Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying and discriminating expository text structures: An experiment with 4th and 5th grade struggling readers

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Students who struggle with reading have particular trouble with expository text. Instruction in text structures has been shown to be effective for improving expository reading comprehension. However, few studies have been conducted specifically with upper elementary aged struggling readers. To address these issues, we developed a new intervention, Structures, to improve the expository text comprehension of 4th and 5th grade struggling readers. In this study, we conducted a randomized control trial to assess the promise, usability, and feasibility of one component of the intervention designed to teach students to identify and discriminate the five text structures. Forty-five 4th and 5th grade struggling readers were randomly assigned to intervention or business-as-usual conditions. Students in the Structures condition were taught to identify and discriminate among the five text structures used by authors of expository text: description, sequence, cause/effect, compare/contrast, and problem/solution. At post-test, experimental students (n = 24) statistically significantly outperformed control students (n = 21) on a structures identification measure (d = 0.94). No other statistically significant differences were found. However, a practically (but not statistically) significant effect size was found on an oral retell measure (d = 0.29). Results also indicate the materials were usable for teachers and it was feasible to implement the intervention in a school setting. The implications and future directions of the development of remaining components in the Structures intervention are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1991). Word meanings. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armbruster, B. B. (1988). Why some children have trouble reading content area textbooks (Technical report no. 432). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading.

  • 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. Journal of Special Education, 31, 300–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699703100302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Worthy, J. (1995). Giving a text voice can improve students’ understanding. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 220–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/748033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & Mcnamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710801963951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broer, N. A., Aarnoutse, C. A. J., & Kieviet, F. K. (2002). The effects of instructing the structural aspects of text. Educational Studies, 28, 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569022000003681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

    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. http://0-www.jstor.org.library.unl.edu/stable/748074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children’s developing awareness of text structures in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.1.65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. E., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337–372. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312028002337.

    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(2), 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammann, L. A., & Stevens, R. J. (2003). Instructional approaches to improving students’ writing of compare-contrast essays: An experimental study. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 731–756. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3502_3.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • León, J. A., & Carretero, M. (1995). Intervention in comprehension and memory strategies: Knowledge and use of text structure. Learning and instruction, 5(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(95)00011-Q.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loxterman, J. A., Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1994). The effects of thinking aloud during reading on students’ comprehension of more or less coherent text. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 353–367. https://doi.org/10.2307/747784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGee, L. M. (1982). Awareness of text structure: Effects on children’s recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 581–590. https://doi.org/10.2307/747572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, E. M. (1990). Effects of graphic organizers and levels of text difficulty on less-proficient fifth-grade readers’ comprehension of expository text (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations (UMI No. 9030955).

  • MetaMetrics. (2009). Lexile-to-grade correspondence. Retrieved from https://lexile.com/about-lexile/grade-equivalent/grade-equivalent-chart/.

  • Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B. K. Britton & J. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 269–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    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.

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/747349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Middlemiss, W., Theodorou, E., Brezinski, K. L., McDougall, J., & Bartlett, B. J. (2002). Effects of 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. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.3.486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Wijekumar, K. K., & Lin, Y. (2011). Individualizing a web-based structure strategy intervention for fifth graders’ comprehension of nonfiction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 140–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Wijekumar, K., Middlemiss, W., Higley, K., Lei, P., Meier, C., et al. (2010). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for fifth- and seventh-grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 62–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Young, C. J., & Bartlett, B. J. (1989). Memory improved: Enhanced reading comprehension and memory across the life span through strategic text structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, T. L. (2006). A comparison of two instructional programs to develop strategies to improve reading comprehension (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations (UMI No. 3209082).

  • Raphael, T. E., & Kirschner, B. M. (1985). The effects of instruction in compare/contrast text structure on sixth-grade students’ reading comprehension and writing products (Research series No. 161). East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching, College of Education, Michigan State University.

  • 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 

  • Richgels, D., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roehling, J., Hebert, M., Nelson, J. R., & Bohaty, J. (2017). Text structure strategies for improving expository reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 71, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S. L. (2005). Challenging task in appropriate text: Designing discourse communities to increase the literacy growth of adolescent struggling readers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations (UMI No. 3178568).

  • Sáenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250202300105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, D. C., Coyne, M. D., Kwok, O. M., McDonagh, S., Harn, B. A., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2008). Indexing response to intervention a longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407313587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L., & Friend, M. (1986). Training learning disabled adolescents in a strategy for using text structure to aid recall of instructional prose. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spires, H., Gallini, J., & Riggsbee, J. (1992). Effects of schema-based and text structure-based cues on expository prose comprehension in 4th graders. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 307–320. http://0-www.jstor.org.library.unl.edu/stable/20152339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. M. (1980). Children’s memory for expository text after reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 399–411. https://doi.org/10.2307/747422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. B., & Williams, J. P. (1983). Comprehension of learning-disabled readers: Task and text variations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 743–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J., Stancavage, F., Myers, D., Schirm, A., Stuart, E., Vartivarian, S., … Haan, C. (2006). Closing the reading gap: First year findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers: Final report. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

  • Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. A. (2009). TOSREC: Test of silent reading efficiency and comprehension. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 331–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.853333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, S. A. (2007). Teaching expository text strategies to improve reading comprehension in low readers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations (UMI No. 3270462).

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P., & Pao, L. S. (2011). Teaching narrative and expository text structure to improve comprehension. In H. L. Swanson, K. R., Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of reading interventions (pp. 254–278). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

  • Williams, J. P., Pollini, S., Nubla-Kung, A. M., Snyder, A. E., Garcia, A., Ordynans, J. G., et al. (2014). An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P., Stafford, K. B., Lauer, K. D., Hall, K. M., & Pollini, S. (2009). Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a001315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery tests-revised (WRMT-R). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, through award R324B130005 to the University of Nebraska. We specifically thank Konstantin Blume, Kelsey Moreland, Jadee White, Julia Roehling, and Hallie Sharkey for assistance with the development of materials, data collection, and scoring. We also extend thanks to the teachers and students who participated in this project. Statements do not reflect the position or policy of the university, schools, or persons, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, Barkley Memorial Center, University of Nebraska—Lincoln, P.O. Box 830783, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0738, USA

    Michael Hebert

  2. 342 Barkley Memorial Center, University of Nebraska—Lincoln, P.O. Box 830738, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA

    Janet J. Bohaty

  3. 247B Barkley Memorial Center, University of Nebraska—Lincoln, P.O. Box 830738, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA

    J. Ron Nelson

  4. 273 Barkley Memorial Center, University of Nebraska—Lincoln, P.O. Box 830738, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA

    Matthew C. Lambert

Authors
  1. Michael Hebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janet J. Bohaty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Ron Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew C. Lambert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Hebert.

Additional information

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Institute or the US Department of Education.

Appendices

Appendix A: Structures intervention materials

  1. 1.

    Examples of power point presentation slides from lesson 2.

    figure a
  2. 2.

    Examples of quick start guide instructions from lesson 2.

    figure b
  3. 3.

    Examples of student workbook exercises from lesson 2.

    figure c

Appendix B: Teacher interview questions

For this research, we will limit our interview to questions about the program, effectiveness of the program, the program materials, ideas for improvement of the program, and ideas about who the program might benefit.

  1. 1.

    How effective do you think the Structures program was with your students?

    Follow-up: Who do you think the program might be most effective for?

  2. 2.

    What elements of the program were most effective? Please explain.

  3. 3.

    What elements of the program were least effective? Please explain.

  4. 4.

    Did you feel you had enough time to cover the material in the intervention?

  5. 5.

    Did you find the passages included relevant content and were at an appropriate reading level for your students?

  6. 6.

    How well did you think the passages matched the structures being taught?

  7. 7.

    Were some text structures that seemed easier to teach (and for your students to learn) than others? Please explain your thoughts about the text structures.

  8. 8.

    Did the training and materials provide enough support for you to teach Module 1 of the Structures intervention effectively? What could have helped improve this?

  9. 9.

    Did you find the power-point to be an effective teaching tool for this intervention? Please elaborate on your answer.

  10. 10.

    How could the Structures intervention be improved?

Appendix C: Example fidelity checklist form

figure d

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hebert, M., Bohaty, J.J., Nelson, J.R. et al. Identifying and discriminating expository text structures: An experiment with 4th and 5th grade struggling readers. Read Writ 31, 2115–2145 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9826-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9826-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation