Text Organization 17

Text structure usually refers to two types of text: narrative and expository.
Narrative is more common than expository text and is usually a story written to
entertain the reader (Weaver & Kintsch, 1991). By comparison, common expository.
texts include persuasion, explanation, comparison/contrast, enumeration or
collection, problem-solution, and description, designed primarily to inform the
reader (Weaver & Kintsch, 1991) (see Figure 3). The distinction between narrative
and expository text is not a simple dichotomy, however. For example, novelists may
write stories to persuade or inform, just as writers of expository text may write to
entertain (Pearson & Fielding, 1991). Following is a discussion of narrative and
expository text structures and their differing effects upon readers, student awareness
of text structures, strategic use of text structures, relation of text structures to
learners, and implications and interventions.

Types of Text Structures

Narrative text structure. The most familiar and most studied (Graesser et al.,
1991) text structure is narrative text or stories. Although there is no prevailing
consensus on the definition of narrative text and some debate over the features of a
story, narrative text depicts events, actions, emotions, or situations that people in a
culture experience (Graesser et al., 1991). A story is written to excite, inform, or
entertain readers (Pearson & Fielding, 1991) and may report actual or fictitious
experiences (Graesser et al., 1991). While there are no clear boundaries. between
categories, narratives include myths, epics, fables, folktales, short stories, novels,
tragedy, and comedy. The depictions of events are organized so that the audience
can eventually anticipate them. That is, readers must be able to infer motives of
characters and the causal relations among events.

Narratives normally involye (a) animate beings as characters with goals and
motives; (b) temporal and spatial placements usually presented at the beginning of

the story; (c) a problem or goal faced by the main character that imitates a major goal;

aU


Text Organization 38

particular promise for students with LD as they seem to lack the ability to engage in
strategic activities and do not spontaneously access and use cognitive strategies
when these are needed (Seidenberg, 1989).

Strategies to identify the main idea in text appear particularly important.
Because the ability to comprehend main ideas differentiates good and poor readers
and seems directly related to general comprehension abilities, Seidenberg (1989)
emphasized teaching students strategies to identify main ideas using topic sentences,
and headings and subheadings. She noted, however, that main idea statements are
often omitted from texts and that students demonstrated difficulties in using or
comprehending text (e.g., summarizing, integrating important information) when
there was no explicit main idea. When main idea statements are not explicitly stated
or located in the beginning of the paragraph, students with LD who have not
learned to generate main idea statements are unable to use a main idea strategy to
derive or recall information from content area textbooks. Consequently, Seidenberg
concluded that students with LD require instruction in how to invent main idea
statements.

How to Teach

The secondary and primary studies reviewed for this synthesis provided strong
support for explicit and direct instruction in text presentation and text structure. In
addition, Seidenberg (1989) argued for explicit instruction in how to recognize or
produce different text structure types. Pearson and Fielding (1991) cited studies that
used either a model-lead-test or model-guided practice-independent practice format.
This discussion of how to teach is brief. Relevant details and examples are presented
by Dickson, Simmons, and Kameenui (1995) in a review of text organization and
instructional implications.

Generally, instructional planning began with targeting the skills to be taught

(Seidenberg, 1989) and subsequently developing lessons to teach the components of


Text Organization 34

solution, and effect with teacher help; (c) write problem-solution-effect text structure
notes; (d) develop timelines; and (e) write definitions of text-identified vocabulary
words. Average scores on tests ranged from 78% to 85%. Students demonstrated the
most difficulty developing problem and solution statements, a skill that requires
comprehension skills. Only toward the end of the intervention were students able
to begin to state the problem and solution in their own words. More research is
needed to determine whether students could independently apply the strategy to
published textbooks or other texts (Kinder & Bursuck, 1991).

Zabrucky and Ratner (1992) suggested that teachers be concerned not only with
increasing students’ awareness of different text structures, but also with informing
students of the impact text structures have on evaluation, regulation, and memory.
They suggested generalizing metacognitive skills to more difficult expository
passages after training with narrative passages.

Visual representations of text. Pearson and Fielding (1991) reported that 13
series of studies teaching students to study or create visual representations of key
ideas in text (e.g., networking, flowcharting, Con Struct, mapping, conceptual
frames, graphic organizers, conceptual mapping) benefited reading comprehension.
Armbruster, Anderson, and colleagues (cited in Pearson & Fielding, 1991) reasoned
that instruction should also include opportunities to use and construct graphic
organizers. Two types of visual representations of text, networking (Dansereau &
colleagues, cited in Pearson & Fielding, 1991) and Flowcharting (Geva, cited in
Pearson & Fielding, 1991) have frequently been found to be more effective for low-
performing students than for high-performing students (Pearson & Fielding, 1991).
It may be that high-performing students develop their own strategies, while low-
performing students require careful instruction in strategies (Pearson & Fielding,

1991).


Text Organization 43

However, it may be that simply presenting text in a clear, well-organized
manner is not sufficient. Research suggests that students' awareness of that
presentation and strategic use of text are also needed to enable students to identify
relevant and nonrelevant information, main ideas, and relations between ideas.
Normally achieving students appear to strategically use text organization to identify
main ideas and relations between ideas. However, if main ideas are not clearly
stated, even normally achieving students have demonstrated difficulty identifying
important information, summarizing, and integrating information.

Unlike normally achieving students, diverse learners appear less aware of text
organization and its use as a strategy. Many comprehension difficulties of diverse
learners have been attributed to their deficits in text structure awareness. For
example, they have demonstrated difficulty identifying main ideas, and
discriminating between relevant and nonrelevant information. While
demonstrating a knowledge of strategies, they fail to demonstrate a use of strategies.

The first two convergent areas and the importance of students' awareness and
strategic use of text presentation lead to the third convergent area — explicit
instruction in text organization facilitates comprehension. Research supports
instruction in the physical presentation of text, text structures, and strategic use of
text organization to benefit reading comprehension. Research evidence also
supports explicit instruction that follows a general pattern of (a) explaining the skill
or component of text structure; (b) telling the importance; (c) modeling how, when,
and where to use the skill, and how to evaluate the effectiveness of the skill; (d)
providing guided and independent practice; (e) teaching for transfer; and (f)
evaluating.

The effect on reading comprehension of the presentation and structure of text
is more global than local. Well-presented and structured text results in better

comprehension of main ideas and relations between ideas than poorly presented or


Text Organization W

in text (a) elementary-age and college-age students had difficulty inventing topic
sentences (Brown & Day, cited in Seidenberg, 1989); (b) college-age students had
difficulty integrating and summarizing information from different paragraphs of a
reading passage (Brown & Day; cited in Seidenberg, 1989); and (c) summarization
training was not sufficient to improve sixth-grade students’ comprehension
(Rinehart, Stahl, & Erickson, cited in Seidenberg, 1989).

The clarity and coherence with which main ideas are presented in text has been
found to facilitate their identification (Kieras; Lorch & Lorch; cited in Seidenberg,
1989). In her review of text-processing research, Seidenberg described clear and
coherent presentation as including (a) ordering topics systematically (Kieras; Lorch
& Lorch; cited in Seidenberg, 1989); (b) stating a good topic organization in the
opening paragraph (Kieras; Lorch & Lorch; cited in Seidenberg, 1989); (c) placing the
topic sentence of a paragraph at the beginning of a paragraph rather than embedding
or inferring it (Kieras; Lorch & Lorch; cited in Seidenberg, 1989); and (d) arranging
supporting details in recognizable patterns that exemplify superordinate/
subordinate relations (Hare & Mulligan; Memory; Meyer et al.; Pearson & Johnson;
Slater, Graves, & Piche; cited in Seidenberg, 1989).

Cues to the relations between important ideas. Another skill that is important
for comprehension is the ability to form relations between important information
in text. Textbooks make interrelations between information clear by using semantic
and syntactic cues. Semantic cues include topic sentences to signal text organization.
For example, “The production of woolen yarn is a long and difficult process,” signals
sequence text structure (Seidenberg, 1989). Syntactic cues include noncontent signal
words such as “first,” “second,” and “finally” to indicate sequential organization
(Seidenberg, 1989) and “in contrast,” “but,” and “similarly” to indicate

compare/contrast text structure (Englert & Thomas, 1987). Headings and

14


Areas of
Convergence |

___ Well-presented text
facilitates comprehension

|___ Text structure and student

are highly related to
comprehension

Explicit instruction in text

facilitates comprehension

awareness of text structure

L_ presentation and structures |

\-

Dimensions of well-presented text

Student awareness of physical presentation of
text

Strategic use of well-presented text

Relations between well-presented text and
types of learners

Implications and interventions

Types of text structures

Student awareness of text structures
Strategic use of text structures

Relations between text structures and types of
learners

Implications and interventions

What to teach

How to teach
Caveats for instruction

Relations between instruction and types of

learners


Secondary Sources Continued

& expository

Authors Text Participants Purpose
Organization
Seidenberg, 1989 Physical Students with LD Review text-processing literature and
presentation propose instructional approaches for

students with learning disabilities

Talbott, Lloyd, &
Tankersley, in press

Students with LD; 48
studies

Review comprehension
interventions

achievers, 18 normal
achievers in each

Weaver & Kintsch, 1991 | Expository Types of readers were Review models and studies of
not described expository text comprehension
Primary Sources __
Authors Text Participants Purpose
Organization
Casteel, 1990 Physical, Grade 8; 25 high & 25 Intervention; compared chunked and
“chunks” low readers traditional text and ability level;
matched-pairs group design
Englert & Thomas, 1987 | Expository Grades 3 & 4; grades 6 & | Descriptive; compared text structure
7; 18 LD, 18 low knowledge of description,

enumeration, sequence, and
comparison/contrast for young and
old readers; group design

an
S



Text Organization

Figure Captions
Figure_1. Secondary and primary sources for a synthesis of the research on text
organization and its relation to reading comprehension.
Figure 2. Overview of a synthesis of the research on text organization and its
relation to reading comprehension.
Figure 3. Text organization includes physical presentation and text structures.

