The Effect of Systematic Training in Elaboration on Word Meaning and Prose Comprehension in Poor Readers Che Kan Leong University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia

Donald R. Simmons & MaryAnne Izatt-Gambell University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

This paper reports two interrelated, expiioratory training studies to promote word knowledge and textual comprehension through elaboration in poor readers compared with their controls. The results suggest that systematic, sustained in situ training helped these poor readers, although both the training approaches and stimulus materials would need refi~'ement. There are m a n y reasons w h y some children fail to read, just as there are m a n y reasons w h y some children read efficiently. O n e simple (though not simplistic) s c h e m e that has b e e n guiding the first author's research into reading processes these five years or so is the conceptualization that reading proficiency results from the multiplicative effects of the acquisition a n d d e v e l o p m e n t of word k n o w l e d g e interacting with The study was assisted in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada with SSHRCC research grants Nos. 410-87-0058and 410-89-0128 awarded to Che Kan Leong. This assistance is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to thank the students, their teacher's and parents for their cooperation, and the anonymous reviewersfor their insightful comments. Any shortcomings are our own. Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 40, 1990. Copyright ©1990by The Orton Dyslexia Society ISSN 0736-9387

192

TRAINING

193

discourse processing (Leong 1988, 1989). Both of these processes are knowledge-based and the keynote in acquiring and developing literacy is verbal efficiency buttressed by world knowledge (Leong 1987; Perfetti 1985). This conceptualization is shown in the schematic in Figure 1.

Word Knowledge and Prose Comprehension Elaboration The concept of the word as a linguistic entity and the acquisition and development of word knowledge seem to be uniquely connected with literacy (Watson and Olson 1987). The term discourse is well explained by Jarvella (1979, p. 380) as a "coherent, extended linguistic message" with the properties of meaningfulness, grammaticality, and thematic and structural cohesion. The interaction between word knowledge and discourse processing is buttressed by some recent studies which argue forcefully for a multilevel model of reading (Olson et al. 1985) and a multicomponent approach to reading in older children (Frederiksen 1982; Leong 1988). The componential approach emphasizes the interrelated roles of phonological, morphemic, morphological and syntactic processing with a parallel shift of different processing units--sentences, clauses, phrases, words, and sublexical units such as syllables, phonemes, morphemes, onsets, and rimes. The multilevel and multicomponent approach to reading also has the advantage of specifying functionally defined information processing domains and provides for "modules" for instruction or remediation.

Reading Proficiency (and Reading Difficulties)

Schematized as:

WORD PROCESSING to Automaticity

x

(Lexical R

s

F

e

p

r

e

DISCOURSE PROCESSING (Knowledge Base) e

~

Language Access (Reflection on Language) F~u~I.

Schematic of reading proficiency as a function (F) of word processing interacting with discourse processing.

194

REs~agcH I~¢SI¢~rTS

Word Knowledge Development To promote greater breadth and depth of word knowledge, effective and systematic instruction is needed (Beck, Perfetti, and McKeown 1982; McKeown and Curtis 1987). The better results derive from a combination of explicit reference to meaning, learning through examples, learning through verbal contexts, and through the analysis of the internal structure and relational aspects of individual words (Jenkins and Dixon 1983). The emphasis should be on multiple cues and multiple exposure so as to build up the interrelationship of meanings (Sternberg and Powel11983). The Sternberg and Powell subtheory of developing word knowledge emphasizes both external and internal contextual cues and specifies the conditions which mediate their use. The multiple external contextual cues suggested by Sternberg and Powell include: temporal, spatial, functional, stative descriptive, affective, causal, and other aspects which mutually facilitate both word and prose knowledge. The use of multiple contextual cues can be illustrated with Sternberg and Powell's example of "At dawn, the blen arose on the horizon and shone brightly." The temporal cue of "at dawn," the spatial cue of "on the horizon," the functionally descriptive cues of "arose," "shone," and the stative descriptive cue of "bright," all help the reader to infer blen as probably meaning "sun." While the external contextual cues assist in deriving meaning, Sternberg and Powell further suggest a number of mediating variables which affect the use of the contextual cues in a given situation. These mediating variables indude: (a) the number of occurrences of the unknown word; (b) the variability of contexts; (c) the density of unknown words; (d) the role of the unknown word in understanding the context in which it is embedded; (e) the helpfulness of the surrounding context in understanding the meaning of the unknown word; (f) the concreteness of the unknown word, and (g) the importance of prior knowledge. The approach of developing word knowledge through internal and external contextual cues can also be extended to the assessment of vocabulary knowledge with neologism (e.g., van Daalen-Kapteijns and ElshoutMohr 1981). Prose Comprehension Training It has been shown that children receive inadequate training, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in prose comprehension (Durkin 19781979). What instruction there is in comprehension is more likely given to high-ability children or fluent readers and much less to their less able counterparts in the classroom (Hiebert 1983). It has also been shown that an emphasis on meaning produces better sentence recall than a focus on accurate oral reading; and that mastery of the day's lesson does not necessarily depend on the amount of instructional

