This investigation examined the relationship between the proximity of critical textual information and selected metacognitive behaviors of elementary-age LD students. Twenty-nine LD students were presented six passages in which information critical to the solution of text-based inferences was either systematically dispersed or centralized within the text. Following a comprehension measure, interrogatory probes were administered to assess three self-reported metacognitive behaviors: (a) awareness of text difficulty, (b) attributions of text difficulty, and (c) strategy usage. Chi-square analyses revealed that textual proximity was independent of LD subjects' ratings and attributions of passage difficulty; however, a significant relationship was found between text proximity and strategy deployment. Subjects who received collapsed versions of passages reported higher percentages of text-based strategies (41%), whereas over 50% of the dispersed condition subjects' responses reflected no strategy use. Analysis of strategy efficacy (i.e., relationship between strategy application and comprehension) further reinforced the significant effect of text proximity on strategy application.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsA.CarnineD.GerstenR. (1982). Instructional strategies for studying content area texts in the intermediate grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 27-55.
2.
AfflerbachP.JohnstonP. (1984). On the use of verbal reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 307-321.
3.
ArmbrusterB.B. (1984). The problem of “inconsiderate text.” In DuffyG.G.RoehlerL.R.MasonJ. (eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 202–217). New York: Longman.
4.
ArmbrusterB.EcholsC.BrownA. (1983). Role of metacognition in reading to learn: A developmental perspective (Report No. 40). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
5.
BakerL.BrownA.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In PearsonP.D. (ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.
6.
BosC.FilipD. (1982). Comprehension monitoring skills in learning disabled and average students. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 79-85.
7.
BransfordJ.D.SteinB.A.SheltonT.S.OwingsR.A. (1980). Cognition and adaptation: The importance of learning to learn. In HarveyJ. (ed.), Cognition, social behavior and the environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
BrownA.L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In SpiroR.J.BruceB.C.BrewerW.F. (eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453–481). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
BrownA.L.BransfordJ.D.FerraraR.A.CampioneJ.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In MussenP.H. (ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed.) (Vol. 3, pp. 77–166). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
10.
BrownA.L.CampioneJ.C.DayJ.D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10, 14-21.
11.
BrownA.L.PalinscarA.S. (1982). Inducing strategic behavior from texts by means of informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 1-17.
12.
CalfeeR.DrumP. (1985). Research on teaching reading. In WittrockM.C. (ed.), Handbook of research on reading (3rd ed., pp. 804–849). New York: Macmillan.
13.
ChanL.ColeP.BarfettS. (1987). Comprehension monitoring: Detection and identification of text inconsistencies by LD and normal students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 114-124.
14.
DannerF.W. (1976). Children's understanding of intersentence organization in the recall of short descriptive passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 174-183.
15.
FareedA. (1971). Introspective responses in reading history and biology: An explanatory study. Reading Research Quarterly, 6, 493-532.
16.
FlavellJ.H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In ResnickL.B. (ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17.
FlavellJ.H.WellmanH.M. (1977). Metamemory. In KailR.V.HagenJ.W. (eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
GravesA.W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1(2), 90-100.
19.
HagenJ.W.BarclayC.R.NewmanR.S. (1982). Metacognition, self-knowledge, and learning disabilities: Some thoughts on knowing and doing. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 19-26.
20.
HagenJ.W.BarclayC.R.SchwethelmB. (1982). In EllisN. (ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (pp. 1–4). New York: Academic Press.
21.
HarrisA.J.SipayE.R. (1980). How to increase reading ability. New York: Longman.
22.
IsaacS.MichaelW.B. (1984). Handbook in research and evaluation (2nd ed.). San Diego: EdITS Publishers.
23.
KameenuiE.J.SimmonsD.C.DarchC.B. (1987). LD children's comprehension of selected textual features: Effects of proximity of information. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(3), 237-248.
24.
KavaleK.SchreinerR. (1979). The reading process of above average and average readers: A comparison of the use of reasoning strategies in responding to standardized comprehension measures. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 102-128.
25.
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.
26.
KerlingerF.N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, Inc.
27.
LipsonM.Y.WixsonK.K. (1986). Reading disability research: An interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 111-136.
28.
MosenthalP. (1984). The problem of partial specification in translating reading research into practice. The Elementary School Journal, 85(2), 199-227.
29.
ParisS.G.JacobsJ.E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children's reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083-2093.
30.
RyanE.B.LedgerG.W.ShortE.J.WeedK.A. (1982). Promoting the use of active comprehension strategies by poor readers. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 53-60.
31.
ShortE.J.RyanE.G. (1984). Metacognitive differences between skilled and less skilled readers: Remediating deficits through story grammar and attribution training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 225-235.
32.
SmithD.D.DeshlerD.HallahanD.LovittT.RobinsonS.VoressJ.YsseldykeJ. (1984). Minimum standards for the description of subjects in learning disabilities research reports. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7(3), 221-226.
33.
SternbergR.J. (1984). What should intelligence tests test? Implications of a triarchic theory of intelligence for intelligence testing. Educational Researcher, 13(1), 5-15.
34.
TharpR.GallimoreR. (1985). The logical status of metacognitive training. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13(3), 455-466.
35.
TorgesenJ.K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Educational implications. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 45-52.
36.
WongB. (1980). Activating the inactive learner: Use of questions / prompts to enhance comprehension and retention of implied information in learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 29-37.
37.
WongB.WongR. (1986). Study behavior as a function of metacognitive knowledge about critical task variables: An investigation of above average, average, and learning disabled readers. Learning Disabilities Research, 1(2), 101-111.
38.
WongB.WongR.PerryN.SawatskyD. (1986). The efficacy of a self-questioning summarization strategy for use by underachievers and learning disabled adolescents in social studies. Learning Disabilities Focus, 2(1), 20-35.
