The effects of using the Embedded Story-Structure (ESS) Routine in a literature course were investigated. A heterogeneous group of 79 ninth graders, including 14 students with LD, were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, with instruction occurring in groups of 12 to 14 students in general education literature classes over a nine-day period. ESS instruction focused on three reading strategies: (a) student self-questioning, (b) story-structure analysis, and (c) summarizing. Instruction for the alternative condition, called comprehension skills instruction (CSI), was comprised of a package of research-based reading interventions. Statistically significant differences were found between groups in favor of the ESS Routine on measures of strategy use, story-structure knowledge, and unit reading comprehension. Moreover, results indicated equivalent gains for ESS students regardless of disability versus nondisability category.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarnineD.KinderD. (1985). Teaching low-performing students to apply generative and schema strategies to narrative and expository material. RASE, 6(1), 20–30.
2.
DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ.BulgrenJ.LenzK.JantzenJ. E.AdamsG.CarnineD.GrossenB.DavisB.MarquisJ. (2001). Making learning easier: Connecting new knowledge to things students already know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 82–85.
3.
DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. (Eds.). (2006). Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
4.
DiminoJ.GerstenR.CarnineD.BlakeG. (1990). Story grammar: An approach for promoting at-risk secondary students' comprehension of literature. The Elementary School Journal, 91(1), 19–32.
5.
EllisE. S. (2000). The LINCS vocabulary strategy (2nd ed.). Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
6.
EnglertC. S.MariageT. V.GarmonM. A.TarrantK. L. (1998). Accelerating reading progress in early literacy project classrooms: Three exploratory studies. Remedial and Special Education, 19(3), 142–159.
7.
EXPLORE Test. (2005). Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
8.
Faggella-LubyM. (2006). Embedded learning strategy instruction: Story-structure pedagogy in secondary classes for diverse learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.
9.
FitzgeraldJ.SpiegelD. L. (1983). Enhancing children's reading comprehension through instruction in narrative structure. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 1–17.
10.
GardillM. C.JitendraA. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2–17.
11.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.WilliamsJ. P.BakerS. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279–320.
12.
GriffeyQ. L.Jr.ZigmondN.LeinhardtG. (1988). The effects of self-questioning and story structure training on the reading comprehension of poor readers. Learning Disabilities Research, 4(1), 45–51.
13.
GurneyD.GerstenR.DiminoJ.CarnineD. (1990). Story grammar: Effective literature instruction for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(6), 33–343.
14.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). P. L. 108–446.
15.
IdolL. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(4), 196–205.
16.
IdolL.CrollV. J. (1987). Story mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 214–229.
17.
KintschW. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In RudellR. B.UnrauN. J. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270–1324). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
18.
MandlerJ. M.JohnsonN. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 111–151.
19.
MetaMetrics. (2000). The Lexile framework for reading. Durham, NC: Author. Retrieved September 15, 2004, from http://lexile.com/faq.htm.
20.
MontagueM.MadduxC. D.DereshiwskyM. I. (1990). Story grammar and comprehension and production of narrative prose by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 190–197.
OlsonM. W.GeeT. C. (1988). Understanding narrative: A review of story grammar research. Childhood Education, 64(5), 302–306.
23.
OuelletteG.DagostinoL.CarifioJ. (1998). The relationship of children's expectations for structure in story to their knowledge of literature and their reading ability. Reading Improvement, 35(3), 98–113.
24.
PerieM.GriggW.DonahueP. (2005). The nation's report card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006–451). U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
25.
RaphaelT. (1982). Question-answering strategies for children. The Reading Teacher, 36(2), 186–190.
26.
RaphaelT. E. (1986). Teaching question-answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516–522.
27.
RumelhartD. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In BobrowD. G.CollinsA. M. (Eds.), Representation and understanding (pp. 211–236). New York: Academic Press.
28.
ShortE. J.RyanE. B. (1984). Metacognitive differences between skilled and less skilled readers: Remediating deficits through story grammar and attribution training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 225–235.
29.
SingerH.DonlanD. (1982). Active comprehension: Problem-solving schema with question generation for comprehension of complex short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 166–185.
30.
SteinN. L.GlennC. G. (1978). An analysis of story composition on elementary school children. In Friedle ?? (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Volume 2, pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
31.
SwansonH. L. (1999). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instructional method. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(3), 129–140.
32.
ThorndykeP. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77–110.
33.
WarnerM. M.SchumakerJ. B.AlleyG. R.DeshlerD. D. (1980). Learning disabled adolescents in public schools: Are they different from other low achievers?Exceptional Education Quarterly, 1(2), 27–35.
34.
WeaverP. A.DickinsonD. K. (1982). Scratching below the surface structure: Exploring the usefulness of story grammars. Discourse Processes, 5(3), 225–243.
35.
WechslerD. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd ed.). New York: Psychological Corporation.
36.
WechslerD. (2003). WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
37.
WhaleyJ. F. (1981). Readers' expectations for story structures. Reading Research Quarterly, 1(9), 107–111.
38.
WoodsM. L.MoeA. J. (2003). Reader's passages to accompany: Analytic Reading Inventory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
