Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:39:53.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of language ability and text variables on sixth-grade students' comprehension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Marge J. Penning  and
Taffy E. Raphael
Marge J. Penning*
Affiliation:
Psychiatric Consultation Services
Taffy E. Raphael
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
*
Marge J. Penning, 3688 Lake Drive, S.E., Kentwood, MI 49546
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined differences between normally achieving students and learning-disabled students with specific problems in reading comprehension (i.e., poor comprehenders) on measures of language ability, including overall ability, auditory processing, receptive and expressive language, and syntactic ability related to text retellings. Differences were related to performance on free and probed comprehension of expository passages varying in syntactic structure and discourse type. Poor comprehending students differed from normally achieving students on all language measures and in the manner in which reader-related and text-related variables predicted comprehension. Results support the positive role of syntactic ability in text comprehension, differences in free and probed recall responses, and the facilitating effect of structured text on recall.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 397 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In Pearson, P. D. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–292). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T. H. (1980). Study strategies and adjunct aids. In Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C., & Brewer, W. F. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 483–502). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Armbruster, B. (1984). Learning from content area textbooks. In Duffy, G., Roehler, L. R., & Mason, J. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction (pp. 202–220). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Baker, L., & Brown, A. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In Pearson, P. D. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Brewer, W. F. (1985). Discourse structure and mental models. In Carr, T. H. (Ed.), The development of reading skills: New directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C., & Brewer, W. F. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453–481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bruce, B. C. (1981). A social interaction model of reading. Discourse Processes, 4, 273–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, T., & Bryan, J. (1978). Understanding learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Sherman Oaks, CA: Alfred.Google Scholar
Carr, T. H. (Ed.). (1985). The development of reading skills: New directions for child development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Casby, M. W. (1989). National data concerning communication disorders and special education. Journal of Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 20(1), 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, G. E. (1980). Oral language performance of upper elementary school students obtained via story reformulations. Journal of Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 11, 236–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M., Campbell, R., & Gelardo, M. (1987). Hyperlexia: A variant of aphasia or dyslexia. Pediatrie Neurology, 3, 22–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doehring, D., & Hoshko, I. (1977). Classification of reading problems by the 2-technique factor analysis. Cortex, 13(2), 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, E., & Needleman, R. (1976). The syndrome of hyperlexia. Brain and Language, 3(1), 339–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., & Anderson, L. M. (in press). Socially mediated instruction: Improving students' knowledge and talk about writing. Elementary School Journal.Google Scholar
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., Fear, K. L., & Gregg, S. L. (1988). A case for writing intervention: Strategies for writing informational text. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3(2), 98–113.Google Scholar
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Stevens, D. D., & Anthony, H. M. (1990). Making writing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in writing. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: A comparison of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederiksen, C. H. (1979). Discourse comprehension and early reading. In Resnick, L. B. & Weaver, P. B. (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 1, pp. 155–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1981). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension (Technical Report No. 225). Urbana: University of Illinois Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
Fry, E. B. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. The Journal of Reading, 2, 513–516, 575–578.Google Scholar
Gerber, A., & Bryen, D. (1981). Language and learning disabilities. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, D. P., & Cooper, E. B. (1986, November). The prevalence of communicative disorders in a learning disabled population. Paper presented at American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association National Convention, Detroit.Google Scholar
Gordon, C. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). The effects of instruction in metacomprehension and inferencing on children's comprehension abilities (Technical Report No. 277). Urbana: University of Illinois Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C. (1978). How to catch a fish. The representation and memory of common procedures. Discourse Processes, 1, 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, W. S. (1959). Gray Oral Reading test. New York: Slosson Educational Publications.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J., & Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–428.Google Scholar
Hiebert, E. H., Englert, C. S., & Brennan, S. (1983). Awareness of text structure in recognition and production of expository discourse. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1986). Reading disability research: An interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, M. B., & Gormley, K. (1982). Children's recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(1), 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, N., & Glock, M. D. (1978–1979). Comprehension of connected discourse: A study into the relationship between the structure of text and information recalled. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 10–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, J. (1984). The search for subtypes of specific learning disability. Journal of Learning Disability, 17, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menyuk, P. (1976). Relations between acquisition of phonology and reading. In Guthrie, J. (Ed.), Aspects of reading acquisition (pp. 89–110). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F. (1977). What is remembered from prose: A function of passage structure. In Freedle, R. D. (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 1, pp. 307–330). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F. (1981). Basic research on prose comprehension: A critical review. In Fisher, D. F. & Peters, C. W. (Eds.), Comprehension and the competent reader (pp. 8–35). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension in ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning word meanings from context: How broadly generalizable? (Technical Report No. 347). Urbana: University of Illinois Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
Nodine, B. F., Barenbaum, E., & Newcomer, P. (1985). Story composition by learning disabled, reading disabled, and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omanson, R. C. (1985). Knowing words and understanding texts. In Carr, T. H. (Ed.), The development of reading skills (New Directions for Child Development No. 27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children's comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Pehrsson, R. S., & Denner, P. R. (1988). Semantic organizers: Implications from reading and writing. Topics in Language Disorders, 8(3), 24–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pichert, J., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porch, B. E. (1971). Porch Index of Communicative Ability in Children. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Raphael, T. E., Englert, C. S., & Kirschner, B. M. (1986). The impact of text structure instruction within a process writing orientation on fifth and sixth grade students' comprehension and production of expository text (Research Report 177). East Lansing: Michigan State University Institute for Research on Teaching.Google Scholar
Raphael, T. E., & Kirschner, B. M. (1985). The effect of instruction in compare/contrast text structure on sixth-grade students' reading comprehension and writing productions (Research Report No. 161). East Lansing: Michigan State University Institute for Research on Teaching.Google Scholar
Reynolds, M. C., & Larkin, K. C. (1987). Noncategorical special education: Models for research and practice. In Wang, M. C., Educational research and practice: Vol. 1. Learner characteristics and adaptive education. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Richgels, D. J., McGee, L. M., Lomax, R. G., & Sheard, C. (1987). Awareness of four text structures: Effects on recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(2), 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richman, L., & Kitchell, M. (1981). Hyperlexia as a variation of developmental language disorder. Brain and Language, 12, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, F. P., & Spekman, N. J. (1989). Higher-order language processes and reading disabilities. In Kamhi, A. C. & Catts, H. W. (Eds.), Reading disabilities: A developmental language perspective (pp. 159–197). Boston: College Hill Press.Google Scholar
Ruddell, R. B. (1976). Psycholinguistic implications for a systems of communication model. In Singer, H. & Ruddell, R. B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Understanding and summarizing brief stories. In LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Samuels, S. J., & Kamil, M. L. (1984). Models of the reading process. In Pearson, P. D. (Ed.). Handbook of reading research (pp. 185–224). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Satz, P., & Morris, R. (1981). Learning disability subtypes: A review. In Pirozzolo, F. & Wittrock, M. (Eds.), Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in reading. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 778–803). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Shimmerlik, S. M. (1978). Organization theory and memory for prose: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 48, 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences on the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tierney, R. J., LaZansky, J., Raphael, T., & Cohen, P. R. (1983). Author's intentions and reader's interpretations (Technical Report No. 276). Urbana: University of Illinois Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
Tierney, R. J., & Mosenthal, J. H. (1981). The cohesion concept's relationship to the coherence of text (Technical Report No. 221). Urbana: University of Illinois Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
Vande, Kopple W. J. (1982). The given-new strategy of comprehension and some natural expository paragraphs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 11(5), 501–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Wallach, G. P., & Liebergott, J. W. (1984). Who shall be called “learning disabled”? Some new directions. In Wallach, G. P. & Butler, K. G. (Eds.), Language learning disabilities in school-aged children (pp. 1–14). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Waters, H. (1978). Superordinate–subordinate structure in semantic memory. The roles of comprehension and retrieval processes. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 587–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, B. L. (1980). Syntax beyond sentence: Anaphora. In Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C., & Brewer, W. F. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 141–164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, D., & Harris, J. (1984). Hyperlexia in infantile autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 14, 281–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wixson, K. K., & Lipson, M. Y. (1986). Reading (dis)ability: An interactionist perspective. In Raphael, T. (Ed.), The contexts of school-based literacy (pp. 131–162). New York: Random House.Google Scholar