmanN. (1983). The detection of reader-based versus text-based inconsistencies and the effects of direct training of comprehension monitoring among upper-grade comprehenders. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 49–60.
30.
ScardamaliaJ.BereiterC. (1986). Written composition. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778–803). New York: MacMillan.
31.
SpacheG. (1953). A new readability formula for primary-grade reading materials. Elementary School Journal, 53, 410–413.
32.
SpiveyN. N. (1984). Discourse synthesis: Constructing texts in reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
33.
SwansonH. L. (1989). Strategy instruction: Overview of principles and procedures for effective use. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 3–15.
34.
TaylorB. M.BeachR. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle grade students' comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134–146.
35.
UlichnyP.Watson-GegeoK. A. (1989). Interactions and authority: The dominant interpretive framework in writing conferences. Discourse Processes, 12, 309–328.
36.
WilsonP. T.AndersonR. C. (1986). What they don't know will hurt them: The role of prior knowledge in comprehension. In OrasanuJ. (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 31–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
WinogradP. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 404–425.
38.
WongB. Y. L. (1979). Increasing retention of main ideas through questioning strategies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 42–47.
39.
WongB. Y. L.JonesW. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–240.
40.
WongB. Y. L.WilsonM. (1984). Investigating awareness of and teaching passage organization in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 477–482.
