Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 1988-5
1980s: A Change in Focus of Reading Comprehension Research: A Review of Reading/Learning Disabilities Research Based on an Interactive Model of Reading
This article contains a review of reading comprehension research since 1980, based on an interactive model of reading, with a focus on reading disabilities / learning disabilities. The interactive model conceptualizes influences on reading comprehension as multifaceted, that is, reader-based, text-based, and situationally based, for example, variables in a given task. The review includes studies which have investigated the influence of readers' prior knowledge of a topic, the influences of text structure and task demands, and metacognitive strategies. Conclusions explain reasons for reading disabled students' need for explicit instruction in understanding what the task is, how to use appropriate procedures, and why the use of metacognitive strategies can help them become more able readers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersP.BosC.FilipD. (1984). The effect of semantic feature analysis on the reading comprehension of learning disabled students. In NilesJ. (Ed.), Changing perspectives on research in reading language processing and instruction. Thirty-Third Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.)
2.
ChanL.K. S.ColeP.G. (1986). The effects of comprehension monitoring training on the reading competence of learning disabled and regular class students. RASE, 7 (4), 33–40.
3.
ClarkF.L.DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B.AlleyG.R.WarnerM.M. (1984). Visual imagery and self-questioning: Strategies to improve comprehension of written material. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17 (3), 145–149.
4.
DarchC.GerstenR. (1986). Direction setting activities in reading comprehension: A comparison of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9 (3), 235–243.
5.
GambrellL.D.KoskinenP.S. (1982). Mental imagery and the reading comprehension of below average readers: Situational variables and sex differences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
6.
GoldJ.FleisherL.S. (1986). Comprehension breakdown with inductively organized text: Differences between average and disabled readers. RASE, 7 (4), 26–32.
7.
GravesA. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1 (2), 90–100.
8.
HansenJ.PearsonP.D. (1983, December). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (6), 821–829.
9.
HiebertE.EnglertC.S.BrennanS. (1983). Awareness of text structure in recognition and production of expository discourse. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15 (4), 63–79.
10.
HolmesB.C. (1983). The effect of prior knowledge on the question answering of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15 (4), 1–18.
11.
HolmesB.C. (1985). The effects of a strategy and sequenced materials on the inferential comprehension of disabled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18 (9), 542–546.
12.
HorowitzR. (1985, March). Text patterns: Part II. Journal of Reading, 28, 534–541.
13.
Idol-MaestasL. (1985). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. (Tech. Rep. No. 363). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
14.
KintschW.vanDijkT.A. (1978). Toward a model of discourse comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
15.
LangerJ.A. (1984). Examining background knowledge and text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, XIX(4), 468–481.
16.
LipsonM.Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, XIV(3), 243–261.
17.
MariaK.MacGinitieW. (1980). Prior knowledge as a handicapping condition. (Tech. Report No. 11). New York: Columbia University, Research Inst. for the Study of Learning Disabilities. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 210 840)
18.
McCormickS.HillD.S. (1984, March/April). An analysis of the effects of two procedures for increasing disabled readers' inferencing skills. Journal of Educational Research, 77 (4), 219–226.
19.
McGeeL.M. (1982). Awareness of text structure: Effects on children's recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, XVII(4), 581–590.
20.
MeyerB.J. F.BrandtD.M.BluthG.J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16 (1), 72–103.
RumelhartD. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In DornicS. (Ed.), Attention & performance VI (pp. 573–603). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.)
23.
TaylorB.M.SamuelsS.J. (1983). Children's use of text structure in the recall of expository material. American Educational Research Journal, 20 (4), 517–528.
24.
TierneyR.CunninghamJ. (1984). Research on teaching reading comprehension. In PearsonP.D. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609–641). New York, NY: Longman.)
25.
WeisbergR.BalajthyE. (1983). A generative learning strategy for disabled readers. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
26.
WeisbergR.BalajthyE. (1984). Two studies to improve generative learning strategies of disabled readers. Paper presented at the College Reading Association, Washington, DC.
27.
WeisbergR.BalajthyE. (1985). Effects of metacomprehension instruction on disabled readers' recall of expository text. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, St. Petersburg, FL.
28.
WeisbergR.BalajthyE. (1986). Effects of topic familiarity on disabled readers' comprehension of the compare/contrast text structure. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
29.
WongB.Y. L. (1982). Understanding the learning-disabled reader: Contribution from cognitive psychology. Topical Issues in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 4 (1), 43–50.
30.
WongB.Y. L.WongR.LeMareL. (1982). The effects of knowledge of criterion task on comprehension and recall in normal achieving and learning disabled children. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 119–126.
31.
WongB.Y. L.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 (2), 20–35.
