Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 31, Issue 9, pp 2041–2064 | Cite as

An analysis of the ecological components within a text structure intervention

  • Andrea L. Beerwinkle
  • Kausalai Wijekumar
  • Sharon Walpole
  • Rachael Aguis
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The Component Model of Reading expanded upon the Simple View of Reading by adding an ecological and psychological component. Elements of the ecological component include teacher knowledge, information provided in textbooks, and teacher instructional practices. In this study, the authors examined the extent of teacher knowledge about text structure, the extent to which textbooks focused on text structure related skills and strategies as well as the percentage each skill and strategy was covered in lessons and teacher instructional practices. Such analysis shows that although text structure interventions may have positive effects on student reading comprehension, there are multiple elements of the ecological component that may be counteracting the benefits of the intervention. First, teachers have a limited knowledge of the five common text structures. Second, textbooks systematically minimize text structure instruction and only cover comprehension skills and strategies sporadically throughout a year-long curriculum. Third, teacher learning of text structures and change in practice was moderated by these ecological factors including textbook scheduled instruction and administrator support.

Keywords

Ecological components Teacher knowledge Textbook content Teaching practices Text structure 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afflerbach, P., Blachowicz, C., Boyd, C. D., Izquierdo, E., Juel, C., Kame’enui, E., et al. (2011a). Reading Street (Grade 3, vol. 1). Glenview, Illinois: Pearson.Google Scholar
  3. Afflerbach, P., Blachowicz, C., Boyd, C. D., Izquierdo, E., Juel, C., Kame’enui, E., et al. (2011b). Reading Street (Grade 3, vol. 1). Glenview, Illinois: Pearson.Google Scholar
  4. Afflerbach, P., Blachowicz, C., Boyd, C. D., Izquierdo, E., Juel, C., Kame’enui, E., et al. (2011c). Reading Street (Grade 4, vol. 1). Glenview, Illinois: Pearson.Google Scholar
  5. Afflerbach, P., Blachowicz, C., Boyd, C. D., Izquierdo, E., Juel, C., Kame’enui, E., et al. (2011d). Reading Street (Grade 4, vol. 2). Glenview, Illinois: Pearson.Google Scholar
  6. Afflerbach, P., Blachowicz, C., Boyd, C. D., Izquierdo, E., Juel, C., Kame’enui, E., et al. (2011e). Reading Street (Grade 5, vol. 1). Glenview, Illinois: Pearson.Google Scholar
  7. Afflerbach, P., Blachowicz, C., Boyd, C. D., Izquierdo, E., Juel, C., Kame’enui, E., et al. (2011f). Reading Street (Grade 5, vol. 2). Glenview, Illinois: Pearson.Google Scholar
  8. Applegate, A. J., & Applegate, M. D. (2004). The peter effect: Reading habits and attitudes of preservice teachers. The Reading Teacher, 57, 554–563.Google Scholar
  9. Bakken, J. P., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 300–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. K. (2002). Teaching text structure to improve reading comprehension. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, 229–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baumann, J. F., Chard, D. J., Cooks, J., Cooper, J. D., Gersten, R., Lipson, M., et al. (2011a). Texas Journeys (Grade 3, vol.1). Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  12. Baumann, J. F., Chard, D. J., Cooks, J., Cooper, J. D., Gersten, R., Lipson, M., et al. (2011b). Texas Journeys (Grade 3, vol.2). Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  13. Baumann, J. F., Chard, D. J., Cooks, J., Cooper, J. D., Gersten, R., Lipson, M., et al. (2011c). Texas Journeys (Grade 4). Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  14. Baumann, J. F., Chard, D. J., Cooks, J., Cooper, J. D., Gersten, R., Lipson, M., et al. (2011d). Texas Journeys (Grade 5). Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  15. Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Hougen, M. (2012). Peter effect in the preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 526–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Chiu, M. M., McBride-Chang, C., & Lin, D. (2012). Ecological, psychological, and cognitive components of reading difficulties: Testing the component model of reading in fourth graders across 38 countries. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Connor, C. M., Son, S., Hindman, A. H., & Morrison, F. J. (2005). Teacher qualifications, classroom practices, family characteristics, and preschool experience: Complex effects on first graders’ vocabulary and early reading outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 343–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foorman, B. R., Petscher, Y., Stanley, C., & Trunckenmiller, A. (2016). Latent profiles of reading and language and their association with standardized reading outcomes in kindergarten through tenth grade. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1237597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hebert, M., Bohaty, J. J., Nelson, J. R., & Brown, J. (2016). The effects of text structure instruction on expository reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 609–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoover, W., & Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2012). Componential model of reading (CMR): Validation studies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 387–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Graham, L., Ocker-Dean, E., Smith, D. L., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2009). Do textbooks used in university reading education courses conform to the instructional recommendations of the National Reading Panel? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 458–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKenna, M., & Stahl, S. (2009). Assessment for reading instruction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  27. Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North -Holland.Google Scholar
  28. Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of the top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyer, B. J. F., Middlemiss, W., Theodorou, E., Brezinski, K. L., McDougall, J., & Bartlett, B. J. (2002). Effects of text structure strategy instruction delivered to fifth-grade children using the internet with and without the aid of older adult tutors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 486–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meyer, B. J. F., & Wijekumar, K. (2014). Why fifth- and seventh-graders submit off-task responses to a web-based reading comprehension tutor rather than expected learning responses. Computers & Education, 75, 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wijekumar, K. K., Meyer, B. J. F., & Lei, P. (2012). Large-scale randomized control trial with 4th graders using intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy to improve nonfiction reading comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 986–1013.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9263-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wijekumar, K., Meyer, B. J. F., & Lei, P.-W. (2013). High-fidelity implementation of web-based intelligent tutoring system improves fourth and fifth graders content area reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 68, 366–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wikejumar, K., & (K.), Meyer, B. J. F., Lei, P., (2017). Web-based text structure strategy instruction improves seventh graders’ content area reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, Advance online publication..  https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wijekumar, K., Meyer, B. J. F., Lei, P., Lin, Y., Johnson, L. A., Spielvogel, J. A., et al. (2014). Multisite randomized controlled trial examining intelligent tutoring of structure strategy for 5th-grade readers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7, 331–357.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.853333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2015. Available at http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading?grade=4 on April 27, 2017.
  36. National Reading Panel (U.S.), & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: reports of the subgroups. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
  37. Ortiz, M., Folsom, J. S., Al Otaiba, S., Greulich, L., Thomas-Tate, S., & Connor, C. M. (2012). The component model of reading: Predicting first grade reading performance of culturally diverse students from ecological, psychological, and cognitive factors assessed at kindergarten entry. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 406–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teacher’s knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 224–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides.Google Scholar
  41. Spires, H. A., Gallini, J., & Riggsbee, J. (1992). Effects of schema-based and text structure-based cues on expository prose comprehension in fourth graders. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 307–320.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992.9943868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea L. Beerwinkle
    • 1
  • Kausalai Wijekumar
    • 1
  • Sharon Walpole
    • 2
  • Rachael Aguis
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Teaching, Learning, and CultureTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  3. 3.Rachael AguisUniversity of MaltaMsidaMalta

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options