Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Promise and feasibility of teaching expository text structure: a primary grade pilot study

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research to guide text structure interventions for the primary grades is very limited, yet as early as in kindergarten, many state standards increasingly emphasize exposure to challenging expository texts. The purpose of the present study was to provide preliminary evidence of the feasibility and promise (or the effects) of three brief text structure interventions for kindergarten, first, and second graders who had average to low-average comprehension and relatively weak vocabulary skills. A total of 172 students participated (with 52, 62, and 58 in kindergarten, first and second grades, respectively). Students were randomly assigned within classrooms to one of three conditions: sequencing, compare and contrast, or cause and effect. Interventionists provided the interventions for four weeks to small groups of students. The findings demonstrated significant growth for all conditions on the taught text structure items of a researcher-made measure; significant growth was also reported on standardized measures of comprehension and oral language measures in the compare and contrast and cause and effect conditions, but not for sequencing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and the relation to knowledge. Memory and Cognition, 29, 850–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciullo, S., Lo, Y. L. S., Wanzek, J., & Reed, D. K. (2016). A synthesis of research on informational text reading interventions for elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: CCSSO & National Governors Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, C. M., Phillips, B. M., Kaschack, M., Apel, K., Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., et al. (2014). Comprehension tools for teachers: Reading for understanding from pre-kindergarten through fourth grade. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 379–401. doi:10.1007/s1064801492671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224. doi:10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 93–105. doi:10.2307/1510216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225. doi:10.1177/00222194070400030301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haager, D., & Vaughn, S. (2013). The Common Core State Standards and reading: Interpretations and implications for elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research, 28, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K. M., Sabey, B. L., & McClellan, M. (2005). Expository text comprehension: Helping primary-grade teachers use expository texts to full advantage. Reading Psychology, 26, 211–234. doi:10.1080/02702710590962550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hebert, M., Bohaty, J. J., Nelson, J. R., & Brown, J. A. (2016). The effects of text structure instruction on expository reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 609–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the discipline: The challenges of adolescent Corwin literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesmer, H. A., Cunningham, J. W., & Hiebert, E. H. (2012). Toward a theoretical model of primary-grade text complexity: Learning from the past, anticipating the future. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(3), 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F. (1987). Following the author’s top-level organization: An important skill for reading comprehension. In R. J. Tierney, P. L. Anders, & J. Nichols Mitchell (Eds.), Understanding readers’ understanding: Theory and practice (pp. 59–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., & Poon, L. W. (2004). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text. In Robert B. Ruddell & Norman J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 810–851). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Ray, M. N., & Middlemiss, W. (2012). Children’s use of comparative text signals: the relationship between age and comprehension ability. Discours, 10, 1–25. doi:10.4000/discours.8637. (En ligne).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., & Wijekumar, K. (2016). Intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy: A reading strategy tutor. In S. A. Crossley & D. S. McNamara (Eds.), Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction (pp. 82–103). New York, NY: Routledge Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248–266). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy and the National Center for Family Literacy.

    Google Scholar 

  • NICHD National Reading Panel. (2000). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Reading Panel report: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reutzel, D. R., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C. (2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information/texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(3), 276–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cooke, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary grade students a focus on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 6–18. doi:10.1177/00224669050390010201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, K. B., DeSisto, L. A., & deCani, J. S. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 538–550. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P., Kao, J. C., Pao, L. S., Ordynans, J. G., Atkins, J. G., Cheng, R., et al. (2016). Close analysis of texts with structure (CATS): An intervention to teach reading comprehension to at-risk second graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1061–1077. doi:10.1037/edu0000117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P., Nubla-Kung, A. M., Pollini, S., Stafford, K., Williams, J. P., Nubla-Kung, A. M., et al. (2007). Teaching cause-effect text structure through social studies content to at-risk second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 111–120. doi:10.1177/00222194070400020201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III Test of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA

    Stephanie Al Otaiba

  2. University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

    Carol McDonald Connor

  3. University Academy, Panama City, FL, USA

    Elizabeth Crowe

Authors
  1. Stephanie Al Otaiba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carol McDonald Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth Crowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Al Otaiba.

Ethics declarations

Funding

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305F1000027 to Florida State University as part of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C.M. & Crowe, E. Promise and feasibility of teaching expository text structure: a primary grade pilot study. Read Writ 31, 1997–2015 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9769-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9769-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation