Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:50:56.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Comprehension Monitoring Instruction for Reading Disabled Students With and Without Tinted Glasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Lorna K.S. Chan  and
Gregory L.W. Robinson
Lorna K.S. Chan
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle
Gregory L.W. Robinson
Affiliation:
Hunter Institute of Higher Education
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Forty disabled readers, half with tinted lenses and half without, and 40 average readers, half matched with the disabled readers on chronological age and half on reading age, were randomly assigned to either a general or a specific instruction condition. In both treatments subjects were shown how to monitor text for internal inconsistency. In addition, the specific instruction condition provided explicit instruction in how to use a cross-referencing technique to evaluate the internal consistency of a given text. Results indicated that the disabled readers with tinted lenses resembled the CA-match average readers, but differed from the disabled readers without lenses in not requiring specific instruction in the use of evaluative standards for comprehension monitoring. But at the same time, the lenses group had not quite attained the level of competence observed in the CA-match average readers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , May 1989 , pp. 4 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1989

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

Adler, L. & Atwood, M. (1987). Poor readers, zuhat do they really see on the page: A study of a major cause of dyslexia. Research report of Los Angeles County Office of Education.Google Scholar
Allington, R. (1977). If they don’t read much, how they ever gonna be good? Journal of Reading, 21, 57–61.Google Scholar
Andrews, R.J. (1973). St. Lucia Graded Word Reading Test. Brisbane: Teaching and Testing Resources. Google Scholar
August, D.L., Flavell, J.H., & Clift, R. (1984). Comparison of comprehension monitoring of skilled and less skilled readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, L., (1984). Children’s effective use of standards for evaluating their comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (4), 588–597.Google Scholar
Baker, L., & Brown, A. (1984).Cognitive monitoring in reading. In Flood, J. (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension (pp. 21–44). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Chan, L.K.S. (1988). Comprehension monitoring in students with reading difficulties. Australian Educational Researcher, 15(1), 19–39.Google Scholar
Chan, L.K.S., Cole, P.G., & Barfett, S. (1987). Comprehension monitoring: Detection and identification of text inconsistencies by LD and normal students. learning Difficulty Quarterly, 10, 114–124.Google Scholar
Clay, M.M., & Imlach, R.H. (1971). Juncture, pitch and stress as reading behavior variables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 133–139.Google Scholar
Flavell, J.H. (1970). Developmental studies of mediated memory. In H.W. Reese & L.P. Lipsitt (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 181–221). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R.M. (1976). A comparison of the reading comprehension processes in good and poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 11, 623–659.Google Scholar
Harris, A., & Sipay, E. (1980). How to increase reading ability: A guide to developmental and remedial methods. New York: Longman. Google Scholar
Irlen, H. (1983). Successful treatment of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the First Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Annaheim, California, August 1983.Google Scholar
Jordan, D.R. (1972). Dyslexia in the classroom. Chicago: Bell & Howell.Google Scholar
Kirby, J.R., (in press). Style, strategy and skill in reading. In Schmeck, R.R. (Ed.), Styles and strategies in reading. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Kirby, J.R., & Williams, N.H. (in press). Learning problems: An integrated approach. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
L’ovegrove, W. (1984). Dyslexia and the vision factor. Education News, November.Google Scholar
Markman, E.M. (1977). Realizing that you don’t understand: A preliminary investigation. Child Development, 48, 986–992.Google Scholar
Markman, E.M. (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Elementary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643–655.Google Scholar
Meares, O. (1980). Figure/background, brightness, contrast and reading disabilities. Visible Language, 14(1), 13–29.Google Scholar
O’Connor, P.D., & Sofo, F. (1988). Dyslexia and tinted lenses. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 20 (1), 10–12.Google Scholar
Paris, S.G., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 13, 5–22.Google Scholar
Robinson, G., & Miles, J. (1987). The use of coloured overlays to improve visual processing - A preliminary survey. The Exceptional Child, 34 65–70.Google Scholar
Stein, J., & Fowler, S. (1985). Effect of monocular occlusion on visuomotor perception and reading in dyslexic children. The Lancet, July 13, pp. 69–73.Google Scholar
Torgesen, J. (1977). The role of nonspecific factors in the task performance of learning disabled children: a theoretical assessment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 33–39.Google Scholar
Torgesen, J.K. (1985). Memory processes in reading disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 350–357.Google Scholar
Whiting, P. (1985). How difficult can reading be? New insight into reading problems. Journal of the English Teachers’ Association, 49, 49–55.Google Scholar