52


Text Organization 21

Differing effects of narrative and expository text structures. Narrative and
expository texts have been found to have differential effects upon readers, with
narrative appearing easier to comprehend and monitor than expository text.
Zabrucky and Ratner (1992) examined the effects of eight narrative and eight
expository passages on the comprehension monitoring and recall of 16 good and 16
poor sixth-grade readers. Some passages contained a sentence that was inconsistent
with the rest of the passage, while other passages did not. Text was presented on a
computer screen, one sentence at a time. Reading times and students’ verbal reports
were used to examine students’ evaluation of their comprehension and look-backs
to inconsistencies during reading.

For both good and poor readers, text type affected recall and comprehension
monitoring. Students recalled significantly more idea units from narrative than
expository passages. When comparing texts with inconsistencies to texts without
inconsistencies, students looked back more frequently for inconsistent narrative
than incons‘stent expository text, suggesting that inconsistencies were more
apparent in narrative than in expository text. Students were also better able to
verbally report on passage consistency after reading narrative than expository
passages. Students reread expository passages more frequently than narrative
passages when the passages did not contain inconsistent information, indicating
that students found expository text more problematic than narrative text.
Additionally, students reread more frequently when inconsistent text was adjacent
to the correct sentence than when it was far from the correct sentence.

Student Awareness of Text Structures

Although well-organized text structure appears important to reading
comprehension, it may not be sufficient to facilitate comprehension. Often
“awareness” of text structures adds an important dimension. In the text structure

literature, various terms are used to describe the reader’s awareness of text structure:

raw)
wr


Text Organization 39

the skill or strategy. Instruction in the primary and secondary studies followed a
gene ~1 pattern of (a) explaining the skill or component of text structure; (b) telling
the importance; (c) modeling how, when, and where to use the skill, and how to
evaluate the effectiveness of the skill; (d) providing guided and independent
practice; (e) teaching for transfer; and (f) evaluating. Seidenberg (1989) suggested
including activities in which students actively participate in the learning process
and apply and generalize the given skill.

Additionally, the studies reviewed provided evidence for the effectiveness of
sequencing instruction from less to more complex text structures, models, and tasks.
Examples and details for sequencing instruction are presented in a review of text
organization and instructional implications (Dickson, Simmons, & Kameenui,
1995), in a discussion of mediated scaffolding.

Caveats for Instruction

Englert and Thomas (1987) cautioned that intervention studies are essential to
determine whether development of text structure knowledge results in long-lasting
improvements in comprehension. While not pertaining to text structure per se,
another caveat comes from the results of a review by Talbott et al. (in press), which
was specifically directed at reading comprehension interventions for students with
LD. These authors reviewed 48 studies examining the effects of interventions
designed to improve the comprehension of students identified with LD-and that
included a control group. Because few studies reported details about students (e.g.,
ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status), Talbott et al. (in press) concluded that
generalization of results are limited. “We don’t know whether reading
comprehension interventions are effective for diverse groups of learners; for girls
and boys, or for students with diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds, and at all

economic levels” (p. 26). Though researchers have developed effective methods to


Text Organization 2

Text Organization and Its Relation to Reading Comprehension:
A Synthesis of the Research

Reading comprehension is a multifaceted process, with performance indicators
ranging from simple recall to interpretations of Shakespearean plays, analyses of
concepts, and applications in new contexts. Factors such as 1Q, instructional
approach, task dimensions, motivation, and time on task affect comprehension.
Within the broad area of reading comprehension, this synthesis focuses on the
relation between the organization of text and reading comprehension.

The choice of this focus and its subsequent limitations is deliberate. Textbooks
may be the most predominant instructional tool in America (Esler & Esler, cited in
Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1993; Goodlad, cited ir Kinder & Bursuck, 1991), with
educators depending largely upon them as the basis for their instruction (Kinder &
Bursuck, 1991). Although research suggests that textbook organization affects
reading comprehension, evaluations of textbooks have found many to be poorly
written. Poorly written textbooks may play a part in the comprehension difficulties
of poor readers, especially those who have difficulty recalling content, organizing
information, identifying main ideas, and discriminating between relevant and
nonrelevant information.

In ade tiptive narrative of social studies textbooks and instructional
approaches, Kinder and Bursuck (1991) reported on critiques of social studies
textbooks by six different groups of evaluators. For example, Kinder and Bursuck
(1991) reported that Armbruster and colleagues found many poorly written,
incoherent textbooks that often failed to use precise language or make clear the
relations between concepts, ideas, and sentences. Further, American history
textbooks frequently (a) did not make obvious the major concepts of history (White,
cited in Kinder & Bursuck, 1991); (b) provided a brief mention of everyting with
little, if any, analysis (Tyson & Woodward; Zakariya; cited in Kinder & Bursuck,


Text Organization 32

was defined as the most important or central ideas in a story (Newby et al., 1989) or
the story grammar elements (Gurney et al., 1990). Although students’
comprehension of qualitatively important information improved, their recall of
detail (Newby et al., 1989) or answers to typical basal literature questions that focused
on literal or minor details (Gurney et al., 1990) did not. Gurney et al. (1990)
concluded that a story grammar provided students with disabilities a framework
that helped them comprehend stories at a more sophisticated level. That is, story
grammar instruction guided students away from minor details toward identification
and articulation of important ideas. Students receiving typical basai instruction
(define vocabulary words, set purpose for reading or activate background
knowledge, read, answer questions), on the other hand, demonstrated no
improvements in answering traditional basal questions (Gurney et al., 1990) or
recalling ideas (Newby et al., 1990).

Montague et al. (1990) concluded that instruction should focus on the goals,
motives, thoughts, and feelings of the characters in the stories. This focus increased
the amount of information students wrote about the characters, and consequently
the length of the stories they generated.

In summary, instruction in story grammar elements provided a framework
that facilitated students’ comprehension of the important ideas of a story, but not
the details. Students with learning disabilities may require additional focus on the
goals, motives, thoughts, and feelings of the characters in stories.

Expository text structures. In their review of research on comprehension
instruction, Pearson and Fielding (1991) found “incredibly positive support for just
about any approach to text structure instruction for expository text” (p. 832) for
facilitating comprehension and short- and long-term memory for text. Approaches
to text structure instruction included both systematic attention to clues that signal

how authors relate ideas to one another and systematic attempts to impose structure

33


Text Organization 18

(d) plots or a series of episodes that eventually resolve the complication; (e) impacts
upon the reader's emotions and arousal levels; and (f) points (e.g., justice, honesty,
loyalty), morals, or themes.

Just as there is no consensus on the definition of narrative text, there is no
consensus on how stories are constructed. There are various theories about the
components, Jevels, dimensions, and perspectives of narrative text, but each theory
falls short of capturing all of the potential intricacies of stories or the ways in which
stories involve the reader's emotions. Each theory includes (a) recommendations

. for what makes stories interesting, (b) the reader's knowledge of the world, (c)
inferences, (d) memory of the story, and/or (ey reading comprehension. Theories
also contain logic, principles, concepts, and/or constraints to determine how a story
is constructed. Names for these various theories included causal network (Trabasso
& associates, cited in Graesser et al., 1991); conceptual graph structures (Graesser and
associates, cited in Graesser et al., 1991); scripts (Schank and Abelson, cited in
Graesser et al., 1991); story points (Wilensky, cited in Graesser et al., 1991); plot unit
(Lehnert, cited in Graesser et al., 1991); and analysis of thematic affect units (L yer &
associates, cited in Graesser et al., 1991). They are described in greater detail in
Graesser et al. (1991).

One theory, story grammar, is the oldest theory of narrative structure and the
one most used in research during the last 10 years. Just as there are many theories of
narrative text structure, there are many story grammars.

A story grammar refers to “abstract linguistic representation of the idea, events,
and personal motivations that comprise the flow of a story” (Pearson & Fielding,
1991, p. 821). A story grammar captures the important properties of a story and
guides comprehension of stories that have “(a) a single main protagonist who
encounters a problem-solving situation, (b) a goal that the protagonist attempts to
achieve, (c) a plot that unravels how the protagonist attempts to achieve the goal,

o7

e1L


Text Organization 24

a 12-iter task requiring students to discriminate between sentences that (a)
presente. details related to the paragraph topic and text structure, and (b) sentences
that distracted or presented intrusive information. Englert and Thomas (1987) found
that (a) sequence text structure was significantly easier than enumeration and
description text structures, and (b) enumeration and sequence text structures were
significantly easier than compare /contrast text structure.

While examining students’ sensitivity to the four different text structures,
Englert and Thomas (1987) also concluded that awareness of text structure may be
developmental. Of the participants in their study, 54 were younger (grades 3 and 4)
and 54 were older students (grades 6 and 7). The older students (including students
with LD) exhibited significantly more awareness of expository text structure than the
younger students.

Strategic Use of Text Structures

In her narrative review of text-processing research, Seidenberg (1989) reported
that a number of studies (e.g., Hiebert, Englert, & Brennan; Kintsch & Yarbrough; &
McGee; cited in Seidenberg, 1989) have provided evidence that effective readers use
strategies linked to text structure awareness to effectively identify and recall main
ideas and supporting information, arid to summarize (Winograd, cited in
Seidenberg, 1989). Students with LD, on the other hand, although they may have
acquired a repertoire of strategies for processing information, do not spontaneously
apply them when engaged in activities that require goal-directed or planning
activity (Torgesen; Wong; cited 1n Montague et al., 1990).

Normatly achieving learners. Normally achieving students appear more facile
with both narrative and expository text structures than diverse learners. One
indicator of facility with text is the number of times readers look back at text to

correct comprehension failures. Good readers had significantly more look-backs

nO
Ni


Text Organization 20

(Pearson & Fielding, 1991). Seidenberg (1989) posited that the ability to comprehend
and formulate expository prose is essential for achievement in school. When
learners read content area material such as social studies or science, they must
attend to a variety of text structures (Englert & Hibert, 1984). While narrative text
structures has largely focused on story grammars, .” -c-rch on expository text has
spanned a much broader range of organizational patterns. Common expository text
structures include compare/contrast, classification, illustration, procedural
description (Weaver & Kintsch, 1991), sequence, enumeration or collection,
problem-solution, and description (Meyer & Rice, 1984). Each type of expository text
structure is represented by an organizational pattern that includes differing types of
relations between important information in the text. Kintsch (cited in Weaver &
Kintsch, 1991) described three types of relationships between ideas in expository text:
(a) general-to-particular, as in identification, definition, classification, or illustration;
(b) object-to-object, as in comparison/ contrast; and (c) object-to-part, as in structural
analysis to tell how to put something together, functional analysis to tell how
something works, or causal analysis to tell a cause or consequence.

Research evidence suggests that well-structured expository text facilitates
comprehension of main ideas or topics, rather than facts. For example, Kintsch and
Yarbrough (cited in Weaver & Kintsch, 1991) found that students who read well-
structured essays that showed clear relations between ideas, performed better on a
measure of global comprehension (macroprocesses; e.g., topic and main-point
questions) than did students who read essays on the same content in which the
order of paragraphs did not follow principles of organization and in which cues to
text structure were deleted. Performance was equal on a measure of local
comprehension (microprocesses), measured using cloze procedures (i.e., a measure

in which students fill in the missing words deleted from a passage they have read).

~w
ww


Text Organization 33

upon text. Their review included (a) five studies that taught students top-level
structures (e.g., cause-effect, problem-solution) and how to use these structures for
reading and studying, that resulted in enhanced recall and/or comprehension; and
(b) 13 series of studies that taught students to study or create visual representations
of key ideas in text including networking, flowcharting, Con Struct, mapping,
eonceptual frames, graphic organizers, conceptual mapping, and other visual
organization devices, that resulted in facilitation of comprehension.

Seidenberg (1989) found similar empirical support for teaching text structure.
Three of the studies she reviewed included instruction in text structure or
awareness of top-level information (e.g., riain ideas), resulting in improved recall
of content, comprehension of unfamiliar content, and/or expository writing
compared to students who did not receive similar instruction. Seidenberg added
that instruction should include how to recognize and use the various text
structures,

While the ability to comprehend expository text has been called essential for
school success (Seidenberg, 1989), many researchers have found textbooks,
particularly social studies textbooks, to be lacking in explicit text structure or
organization (e.g., Armbruster and colleagues; White; cited in Kinder & Bursuck,
1991).

Kinder and Bursuck (1991) reported on one preliminary examination in which
history content instruction was organized through a problem-solution-effect text
structure. Three junior-high school special education classrooms of 4 to 10 students
identified as having behavior disorders participated in a multiple-baseline study.
During baseline, “traditional” instruction in American history consisted of (a) read,
(b) discuss, (c) answer textbook and workbook questions, and (d) test. Students‘ test
scores at this stage ranged from 45% to 57%. A problem-solution-effect text structure

was then introduced. Instruction consisted of (a) ead; (b) analyze the problem,

aq
fog)


Text Organization 15

Normally achieving jearners. Summarizing, integrating information, and
forming relations between important information are important reading
comprehension skills. Fluent readers use textual cues to identify important
information to include in summaries (Winograd, cited in Seidenberg, 1989).
However, when the main idea is implicit rather than clearly presented, normally
achieving students have demonstrated difficulty identifying main ideas and
integrating information (Seidenberg, 1989), Normally achieving students have also
demonstrated difficulty showing the relations between concepts or important pieces
of information (e.g., Horton et al., 1990).

Chunking text (ie., using spaces to separate thought units in sentences) is
another form of the physical presentation of text. Chunked text appears to neither
benefit nor hinder high-ability readers (Casteel, 1990). While high-achieving readers
demonstrated some improvement in comprehension while reading chunked text,
the improvement was not significant.

Diverse learners. Students with LD have demonstrated difficulty following
main ideas, recognizing main topics and their interrelations, and recognizing that
main topics are supported by superordinate and subordinate ideas or examples
(Seidenberg, 1989). Seidenberg proposed that when students with LD have
comprehension difficulties, teachers need to consider whether the students are able
to identify the important information in a reading passage. Therefore, they may
need explicit training to increase sensitivity to important text information.
Winograd (cited in Seidenberg, 1989) found thai poor readers often chose important
information based on what was of high personal interest to them and made
decisions about what to include in their summaries on a sentence-by sentence basis,
rather than using textual cues co identify important information. Additionally, poor

readers demonstrated difficulty integrating separate idea units into larger units

los


Text Organization 7

Physical features: A term used here to include headings, subheadings, signal
words, location of topic or main idea sentences, and spacing between
“chunks" or idea units within sentences.

* Semantic cues: Indicators of a text structure (Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, 1980;
Seidenberg, 1989). One example of a semantic cue is a topic sentence that uses
words to indicate the text structure of the upcoming passage. For example,
“The production of woolen yarn is a long and difficult process,” signals
sequence text structure (Seidenberg, 1989).

¢ Signal words: Words such as “first,” “finally,” “as a consequence of,” and “as a
result of” that emphasize the structure or organization of a passage, but do
not add content information (Meyer et al., 1980; Seidenberg, 1989).

* Syntactic cues: Indicators of a text structure; key signal words such.as “first”
and “then” signal sequence text structure (Seidenberg, 1989), whereas “in
contrast,” “but,” and “similarly” signal compare/contrast text structure
(Englert & Thomas, 1987).

* Text structure: The logical connections among ideas in text and subordination
of some ideas to others (Meyer et al., 1980); an overall organizing principle
for viewing a topic in text (Meyer & Freedle, 1984); top-level organization
patterns (Pearson & Fielding, 1991). Related terms: text type, rhetorical form,
rhetorical schemata (Weaver &Kintsch, 1991); macrostructure (Pearson &
Fielding, 1991; Weaver & Kintsch, 1991); genres of xext, top-level structures
(Pearson & Fielding, 1991); structural patterns (Seidenberg, 1989). Examples of
text structures include narrative, persuasive, sequence, problem/solution,
descriptive, and compare/contrast.

Textual cues: Headings and subheadings, topic sentences, signal words, and

author‘s direct statements of importance (Seidenberg, 1989). Textual cues

lu


Text Organization 30

In this section, we discuss what to teach, how to teach, caveats, and relations
between instruction and learners. The discussion of what to teach includes physical
presentation of text, narrative text structure, expository text structures, visual
representations of text, and strategies. The discussion of visual representations of
text is lengthy and could have been a convergent area of its ow1. However, it is one
of several ways to teach text structure and, therefore, more properly belongs within
the converging evidence that supports instruction in text organization. Note that
the discussion of strategies is subsumed under what to teach, rather than being
treated separately as it was in the two previous areas of convergence. The discussion
of “how to teach" highlights information that is presented in more detail in a
synthesis reviewing text organization and curricular and instructional implications
for diverse learners (Dickson, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1995).

What to Teach

Physical presentation of text. In her review of information-processing studies,
Seidenberg (1989) concluded that students with LD benefited from explicit, task-
specific instruction on (a) how to recognize the physical presentation of important
information in text, including topic sentences and where these usually occur in
well-organized paragraphs; and (b) headings and subheadings and their purposes. In
the same review, Seidenberg (1989) identified two additional structural cues to teach
students: the patterns that exemplify subordinate and superordinate relations; and
signal words (e.g., "first," “finally").

Taylor and colleagues (cited in Pearson & Fielding, 1991) found that teaching
students a summarizing strategy using the headings, subheadings, and paragraph
topics of textbooks resulted in more recalled text information than answering
questions or studying.

Narrative text structure. Even though narrative text structure may be taught

using any number of models (e.g., story grammars, causal networks, conceptual

33


Text Organization 27

difference existed even when students with LD were matched by reading ability and
1Q with younger, normally achieving students.

The inconsistencies task consisted of paragraphs written in description,
enumeration, sequence, and comparison/contrast text structures. Each paragraph
contained three sentences, one that indicated the topic of the paragraph, one that
signaled the specific type of text structure, and one that provided an exemplar detail
sentence that met topic and text structure requirements. For the decision task, four
sentences were presented. Two extended the ideas introduced in the first two
sentences and were consistent with the established topic sentence. Two were
distractors. Students were required to decide the degree to which each sentence fit
the topic and text structure of the paragraph stems.

Englert and Thomas (1987) concluded that the deficit in text structure
awareness in students with LD affected their ability to use the interrelationships in
text to predict forthcoming relevant details based on the text structure, to extract
essential from nonessential information, and to be sensitive to their own
comprehension failures. Thus, students with LD did not look back to the original
stimulus sentences to confirm the relationship between the main idea and
supporting details. This study also indicated that, similarly to normally achieving,
students, students with learning disabilities and low achievers appeared to acquire
text structure knowledge developmentally (Englert & Thomas, 1987).

Another area affected by poor readers’ Jack of sensitivity to text structure is
sumunarization. Seidenberg (1989) reported that eighth-grade poor readers did not
appear to use text structure awareness to summarize text. Although they appeared
aware of the need to include important ideas in a summary, they had difficulty
identifying important ideas in a reading passage and constructing an internal topic
structure representation of the text information. Rather than use the strategic skills

required to produce an adequate summary or the meaning of the whole text, they


Text Organization 4

such as social studies or science, diverse learners exhibited difficulty distinguishing
between relevant and irrelevant information (Seidenberg, 1989), identifying and
recognizing the interrelations between main ideas (Seidenberg, 1989), organizing
information, and memorizing and retaining isolated facts (e.g., the acts leading to
the Revolutionary War in isolation from the concept that Britain wanted to benefit
economically from the colonies) (Lovitt; Smith; cited in Kinder & Bursuck, 1991).
Although special instructional techniques can enhance the achieve" ent of students
with disabilities, success in general education classrooms is defined by, and largely
dependent upon, performance in the mainstream curriculum materials and
instructional approaches (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1993).

This synthesis focuses on the effects and implicatics of text organization, both
physical presentation and text structure, and on reading comprehension, with
special emphasis on the comprehension of diverse learners.

Methodology
Sources

This review of research examining the relation between text organization and
comprehension included seven secondary and seven primary sources. Figure 1
presents a short description of each source. Of the secondary sources, three (i.e.,
Graesser, Golding, & Long, 1991; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Weaver & Kintsch, 1991)
were book chapters in Handbook of Reading Research: Volume Il (Barr, Kamil,
Mosenthal, & Pearson, 1991). Four secondary sources were articles (i.e., Kinder &
Bursuck, 1991; Scruggs & Mastrovieri, 1993; Seidenberg, 1989; Talbott, Lloyd, &
Tankersley, in press). One secondary source was a quantitative synthesis using meta-
analysis (i.e., Talbott et al., in press); one was a descriptive analysis with a database
(ie., Weaver & Kintsch, 1991); and five were descriptive narratives with research
references (i.e., Graesser et al., 1991; Kinder & Bursuck, 1991; Pearson & Fielding,

1991; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1991; Seidenberg, 1989). Of the primary sources, three


Text Organization 3

1991); (c) tended to trivialize history content (Crabtree, cited in Kinder & Bursuck,
1991); and (d) did not present information in a way that would help students
organize : icts into a coherent whole (Beck, McKeown, & Gromoll, cited in Kinder &
Bursuck, 1991).

Scruggs and Mastropieri (1993) found similar difficulties with science textbocks.
In their descriptive narrative on instructional approaches in science, these authors
reported that science textbooks provided extensive coverage of content but little
opportunity for in-depth practice of important concepts (Mastropieri & Scruggs, cited
in Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1993).

Although textbooks frequently are poorly written, incoherent, and fail to show
relations between information, students are expected to use them as a primary
source of information. Meanwhile, many students have demonstrated difficulties
witk skills that are central to reading comprehension (i.e., identifying main topics,
sigrificant supporting information, and relations between a text’s main topics)
(Seidenberg, 1989). These reading comprehension difficulties parallel the criticisms
that textbooks often do not clarify the main idea (Baumann & Serra, cited in
Seidenberg, 1989) or make clear the relations between concepts, ideas, and sentences
(Armbruster & Anderson, cited in Kinder & Bursuck, 1991).

With increasing frequency, students with diverse learning needs, including
students with disabilities, are in mainstream classrooms (Leo, 1994; U.S.. Department
of Education, 1992). In these contexts, students have demonstrated varying reading
comprehension difficulties, whether the text was a story, social studies chapter,
science experiment, or mathematics word problem. For example, when retelling
stories, diverse learners appeared to recall less information than their normally
achieving counterparts (Montague, Maddux, & Dereshiwsky, 1990). They displayed
difficulty understanding characters in stories (e.g., interactions, intentions) and

making inferences (Montague et al., 1990). Further, when reading content area texts


Text Organization 16

(Winograd, cited in Seidenberg, 1989), and organizing their reading input in a
meaningful way (Casteel, 1990).
Implicati i .

Text that clearly signals main ideas and relations between ideas facilitates
comprehension. Techniques for clearl, presenting text include (a) ordering topics
systematically; (b) stating topic organization in the opening paragraph; (c) placing
topic sentences at the beginning of paragraphs; (d) arranging supporting details in
recognizable patterns that exemplify superordinate/subordinate relations; (e) using
precise language to make clear the relations between concepts, ideas, and sentences;
(f) using signal words such as "first," "second," and "finally;" and (g) using headings,
subheadings, and topic sentences to cue the interrelations between important ideas.

Additionally, one study in this review (i.e., Casteel, 1990) indicated that
additional spacing between idea units facilitated reading comprehension for low
readers and did not interfere with the reading comprehension of high-ability
readers. As a result of these findings, publishers may want to place extra spaces
between idea units in sentences, or teachers may want to teach low-performing
students to draw vertical lines between or underline the idea units in the sentences
in their textbooks.

T's #2: bal Awar
Hi Rel: Readi mpr ion

In general, “text structure" refers to the organizational features of text that
serve as a frame or pattern (Englert & Thomas, 1987) to guide and help readers
identify important information (Seidenberg, 1989) and logical connections between
ideas (Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, cited in Englert & Thomas, 1987; Seidenberg, 1989).
Text structure appears to play an important role in reading comprehension.
Moreover, there is strong empirical evidence that readers’ awareness of text

structure is highly related to reading coinprehension.

13


Text Organization 6

refinement. Finally, the data were entered into a database. The primary author of
this synthesis further examined the database for converging areas in text
organization and carefully reread and examined the secondary and primary sources
for supporting information for each area of convergence.
Definiti

Text organization includes the physical presentation of text and text structures.
Physical presentation of text includes visual textual cues such as headings and
subheadings, signal words, and location of main idea sentences. Text structures are
more abstract, less visual presentations of text that involve organizational patterns
of text written to convey a purpose (e.g., persuade, describe, compare/contrast, or
entertain with a story). Terms used in this synthesis are defined below. For clarity,
we will repeat these definitions throughout the syrithesis.

* Global comprehension: Comprehension. measured by questions about the
topics and main ideas of text (Weaver & Kintsch, 1991). Related terms:
Macroprocesses, macropropositions (Weaver & Kintsch, 1991).

* Local comprehension: Comprehension measured by questions about details
(Weaver & Kintsch, 1991). Related terms: Microprocesses, micropropositions
(Weaver & Kintsch, 1991).

* Macropropos _2ns: The top-level “gist” information or meaning of a passage;
macropropositions are critically important for understanding and long-term
recall of text (Weaver & Kintsch, 1991). Related terms: global meaning,
macroprocesses (Weaver & Kintsch, 1991).

* Micropropositions: The smallest definable units of meaning in text (Weaver
& Kintsch, 1991). Related terms: local comprehension, microprocesses
(Weaver & Kintsch, 1991).

va


Text Organization 22

familiarity (Graesser et al., 1991; Gurney et al., 1990; Weaver & Kintsch, 1991);
knowledge (Englert & Thomas, 1987; Graesser et al., 1991; Gurney et al., 1990;
Montague et al., 1990; Seidenberg, 1989); awareness (Englert & Thomas, 1987;
Seidenberg, 1989); sensitivity (Seidenberg, 1989); and recognition (Seidenberg, 1989).
In this synthesis, we use the authors’ original terms as much as possible. If the
findings or conclusions of two or more authors are summarized, a term that
captures the spirit of both studies will be used.

In their reviews of text-processing and expository text structure research,
Seidenberg (1989), Weaver and Kintsch (1991), and Pearson and Fielding (1991)
discussed the importance of the reader's awareness (Seidenberg, 1989), familiarity
(Weaver & Kintsch, 1991), or knowledge (Pearson & Fielding, 1991) of text structure.
Weaver and Kintsch (1991) reported that learners “familiar” with text structure who
read well-structured, clearly cued text performed better on measures of global
comprehension (e.g., main topics) than students who did not demonstrate
familiarity with test structure.

Student awareness of structural patterns in expository writing (e.g., sequence,
causation, comparison/contrast) facilitated recall of not only more text information,
but more theses or main ideas (Seidenberg, 1989). Pearson and Fielding (1991)
reported two consistent findings: “First, students who are knowledgeable about
and/or follow the author's structure in their attempts to recail a text remember
more than those who do not. Second, more good than poor readers follow the
author's structure in their attempt to recall a text” (p. 827). Both Weaver and Kintsch
(1991) and Seidenberg (1989) noted that “awareness” of text structure benefits reading
comprehension of global ideas, or main theses or ideas.

Research evidence suggests that students vary in their awareness of different
text structures. For example, there is strong research support that students have a
greater awareness of narrative than expository text structures (Graesser et al., 1991)

eo

£9


DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 386 864 EC 304 253
AUTHOR Dickson, Shirley ¥.; And Others
TITLE Text Organization and Its Relation to Reading

Comprehension: A Synthesis of the Research. Technical
Report No. 17.

INSTITUTION National Center To Improve the Tools of Educators,
Eugene, OR.

SPONS AGENCY Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington,
DC

PUB DATE 20 Feb 95

NOTE 60p.

PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070)

EDRS PRICE MFO1/PCO3 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Curriculum Gevelopment; Elementary Secondary

Education; Higher Education; Instructional Materials;
Learning Disabilities; Low Achievement: *Reader Text
Relationshi eading Comprehension; *Reading
Difficultie eading Instruction; *Reading
Materials; Special Needs Students; *Text Structure

ABSTRACT

This research review focuses on the effects and
implications of text organization, both physical presentation and
text structure, and on reading comprehension, with special emphasis
on the comprehension of diverse learners. The review includes
students in kindergarten through college, who are high and low
readers and comprehenders; low performers/achievers; remedial
readers; normal achievers and general education students; and
students who have learning disabilities (LD), dyslexia, behavior
disorders, and mild mental retardation. The research indicates that
reading comprehension is enhanced by text organization, students’
awareness of text organization, students’ strategic use of text
organization, and explicit instruction in the physical text
presentation and/or text structure. fext organization includes the
visual, physical organization (e.g., heading, location of main idea)
as well as less visible text structures (e.g., narrative and
sequence). Attention is directed to implications for learning of
well-presented text, and instruction in ana student strategic use of
text structure. A chart of research studies reviewed identifies study
author(s) and year, number and type of study participants, the type
of text organization, and the study purpose. (Contains 22
references.) " (SW)

ISIE SO IS ACTER EGET ISIE TARE STG IIIT AT TAT TA TEER EIS ISI ALIS.

