Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 31, Issue 9, pp 2147–2164 | Cite as

Description and interactions of informative text structure knowledge and skills of French-speaking Grade 6 students

  • Catherine Turcotte
  • Rachel Berthiaume
  • Pier-Olivier Caron
Article
First Online:
  • 99 Downloads

Abstract

This study was conducted in the province of Québec, Canada, among French-speaking Grade 6 students (n = 175) in the context of a school curriculum that does not clearly address text structure and main idea instruction. It aims to understand whether these students can identify informative text structures and main ideas in isolated paragraphs, comprehend main ideas and text structure in an informative text, and write a short structured informative text. It also describes relationships between these knowledge and skills coming from different reading and writing tasks. Three assessments relative to informative text structures were administered: a multiple-choice test on text structure knowledge and identification of main ideas, a reading comprehension test, and a short writing task. Results revealed that students performed better in the multiple-choice assessment compared to other assessments. Correlations between variables stemming from the three assessments were significant but their effect sizes were low to moderate. A hypothesized model was investigated via a path analysis suggesting that structure knowledge and main idea identification influence reading comprehension, which then influence writing.

Keywords

Text structure Reading Writing Informative texts Main idea 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by Fonds de recherches société et culture du Québec (Grant No. 2017-LC-196854).

References

  1. Abbott, R., Berninger, V., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 281–298.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed, Y., Wagner, R. K., & Lopez, D. (2014). Developmental relations between reading and writing at the word, sentence, and text levels: A latent change score analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 419–434.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Whitaker, D., Sylvester, L., & Nolen, S. B. (1995). Integrating low and high-level skills in instructional protocols for writing disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 18, 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flower’s model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. C. Butterfield & J. Carlson (Eds.), Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 57–81). London: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bohaty, J. J. (2015). The effects of expository text structure instruction on the reading outcomes of 4th and 5th graders experiencing reading difficulties. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.Google Scholar
  8. Costa, L. J. C., Edwards, C. N., & Hooper, S. R. (2016). Writing disabilities and reading disabilities in elementary school students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(1), 17–30.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714565461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dickson, S. (1999). Integrating reading and writing to teach compare-contrast text structure: A research-based methodology. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15(1), 49–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elbro, C., Oakhill, J., Megherbi, H., & Seigneuric, A. (2017). Aspects of pronominal resolution as markers of reading comprehension: The role of antecedent variability. Reading and Writing, 30(4), 813–827.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9702-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children’s developing awareness of text structure in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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(2), 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Favart, M., & Passerault, J. M. (1999). Aspects textuels du fonctionnement et du développement des connecteurs: approche en production. L'Année Psychologique, 99, 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitzgerald, J. (2013). Constructing instruction for struggling writers: What and how. Annals of Dyslexia, 1(63), 80–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-011-0063-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (2014). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  18. Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710–744.  https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 879–896.  https://doi.org/10.1037/A0029185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  21. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google 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, 108(5), 609–629.  https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Irwin, J. (2006). Teaching reading comprehension processes. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  25. Kintsch, W. (2013). Revisiting the construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 807–839). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Langer, J. A. (1986). Reading, writing, and understanding: An analysis of the construction of meaning. Written Communication, 3(2), 219–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martel, V., Lévesque, J. Y., & Aubin-Horth, S. (2012). Compréhension en lecture au primaire: actualisation des pratiques enseignantes. Nouveaux cahiers de la recherche en éducation, 15(1), 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mason, L. H., & Hedin, L. (2011). Reading science text: Challenges for students with learning disabilities and considerations for teachers. Leaming Disabilities Research and Practice, 26(4), 214–222.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mesnager, J. (2002). Pour une étude de la difficulté des textes, ou la lisibilité revisitée. Le Français aujourd’hui, 137, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meyer, B. J. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures and problems. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 269–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Meyer, B. J., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mouchon, S., Fayol, M., & Gombert, J. E. (1991). L’emploi de quelques connecteurs dans les récits : une tentative de comparaison oral/écrit chez des enfants de 5 à 11 ans. Repères, 3, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2011). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  34. Parodi, G. (2007). Reading–writing connections: Discourse-oriented research. Reading and Writing, 20(3), 225–250.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9029-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pearson, P. D., & Duke, N. K. (2002). Comprehension instruction in the primary grades. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 247–258). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  36. Puranik, C. S., & AlOtaiba, S. (2012). Examining the contribution of handwriting and spelling to written expression in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1523–1546.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raphael, T. E., & Kirschner, B. W. (1985). The effects of instruction in compare/contrast text structure on sixth-grade students’ reading comprehension and writing products (research series 161). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.Google Scholar
  38. Rasch, G. (1980/1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ray, M. N., & Meyer, B. J. (2011). Individual differences in children’s knowledge of expository text structures: A review of literature. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
  40. Reynolds, G. A., & Perin, D. (2009). A comparison of text structure and self-regulated writing strategies for composing from sources by middle school students. Reading Psychology, 30(3), 265–300.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802411547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Smith, T. F., & Hahn, A. L. (1989). Intermediate-grade students’ sensitivity to macrostructure intrusions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21(2), 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stage, F., Carter, H., & Nora, A. (2004). Path analysis: An introduction and analysis of a decade of research. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(1), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sweet, A., & Snow, C. (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension: Solving problems in the teaching of literacy. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  45. Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(2), 134–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turcotte, C., & Talbot, N. (2017). Élaboration d’une épreuve de compréhension en lecture en 6e année du primaire favorisant l’articulation enseignement-apprentissage-évaluation. Revue mesure et évaluation en éducation, 40(3), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wijekumar, K., Meyer, B. J. F., Lei, P., Cheng, W., Xuejun, J., & Joshi, R. M. (2017). Evidence of an intelligent tutoring system as a mindtool to promote strategic memory of expository texts and comprehension with children in grades 4 and 5. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(7), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students a focus on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams, J. P., & Pao, L. S. (2013). Developing a new intervention to teach text structure at the elementary level. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 361–374). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département d’éducation et formation spécialiséesUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Département de didactique, Faculté des sciences de l’éducationUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Département des Sciences humaines, Lettres et CommunicationsTELUQ – Université du QuébecQuebec CityCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options