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

from the original document. *
“te te fe Se te tr te fe Xe ve We ve Te de ae de Ye te de vee Ye ve ve He oe te de Te vi ve ete ie te 7 He de de te de Te de ae He de Te He ae de se Heder de He He te se te te de tea Tere ae ie ae Hee


Text Organization 45

References

Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.) (1991). Handbook of
reading research (Vol. 2). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Casteel, C. A. (1990). Effects of chunked text material on reading comprehension
of high and low ability readers. Reading Improvement, 2Z, 269-275.

Dickson, S., Simmons, D., & Kameenui, E. (1995). Text organization: Curricular
and instructional implications for diverse learners.

Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children's developing awareness of text
structures in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65-75.

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.

Graesser, A., Golding, J. M., & Long, D. L. (1991). Narrative representation and
comprehension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D, Pearson (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 171-204). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Gurney, D., Gersten, R., Dimino, J., & Carnine, D. (1990). Story grammar:
Effective literature instruction for high school students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 335-342, 348.

Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., & Bergerud, D. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic
organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(1), 12-22.

Kinder, D., & Bursuck, W. (1991). The search for a unified social studies
curriculum: Does history really repeat itself? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(5),
270-275.

Leo, J. (1994, June 27). Mainstreaming's ‘Jimmy problem.’ U.S. News and
World Report, p. 22.

40


Text Organization 9

* Text structure and student awareness of text structure are highly related to
reading comprehension.

¢ Explicit instruction in the physical presentation of text and/or text structure

facilitates reading comprehension.

Insert Figure 3 about here

While these convergent areas may seem obvious, the reviews reported by
Kinder and Bursuck (1991) noted that the first two (i.e., well-presented physical text
facilitates reading comprehension; explicit text structure facilitates reading
comprehension) are not commonly practiced. For example, many textbooks are
poorly organized or fail to be explicit. Further, none of the research reviewed for this
synthesis suggested how often the physical presentation of text or text structure are
taught.

Well-presented physical text enables readers to identify the relevant
information in text, including main ideas a: i relations between ideas, skills that are
central to comprehension (Lorch & Lorch; Miller & Kintsch; cited in Seidenberg,
1989). The components of well-presented physical text are the visual cues that
highlight or emphasize main ideas and relations between ideas. Visual cues include
location of main idea sentences, author's direct statements of importance, signal
words, headings and subheadings, and spacing that divides sentences into “chunks”
or meaningful thought units (see Figure 3).

This discussion includes (a) the dimensions of well-presented text and their

relation to comprehension, (b) student aware ~ess of well-presented text, (c) strategic

12


Text Organization 8

include semantic and syntactic signals of differing text structures (Seidenberg,

1989).
oO : £ Synthesi

In this review of the research on the relation between the organization of text

and reading comprehension, three converging areas of research evidence are
presented. The first two support a relation between explicit physical presentation of
text and text structure and reading comprehension. The discussion of these two
areas of convergence includes (a) definitions, research evidence, and relations to
comprehension; (b) student awareness; (c) strategic u:.e; (d) relations to normally
achieving and diverse learners; and (e) implications and interventions. The third
area of convergence supports the relations between explicit instruction in the
physical presentation of text and text structure and reading comprehension. The
discussion of this area of convergence includes (a) what to teach, (b) how to teach, (c)

caveats, (d) and relations to normally achieving and diverse learners (see Figure 2).

Insert Figure 2 about here

General Areas of Convergence

The studies reviewed for this synthesis provided evidence that the
organization of text, students’ awareness of that organization, and students’ strategic
use of text organization affect their comprehension. The organization of text
includes the visual, physical organization (e.g., headings, subheadings, location of
main idea, spacing) as well as less visible, more abstract text structures (e.g.,
narrative, sequence, or descriptive text structures) (see Figure 3). The three general
areas of convergent evidence from this literature review are:

* Well-presented physical text facilitates reading comprehension.

li


Text Organization 41

The results of research in graphic organizers for normally achieving students
are equivocal. Some studies demonstrated benefit for low-, but not high-performing
students (Pearson & Fielding, 1991); others supported benefit for both high and low
performers (e.g., Horton et al., 1990).

Diverse learners. Diverse learners have benefited from explicit, task-specific
instruction on how to recognize and use the physical structure (e.g., topic sentences,
headings, signal words) (Seidenberg, 1989), as well as narrative (Gurney et al., 1990;
Newby et al., 1989) and expository text structures (Seidenberg, 1989). Instruction in
narrative text structure appeared to provide students with a framework for recalling
the important ideas in stories, but not the details. Therefore, students with LD may
require instructional focus on the goals, motives, thoughts, and feelings of
characters in stories (Montague et al., 1991).

Diverse learners may benefit from instruction in strategies, and when and how
to apply them (Seidenberg, 1989). In particular, instruction in strategies for
identifying main ideas may be useful for these learners.

For students with dyslexia, studies have examined whether to teach using their
strengths or remediating their weaknesses (Newby et al., 1989). Newby et al. (1989)
examined teaching story grammar to five 8- to 10-year-old students using
instruction based on their strengths, Two students were iden. ‘ified as having
difficulties with the sequential phonetic processes of written text (ie., dysphonetic or
auditory-linguistic dyslexia). Three students were identified as having difficulties
processing words as wholes (i.e., dyseidetic or visual-spatial dyslexia).

The students displaying sequential phonetic difficulties were taught story
grammar components using pictographs with no regard for sequential order. The
students drew or briefly noted story components on index cards. The three students
who were identified as having difficulties with processing words as wholes were

taught story grammar components using sequentially based instruction. They were

44


Text Organization 29

clearly written and organized expository text structures in textbooks would facilitate
students’ reading comprehension of a “network of knowledge.”

Students tend to receive limited sustained practice in reading and writing
expository prose (Applebee, cited in Englert & Thomas, 1987). One reason LD
students may differ significantly from low-achieving peers in discriminating
between relevant and inconsistent information in text passages may be that they
lack experience with expository text. Consequently, students with learning
disabilities must be exposed to good models of expository text structure-(Englert &
Thomas, 1987).

Diverse learners appear deficient in text structure awareness, which indicates a
need for specific instruction in text structure (Seidenberg, 1989). As noted by Englert
and Thomas (1987), “Unfortunately, since students gain knowledge via expository
prose, teachers who do not direct attention to the text structures that underlie
expository discourse may be depriving LD students of important opportunities to
develop self-sufficiency in communication skills essential to their independence as
adults” (p. 103).

Research in both the physical presentation of text and text structures supported
the benefits of explicit instruction in these areas. Seidenberg (1989) concluded that
instruction in the physical presentation of text facilitates the reading comprehension
of students with LD. Instruction in text structures had strong empirical support for
benefiting reading comprehension. For example, primary studies provided evidence
of the effectiveness of instruction in narrative text structure for students with LD
(e.g., Gurney et al., 1990; Newby et al., 1989). Finally, Pearson and Fielding (1991)
provided strong evidence of the benefit of “just about any" (p. 832) type of

instruction in expository text structure.


Text Organization 46

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.

Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall.
American Educational Research Journal, 21, 121-143.

Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1984). The structure of text. In P. D. Pearson, R.
Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp.
319-351). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Montague, M., Maddux, C. D., & Dereshiwsky, M. I. (1990). Story grammar and
comprehension and production of narrative prose by students with learning
disabilities. Jourrial of Learning Disabilities, 23, 190-197.

Newby, R. F., Caldwell, J., & Recht, D. R. (1989). Improving reading
comprehension of children with dysphonetic and dyseidetic dyslexia using story
grammar. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 373-380.

Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M.
L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2,
pp. 815-860). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1990). Current approaches to science
education: Implications for mainstream education of students with disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 14, 15-24.

Seidenberg, P. L. (1989). Relating text-processing research to reading and writing
instruction for learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Focus, 5(1), 4-12.

Talbott, E., Lloyd, J., & Tankersley, M. (in press). Effects of reading
comprehension interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning

isabili rterly.

U.S. Department of Education. (1992). To assure the free appropriate public
education of all children with disabilities (Fourteenth Annual Report to Congress

49


Text Organization 28

made sentence-by-sentence decisions determined by the position of information and
by what was important to them (Winograd, cited in Seidenberg, 1989).
Implications and Interventions

The evidence is clear that text structure and students’ awareness of text
structure are positively related to reading comprehension. Student sensitivity to text
structure may be developmental and varies according to text structure type.
Generally, narrative is easier than expository text for students and some types of
expository text are easier than others (e.g., sequence was found to be easier than
enumeratior. and description, which in turn was found to be easier than
compare/contrast) (Englert &Thomas, 1987).

Teachers should be aware of these variations and may want to attend more
carefully to text structure as students move to reading more expository text in the
upper-elementary school grades. Zabrucky and Ratner (1992) posed that teachers be
concemed with increasing students’ awareness of different text structures and
informing students of the impact of these structures on evaluation, regulation, and
memory. Students should be taught to adjust their reading and rereading skills and
to assess their readiness for recall when text information varies in difficulty. This
instruction may be more effective if it occurs for narrative before expository text.

Additionally, among many models of narrative text, story grammars are the
most studied (Graesser et al., 1991) and have been linked to improved
comprehension (Pearson & Fielding, 1991). As a result, story grammars are valid
and useful to teach.

Kinder and Bursuck (1991) argued for a unified social studies curriculum that
“integrated facts and concepts into a network of knowledge” (p. 319). Research
evidence suggests that well-structured expository text facilitates comprehension of

main ideas or topics, rather than facts (Weaver & Kintsch, 1991). Consequently,


Text Organization 5

weie descriptive studies (Englert & Thomas, 1987; Montague et al., 1990; Zabrucky &
Ratner, 1992) and four involved interventions (1.e., Casteel, 1990; Gurney, Gersten,
Dimino, & Carnine, 1990; Horton, Lovitt, & Bergerud, 19913; Newby, Caldwell, &
Recht, 1989).

Insert Figure 1 about here

In this review, attention is focused on students with diverse learning needs.
Diverse learners are defined here as students who, because of their instructional,
experiential, socioeconomic, linguistic, physiological, or cognitive backgrounds,
di‘fer in their instructional and curricular requirements. The three book chapters
included in this review provided context and information primarily about learners
in general education ranging in ages from kindergarten through college. The
secondary and primary research articles were selected because they included students
with diverse learning needs. Students in the secondary and primary research articles
were described as high and low readers, good and poor comprehenders, general
education students, normal achievers, low performers, low achievers, remedial
readers, and students with learning disabilities (LD), dyslexia, behavior disorders, or
mild mental retardation.

Summary of Methodology

Two independent reviews of each source were conducted. Each source was
reviewed and coded for (a) general conclusions, (b) learner characteristics, and (c)
instructional implications, and a multiple-step process was used for convergence of
evidence. Following the independent reviews, findings were discussed and clarified
by the original reviewers at weekly group meetings. Next, the data for each category

were checked by two additional reviewers for reliability, coding clarification, and

fo]


Text Organization 19

and (d) an outcome regarding whether the goal was achieved” (Graesser et al., 1991,
p. 179). Further, story grammars specify the (a) major components of a story (e.g.,
Thorndyke’s setting, theme, plot, resolution; Stein and Glenn’s episode, initiating
event, internal response, attempt, consequence, reaction; cited in Graesser et al.,
1991); (b) hierarchical relations between story grammar components; and (c) rules
that govern wat information is included or deleted within the story, order of
information, relations between story components, and embedding of episodes
within story components such as the beginning, outcome, or ending. More complex
stories normally have multiple episodes and follow rules that allow changes and
deletions of story grammar components (Graesser et al., 1991).

The assumption behind story grammar theory is that story grammar
components and their hierarchical relations represent frames or patterns that
readers can use to store information in long-term memory. Pearson and Fielding
(1991) cited five references that support the validity of story grammars as models of
comprehension by providing evidence that adults’ and children’s story retellings
matched the sequential order of story grammar components and that the frequency
of recalled information correlated with the hierarchical position of the information
in the story grammar framework. Story grammars generate predictions about
patterns of passage recall, passage summarization, importance ratings of statement,
passage statement clusters, and reading time, but there has been controversy over
whether story grammars or other representations of knowledge (e.g., knowledge
about planning, social action, motives) can explain these predictions (Graesser et al.,
1991). Despite these controversies, Graesser et al. (1991) concluded that story
grammars unite dozens of empirical trends into one theory of story construction.

Expository text structures. While narrative text structure primarily entertains,
expository text primarily communicates information (Weaver & Kintsch, 1991).

Textbooks, essays, and most magazine articles are examples of expository text

gg


Text Organization 36

received instruction in graphic organizers filled in significantly more correct
responses on the test graphic organizer than did students in the self-study groups.
The results for each type of learner in the study were as follows: (a) students with LD
in the graphic organizer groups averaged 70% correct compared to 20% correct for
self-study students with LD; (b) remedial students in the graphic organizer groups
averaged 74% correct compared to 42% for remedial students in the self-study
groups; and (c) general education students in the graphic organizer groups averaged
86% compared to 56% for those in the self-study groups.

Each type of graphic organizer instruction offered instructional benefits. In
teacher-directed instruction (study 1), the teacher determined the pace of activity,
kept students on task, drew a range of students into the discussion, and embellished
facts and ideas. In student-directed graphic organizers with references to page and
paragraph numbers (study 2), students extracted information from text
independently, and practiced using referential cues. The teachers were free to
provide individual help. In the clue or phrases condition (study 3), the clues
provided a structure similar to a teacher-directed lesson, but students had to interact
independently with the text.

Horton et al. (1990) concluded that graphic organizers helped make
mainstreaming a valid instructional delivery system for all students. However, the
studies had two limitations. First, researchers rather than teachers constructed and
filled in the original graphic organizers. In a replication of study 2, researchers
taught teachers to make their own graphic organizers. It took teachers about 60
minutes to prepare one organizer for a 1500-word passage. Horton et al. (1990)
suggested that teachers who teach the same content area classes collaborate or share
graphic organizers, making the procedure more efficient.

The second limitation was the dependent measure used -- a graphic organizer

that matched what students in the graphic organizer groups studied before taking

33


Text Organization 37

the test. Students filled in the dependent measure from memory. The graphic
organizer dependent measure was selected to maximize students' retrieval of
information by matching as closely as possible the form in which the information
was taught. However, this study did not indicate whether instruction using graphic
organizers would facilitate reading comprehension measured using more
traditional measures (e.g., multiple choice, free response, oral response). While
stronger support for graphic organizer instruction requires replication of Horton et
al.'s study using more traditional measures, a study by Bergerud, Lovitt, and Horton
(cited in Horton et al., 1990) provided evidence that graphic organizer instruction in
science transferred to written assessments.

In summary, instruction in some type of visual representation of text facilitates
comprehension for students with differing abilities. Many models exist for
effectively teaching students how to impose structure on text. Further study is
needed to determine which models are more efficient for a wide range of abilities in
a classroom.

Strategies. A major contribution of research has been to transform reading
skills (e.g., summarize, identify main ideas, identify relations between main ideas)
into explicit strategies that students can be taught directly (Seidenberg, 1989). This
includes teaching students how to use (a) the physical presentation of text (e.g.,
location of topic sentences, headings, subheadings, signal words) as a strategy to
identify main ideas and form interrelations between concepts, main ideas, and
supporting details (Seidenberg, 1989); (b) a story grammar to identify the important
ideas in narrative text (Gurney et al., 1990; Newby et al., 1989); and (c) expository text
structures to identify concepts and interrelations or to impose interrelations upon
poorly written text. Examples of imposing text structure include visual
representations of text (Horton et al., 1990; Pearson & Fielding, 1991) and note sheets

organized around text structure (Englert & Thomas, 1°87). Strategy instruction holds

4u


Primary Sources Continued

Authors Text Participants Purpose
Organization =
Gurney, Gersten, Narrative High school, LD; n= 7 intervention; traditional instruction
Dimino, & Carnine, 1990 followed by story grammar
instruction; modified multiple
baseline

Horton, Lovitt, & Graphic ‘Study 1 & 2: Grade 7; 127 | Intervention; compared graphic
Bergerud, 1990 organizers general ed, 0 remedial, 5 | organizers and self-study; group

LD; grade 10; 36 general, | design

9 remedial, 3 LD;

Study 3: Grade 7; 151

general, 0 remedial, 3 LD;

grade 10; 175 general, 9

remedial, 1 LD
Montague, Maddux, & | Narrative Grades 4 & 5,7 & 8; & Descriptive; compared learner type for
Dereshiwsky, 1990 high school; 12 with LD | quantitative and qualitative

and 12 without LD in differences in narrative; group design

each combination
Newby, Caldwell, & Narrative Ages 8-10; two types of | Intervention; examined instruction
Recht, 1989 dyslexia; n= 5 based on learning strength; multiple

baseline

Zabrucky & Ratner, 1992

Narrative &
expository

Grade 6; poor & good
comprehenders; n = 16
each

Descriptive; compared evaluation and
regulation skills for good and poor
readers using narrative and expository
text; group design '

an



Text Organization 25

than poor readers for difficult (i.e., expository) text and significantly more look-backs
for expository than narrative passages. Good readers also had more look-backs for
inconsistent text than poor readers, though the differences were not significant.
Good readers correctly reported significantly more inconsistencies than poor readers
(Zabrucky & Ratner, 1992).

In a comparative study of students’ narrative text-structure processing,
Montague et al. (1990) concluded that students without learning disabilities recalled
more information than students with LD and included more information in their
story retells. Similarly, Zabrucky and Ratner (1992) found that good readers had
significantly more recail than poor readers for both narrative and expository text.

The ability to identify main topics, significant supporting information, and
interrelations among a text’s main ideas are processes that appear central to
comprehension (Lorch & Lorch; Miller & Kintsch; cited in Seidenberg, 1989).
Effective readers appear to use strategies linked to expository text structure
awareness to process text information (Hiebert, Englert, & Brennan; Kintsch &
Yarbrough; McGee; cited in Seidenberg, 1989). Additionally, effective readers used
textual cues and the meaning of the whole text to identify important information to
include in summaries (Winograd, cited in Seidenberg, 1989).

Not all normally achieving readers appeared to be aware of text structure,
however. In a study that included ninth-grade, eleventh-grade, and college-age
students, Garner (cited in Seidenberg, 1989) found that, across age levels, students
were deficient in their awareness of and ability to integrate information.

Diverse learners. Zabrucky and Ratner (1992) found that poor readers did not
differ in the number of times they monitored their comprehension by looking back
at sentences for narrative and expository text. Because narrative is easier to
comprehend thai expository text, Zabrucky and Ratner (1992) conciuded that poor

readers did not regulate their understanding when reading difficult text. In addition,

28


Text Organization

Running Head: TEXT ORGANIZATION

Text Organization and Its Relation to Reading Comprehension:
A Synthesis of the Research
Shirley V. Dickson
Deborah C. Simmons
Edward J. Kameenui

University of Oregon


Text Organization 44

structured text. Likewise, students who are aware of or have had instruction in the
physical presentation of text or text structure demonstrate more global
comprehension than students who lack awareness or have not had instruction.
Although students who are aware of text structure recall more than students who
are not aware of text structure, there is often no difference between these students

for local (i.e., details) comprehension.


Text Organization 42

taught to identify first the main character, then the setting, continuing through the
story grammar components in a prescribed manner. Instruction resulted in recall of
a greater percentage of important ideas than in baseline. One of the two dysphonetic
students and all of the three dyseidetic students showed clear increases. While this
study pointed to the effectiveness of intervention by subtype, more research is
required to draw clear conclusions. Newby et al. (1989) suggested that the study did
not provide enough information to indicate if instruction based on the strengths of
dyslexic subtypes was effective, or if training in story grammar in general was just as
effective.

Summary

This review of the literature examining the relation between text organization
and comprehension resulted in three areas of convergence:

© Well-presented physical text facilitates reading comprehension.

¢ Text structure and student awareness of text structure are highly related to

reading comprehension.

¢ Explicit instruction in the physical presentation of text and/or text structure

facilitates reading comprehension.

The first two areas are three-pronged, involving (a) presentation and structure
of text, (b) students’ awareness of text presentation and structure, and (c) students’
strategic use of text presentation and structure. Text presentation facilitates reading
comprehension if (a) main ideas are clearly stated and |. cated at the beginnings of
paragraphs; and (b) the relations between important information are clearly
indicated by headings, subheadings, signal words, and sentences or paragraphs
signaling text organization placed at the beginning of the passage. Extra spacing
between thought units in sentences facilitates attention to ideas within sentences.
Text structure facilitates reading comprehension, with narrative text structure being

generally easier for students to recall and monitor than expository text structures.

45


Text Organization 12

subheadings are additional cues to interrelations between important ideas in a text
(Seidenberg, 1989).

Despite the importance of interrelations between important ideas, Armbruster
and colleagues (cited in Seidenberg, 1989) found many poorly written, incoherent
textbooks that failed to use precise language or make clear the relations between
concepts, ideas, and sentences. Both normelly achieving students and students with
diverse learning needs have demonstrated difficulty identifying relations between
important ideas. Seidenberg (1989) reported that elementary students made minimal
use of superordination of information and demonstrated difficulty integrating
information.

An example of students' difficulties in identifying relations between ideas is
found in three studies by Horton et al. (1990). While the purpose of their study was
to examine the effects of graphic organizers on student ability to organize
information, the performance of students who studied without graphic organizer
instruction serves as an example of student ability to form relations between
importan: .deas in text. Horton et al. (1990) found tiat the normally achieving
students who read and reread a passage from their textbooks and studied for 20
minutes in any way they chose scored 50%-64% correct on a dependent measure (i.e.,
a graphic organizer) that required them to identify and show how concepts and
supporting facts were related. In the same study, remedial readers scored an average
of 39%-44% correct, while students with learning disabilities scored an average of
10%-30% correct when required to identify and show how concepts and supporting
facts were related on a graphic organizer.

Spaces between meaningful thought units. Casteel (1990) took a different
approach to the physical presentation of text. Rather than examining the effect of
location of topic sentences, semantic cues, or headings, he examined the effect of

“chunking,” or using spaces to divide information in sentences into meaningful

15


-—- Headings
and Subheadings

|___ Location of
Main Ideas

r— Textual Cues

Physical _ -— Signal Words
[ Presentation

L_. Chunked Text

Narrative — Story Grammars

r—— Sequence

Text _|
Organization

[-— Descriptive

Expository ——-~——-+— Enumeration
[-— Compare/Contrast

L— Persuasive

L_ Text L— Problem/Solution/Effect
Structure

60


Text Organization 14

identify the important ideas in text and their interrelations (Garner & McCaleb;
Winograd; cited in Seidenberg, 1989).

While chunking (i.e., using spaces to separate thought units in sentences) has
support as another method for physically presenting text to facilitate
comprehension, Casteel (1990) did not discuss student awareness of chunked text. It
may be that chunked text makes meaningful thought units visual to low ability
readers, while high ability readers are aware of and use textual cues (i.e., headings,
signal words, location of main ideas) to identify meaningful thought units.

Pre mi xi

“Strategies” refer to an organized set of actions designed to accomplish a task.
The physical structure of passages provides the basis for strategies that readers use to
identify main ideas. To identify the main idea, most readers use simple strategies
and prior knowledge matched to the organizational structures of passages (Kieras,
cited in Seidenberg, 1989). For example, the reader tests the first sentence to see if it
expresses a reasonable main idea and then tries to subsume each succeeding
sentence into the main idea based on whether the sentence is related or irrelevant to
the main idea. If the reader is unable to fit the sentences into the probable main idea,
he or she may revise the main idea.

In another strategy involving the physical presentation of text, students use
headings, subheadings, and paragraph topics to summarize text. Students who were
taught this strategy recalled text information better than students answering
questions or studying longer (Taylor & Beach, cited in Pearson & Fielding, 1991).
While Casteel (1991) investigated chunking, a form of the physical presentation of
text that uses space to separate thought units in sentences, he did not discuss

strategic use of chunked text.

17


‘

* ad
Gi
Technical Report No. 17 produced for the National Center
to Improve the Tools of Educators, University of Oregon

inp

'

Funded by the US. Office of
Special Education Programs

Text Organization
and Its Relation to
Reading
Comprehension: A
Synthesis of the
Research

by

Shirley V. Dickson
Research Associate
College of Education
University of Oregon

Deborah C. Simmons, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor

College of Education
University of Oregon

Edward J. Kameenui, Ph.D.

Associate Director

National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators
College of Education

University of Oregon

February 20, 1995


Text Organization 35

A series of three primary studies provided additional support for the benefit of
instruction in visual representations of text for students with a range of abilities.
Horton et ai. (1990) conducted these studies in seventh- and tenth-grade general
education classrooms (j.e., social studies, science, and health) containing students
with heterogeneous abilities ranging from students with learning disabilities (n = 1 -
5 ), remedial students (n = 0 - 9), and students without identified disabilities (n = 36 -
175). The study compared four types of instruction in graphic organizers with
student-selected self-study. .

Self-study consisted of reading and rereading an assigned textbook passage for
15 minutes, and studying or taking notes for 20 minutes in a manner of students’
own choosing (e.g., diagram, outline, write short statements of main ideas,
formulate and answer questions, or define key terms).

Graphic organizer instruction consisted of reading and rereading for 15
minutes, and completing and studying graphic organizers for 20 minutes. On a
blank graphic organizer, teachers directed student attention to general relations
between the categories shown on a diagram. In study 1, teachers led students in
either filling in the graphic organizer or using a pre-filled graphic organizer. In
study 2, students were allowed 15 minutes to independently complete a graphic
organizer using a cover sheet that contained page and paragraph numbers for
locating answers in the textbook, with a teacher providing assistance when required.
In study 3, students completed a graphic organizer using a list of phrases that fit
appropriate places on the graphic organizer. Students in the experimental groups
studied their completed graphic organizers for 5 minutes before taking the test that
consisted of filling in a blank 15-item graphic organizer.

Instruction in using graphic organizers to visually represent text had consistent
effects regardless of content area (i.e., social studies, science, and health) or grade

level (i.e., middle and high school). Specifically, in 10 minutes, students who


Text Organization 23

and that students remember and comprehend narrative text structure easier than
they do expository text structure (Zabrucky & Ratner, 1992). Indeed, in a primary
study comparing the differences between students with LD and normally achieving
students in processing narrative text, Montague et al. (1990) concluded that most
school-aged children have acquired knowledge of a story schema (awareness of
narrative prose) and use that knowledge during story comprehension and
production tasks.

Graesser et al. (1991) posed three reasons for the “privileged status” of narrative
text structure. First, narrative content is more familiar to students than expository
content. Graesser et al. (1991) referred to the more familiar content as mutual
knowledge, with narrative text structure having a higher density of “mutual
knowledge” (e.g., shared experiences, world knowledge structures) than expository
text structure. Second, this familiar content of narrative includes event sequences
(e.g., intentional acts in pursuit of goals; events that occur in the material world).
Event sequences are the core content of children and adults’ experienze in everyday
life. According to Nelson (cited in Graesser et al., 1991), everyday event sequences
are the primary form of world knowledge for children. Third, narrative structure is
prevalent in oral language. Contrary to narrative text structu‘e’s familiar content,
expository prose is written primarily to convey new knowledge.

Just as students are more aware of narrative text structure than expository text
structure, their awareness of the many expository text structures varies. In a primary
study of expository text structure, Englert and Thomas (1987) examined student
awareness of four types of expository text structures: description, enumeration,
sequence, and comparison/ contrast texts. The study included 36 students reading at
grade-level or above, 36 low-achieving students, and 36 students with learning
disabilities (LD), evenly divided between grades 3 and 4 (younger group) and grades

6 and 7 (older group). Students' sensitivity to the text structures was measured using


UB ospantwent oF «
nee of eeucaona Resstenenaioee mon

EOYCATIONAL RESOURCES | 7
wa ERSQUREES INFORMATION

Ima ocumont as been reproduced as
‘ecewed trom the person oF orpanastion
onigenating at orpanvay

© Mor charges nave been mace to moron
teproduction quality ‘eimprore

» <-National Center.”
io Improve. the
Tools of Educators:

8 Boies of maw oF opimons st
‘mant‘do not necessary
ERI Dos:ton or potey

in Ie nee

Collegevel Education"

ED 386 864

Text Organization
and Its Relation to
Reading
Comprehension: A
Synthesis of the

- Research

EC 30U253

Wests k 2
OPY AVAILABI &


Text Organization 47

on the Implementation of The Individual with Disabilities Education Act).
Washington, DC: Author.

Weaver, C. A., IM, & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil,
P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 230-
244). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Zabrucky, K., & Ratner, H. H. (1992). Effects of passage type on comprehension

monitoring and recall in good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24
373-391).


Text Organization 31

graph structures, scripts and plans), story grammars are the oldest and most studied
(Graesser et al., 1991). Moreover, they have bee.~ validated as benefiting reading
comprehension (e.g., Gurney et al., 1990; Newby et 2l., 1989; Pearson & Fielding,
1991) and predicting readers’ performance (Graesser et al., 1991). Additionally, they
have been viewed as unifying several research trends in narrative text structure into
one theory (Graesser et al,, 1991).

Story grammar instruction usually includes a simplified version of story
grammar components as well as practice in identifying category-relevant
information (Pearson & Fielding, 1991). Pearson and Fielding (1991) found strong
support that instruction in a story grammar resulted in improved reading
comprehension of stories beyond those used in the studies’ interventions and “real”
stories (i.e., stories not adapted to fit narrative text structure).

Further, two primary studies (i.e., Gurney et al., 1990; Newby et al., 1989) in this
synthesis provided support for teaching a story grammar to students with dyslexia
and LD. The two studies included students in different age ranges, 8 to 10 years (n =
5) (Newby et al., 1989) and high school (n = 7) (Gurney et al., 1990), with dyslexia
(Newby et al., 1989) or learning disabilities (Gurney et al., 1990). In each study,
students were taught story grammar elements. Specifically, in Gurney et al. (1990),
students were taught four major story grammar components: (a) main character and
main problem/conflict; (b) character clues (e.g., characters’ actions, dialogue,
thoughts, physical attributes, and reactions to other characters and events); (c)
resolution; and (d) theme. In the Newby et al. (1989) study, students were taught the
following story grammar components (a) main character, (b) problem encountered
by the main character, (c) setting, (d) events or attempts by main character to solve
the problem, and (e) solution or resolution of the problem.

The effects of story grammar instruction were students’ improved ability to

comprehend qualitatively important ideas from stories. “Qualitatively important"

34


Text Organization 40

teach reading comprehension to students with LD, much research remains to be
done.

First, various interventions need to be compared with each other to discern the
“best" (p. 27) among them. In their review, Talbott et al. found no significant
differences among reading comprehension studies that employed six major types of
interventions: (a) cognitive, (b) cognitive-behavioral, (c) vocabulary, (d) pre- and
mid-reading, (e) direct instruction, and (f) computer-assisted. Second, studies need to
employ rigorous methods (e.g., random assignment, detailed subject description).
Third, more teachers rather than researchers, need to conduct the actual
interventions. Finally, researchers need to develop techniques to enable students to
reach high levels of comprehension. Studies also need to address effects of
intervention on students’ higher order reading comprehension skills. In the
majority of studies, researchers assessed recall of factual information from text
rather than higher order skills (e.g., inferential, evaluative, and appreciative).

I jon in nizati T rn

Normally achieving learners. It appears that normally achieving students
benefit from explicit, direct instruction in text structure. Much of the research in text
structure instruction used a model-lead-test or model-guided practice-independent
practice format for normally achieving students (Pearson & Fielding, 1991). Almost
any instruction in expository text structure resulted in improved comprehension, as
well as short- and long-term memory (Pearson & Fielding, 1991) for normally
achieving learners.

Transfer of skills from materials in which instruction occurred to new
materials is an important consideration in instruction. Instruction in narrative text
structure transferred to improved comprehension of story grammar elements in

“actual,” unadapted stories not used in the intervention (Pearson & Fielding, 1991).

43


Text Organization 26

there was no difference in poor readers’ and good readers’ detection of
inconsistencies during reading. However, poor readers were less able than good
readers to comment accurately on passage consistency after reading. Poor readers
were no different than good readers in reading problematic or inconsistent text.
However, poor readers demonstrated significantly less recall than good readers
(Zabrucky & Ratner, 1992).

Many comprehension difficulties of diverse learners have been attributed to
their deficits in text structure awareness (Englert & Thomas, 1987). For example, one
hypothesis for why students with LD appear to recall less narrative text than
normally achieving students (Montague et al., 1990) is that they have an incomplete
“schema,” or awareness of narrative prose. In a primary study of narrative text
structure and students with LD, Montague et al. (1990) concluded that the
incomplete development of a story grammar by students with LD, as demonstrated
in their significantly shorter story recalls, may be due to these students’ lack of
expertise in interpreting or expressing the affective information about the characters
in the story (e.g., human intentions, social interactions, problem solving). Students
with LD may also be deficient in their discrimination of various levels of meaning
in stories, and less aware of subtle differences in the importance of story
propositions compared to students without learning disabilities. Additionally,
students with LD had difficulty recalling fine details, using connective words that
signal temporal and causal relations, and identifying text-based inferences in stories.

One facet of text structure awareness that differentiated between poor and good
teaders was the ability to recognize inconsistencies in expository content. Examining
text structure awareness of normally and low-achieving students and students with
LD, Englert and Thomas (1987) found that normally achieving students identified
significantly more inconsistencies in text than low-achieving students, who, in turn,

identified significantly more inconsistencies in text than students with LD. This

Lav)
ce


Text Organization 10

use of well-presented text, (d) relations to learners, and (e) implications and
interventions.

The dimensions of well-presented text include those that clearly indicate the
main idea, the relations between important information, and the thought units
within a sentence. The ability to identify the main idea and relations between
important information is important for reading comprehension. Indicators of main
ideas and relations between important information focus readers’ attention on the
global, macrostructure of a text, while the indicators of thought units within
sentences focus readers’ attention on phrases rather than letters and words. While
the indicators of main ideas and relations between information use location,
semantic, and syntactic cues, the indicators of thought units within sentences rely
upon spacing.

Clarity and location of main idea statements. The ability to identify main ideas
is central to comprehension (Lorch & Lorch; Miller & Kintsch; cited in Seidenberg,
1989). Seidenberg (1989) cited empirical support shcwing that the ability to
comprehend main ideas differentiates good and poor readers and is directly related
to general comprehension ability (e.g., Baumann; Winograd; Wong; cited in
Seidenberg, 1989), summarizing, and outlining (e.g., Rinehart et al.; Richgels et al.;
cited in Seidenberg, 1989). Yet, main idea statements often do not appear as the first
sentence in a paragraph or are omitted from content area textbooks (Baumann &
Serra, cited in Seidenberg, 1989). In a review of text-processing research, Seidenberg
(1989) found that general education students ranging from elementary school-
through college-age demonstrated difficulties analyzing the main ideas of textbooks,
especially if the main ideas were implied in the text rather than clearly stated.

The importance of a clearly stated main idea is supported by several studies

cited by Seidenberg (1989). For example, when the main idea was not explicitly stated

13


Text Organization 48

Author Note

Shirley V. Dickson, College of Education; Deborah C. Simmons, College of
Education; Edward J. Kameenui, College of Education.

We would like to acknowledge Scott Baker, David Chard, Barb Gunn, Sylvia
Smith, and Katie Tate for their contributions to this manuscript. Preparation of this
manuscript was supported in part by The National Center to Improve the Tools of
Educators (H1180M10006) funded by the U. S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education Programs.

Correspondence concerning this synthesis should be addressed to Deborah C.
Simmons, Division of Learning and Instructional Leadership, College of Education,
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1215. Electronic mail may be sent via

Internet to Deborah_Sinimons@ccmail.uoregon.edu.

oi


Secondary Sources

Authors Text Participants Purpose
Organization
Graesser, Golding, & Narrative Types of readers were Review definitions of narrative text
Long, 1991 not described and theories of narrative
representation and comprehension
Kinder & Bursuck, 1991 | Expository Described one study; Review social studies textbooks and
(social studies) | students with behavior | instruction; propose an instructional
disorders, LD, mild approach for students with learning

mental retardation; three
junior high classrooms,
4-10 students each

disabilities

Pearson & Fielding, 1991

Narrative é&
expository

High-ability, good
readers, poor readers,
heterogeneous groups
including low achievers
and students with LD;
kindergarten,
elementary,
intermediate, junior
high, high school, adults

Review of studies to improve reading
comprehension

Scruggs & Mastropieri,
1993

Expository
(science
instruction)

Students with disabilities
including language and
literacy areas, mental
retardation, behavior
disorders, LD, hearing or
visual impairments, etc.

Review content- vs. activities-based
science instruction



Text Organization 13

thought units or phrases (e.g., noun phrases, verb phrases). Chunking information
allows “perception and recall of idea units rather than letters or single words" (Gillet
& Temple, cited in Casteel, 1990, p. 269).

In the Casteel (1990) study, thought units were separated from each other by
four spaces rather than the traditional one space between words. When compared.
with using traditionally spaced text, chunking, or placing extra spaces between
meaningful thought units, resulted in significantly higher reading compretension
scores on a multiple-choice measure for 26 eighth-grade low-ability readers (i.e., at or
below the fourth stanine on vocabulary or comprehension subtests of the California
Achievement Test). By comparison, the chunked passages did not significantly affect
the comprehension scores of 24 high-ability readers (above the fourth stanine on
vocabulary or comprehension subtests of the California Achievement Test), though
their comprehension scores for chunked text were relatively higher than their
scores for traditionally spaced text. Casteel concluded that chunked text benefited
low performers and was not a detriment for high performers. While it may be
difficult for teachers to chunk material in textbooks, Casteel suggested having
students chunk verb, noun, and object phrases by placing vertical lines between the
chunks or underlining chunks prior to reading.

ical i df

Student awareness of the physical presentation of text facilitated their ability to
identify main ideas and interrelations between important information. Students
better identified main ideas and their supporting details if they were aware that
tain ideas and their supporting details occurred in recognizable patterns that
exemplified superordinate/subordinate relations (Hare & Mulligan; Memory;
Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth; Pearson & Johnson; Slater, Graves, & Piche; cited in
Seidenberg, 1989). Additionally, student recognition and use of visual textual cues

(e.g., headings, signal words, location of main ideas) contributed to their ability to