TRAINING

195

time when meaning is emphasized. This latter finding does not mean practice is not important. Rather, it stresses the more lasting effect of the deeper semantic processing on memory and comprehension, as compared with just decoding, or just accurate, oral reading. What readers need to do, and how they should be helped, to comprehend prose materials depend on their knowledge base and the use of appropriate strategies. Some researchers (e.g., Dansereau 1978) distinguish between primary strategies and support strategies. Primary strategies relate to the identification of important parts of materials, techniques to comprehend, to retain and to recall texts. Support strategies facilitate or strengthen the smooth flow of primary strategies and include such factors as attitude, motivation, monitoring and correcting primary strategies. The important thing to note is that prose comprehension requires organized information, and readers must transform, extend, and elaborate on this information. Within the above framework, there are many and varied approaches in developing learning strategies in children to help them to comprehend prose materials. One effective approach is comprehension monitoring, which can be defined as a goal-directed activity of being aware of comprehension and of using appropriate strategies to comprehend (Baker 1984). These strategies include: problem detection, protocol analysis, interview data, and other self-report tasks (Wagoner 1983). These and other multiple, observable measures such as comprehension questions, spontaneous self-correction have been shown to correlate highly with reading performance (Paris and Myer II 1981). The emphasis on teaching prose comprehension should focus on: "direct explicit teaching, interactive discussions, substantive feedback, and control and self-monitoring strategies" (Pearson 1982, p. 23).

Study I Study 1 of the effect of systematic training in developing word knowledge was predicated on the works of McKeown (1985), McKeown and Curtis (1987). Specifically, it was hypothesized that such training over five weeks in 30 teaching days of about 30 minutes each with the use of low frequency and difficult words should lead to better understanding of different facets of meanings of these words and that "poor" or less skilled readers should benefit the most as compared with their controls.

Method

Sample. The sample consisted of a target group of 14 grade 5 lessskilled readers who scored amongst the lowest quartile for the grade

196

RESBARCHINSXG~rrs

on the aggregate of the Vocabulary and Prose Comprehension Subtests of the Canadian Test of Basic Skills (King 1982), and a control group of 16 skilled readers from the same rooms w h o scored amongst the top quartile on the same subtests. The mean age of the overall sample of 30 children was 129.37 months with a standard deviation of 4.69 months. The mean general ability of the total group on the British Ability Scale (BAS) (Elliott, Murray, and Pearson 1978) Matrix E subtest was 106.83 with a standard deviation of 11.21. The children in each group were divided into those w h o received different levels of word knowledge training designated as enriched (E), partial (P), and minimal or control (C) training conditions as described below. For the target group of 14 lessskilled readers there were respectively five, four, and five children in the E, P, and C training conditions; and for the contrast group the corresponding numbers were seven, four, and five skilled readers. Stimulus Materials. Forty low-frequency words (e.g., CONSCIENCE, CARNIVOROUS, TRIUMPHANT, EXAGGERATION, BENEFICIARY, MAJORITY, TREACHEROUS) were selected from a large pool and formed the stimulus materials for training of the children. After some initial tryouts with children not in the study, 32 of these 40 words were used. Fifteen words were taught in the first block of three weeks with pretesting (Pretl) and posttesting (Postl), and another 17 words were taught in the next block of three weeks with similar pretesting and posttesting (Pret2 and Post2). The mean word type total frequency of the first group of 15 low frequency words was 57, and that of the second group of 17 low frequency words was 83 (Carroll, Davies, and Richman 1971). Training Procedure. The differential training for the target and control groups and the different training conditions (enriched, partial, and minimal or control) consisted of a total of 30 lessons of 25 minutes duration for five teaching days in six weeks all taught by one experimenter (MAIG). All of the training sessions were scheduled on a fiveday cycle in which the stimulus words were taught on days one, two, three, and four with overall revision and evaluation on day five of any one week. On the average, eight words were taught in the one week of five teaching days of 25 minutes duration each day. Prior to the teaching of each target word, the children in the subgroups were shown (without vocalization) that word and were asked to answer four simple questions as a further check on their lack or level of knowledge of the lexical item prior to the training. These questions were: (1) "Have you seen this word before?" (YES/NO). (2) "Have you heard this word before?" (YES/NO). (3) "Do you know what this word means?" (YES/NO). (4) "Please write down all the words that you can think of from this word" (associative knowledge).

TRAINING

197

In essence, the enriched (E) training condition emphasized multiple exposure of the target words in different sentential contexts with emphasis on word meaning, words of similar and opposite meanings, and in particular, words in prose passage integration to bring out particular aspects of meaning(s). For the partial (P) training condition, the focus was on the dictionary definition of the lexical items with little attempt at multiple exposure and/or prose passage integration. For the minimal or control (C) training condition the students read short passages embedding the target words, but there was little explanation of the different shades of meaning of the lexical items. Evaluation or assessment of the degree of success of the various teaching conditions was predicated on the well defined explanation of a particular target word when embedded in a neutral sentential context. An example was the teaching of the word TRIUMPHANT: "She is triumphant in the skating ring." As the sentence stands, the target word "triumphant" can have a number of meanings for those who do not have a good knowledge base. However, for those who are linguistically proficient, their answers to the question: "How do triumphant people feel?" could have one or more of these meanings: happy, great, on top of the world, like winning a gold medal, elated, like a hero, like Roman soldiers returning home from a victor~ like winning the Stanley C u p . . . "Another example was from the teaching of the word INVENTION. The success of the teaching could be gauged from the answers to the following: "We are told that Christopher Columbus was the first white person to land in North America in 1492. Can we say, 'He invented North America?' Why/Why not?" The linguistically more sensitive child could be expected to use the word "discovered" and to explain the difference between the words invented or invention and discovered or discovery. The degree of refinement or fullness of the answers in relation to the contextual clues provided a differential five-point scale in scoring the answers. Results and Discussion

Pretest I and Posttest 1. The means and standard deviations of Pretest 1 (Pretl) and Posttest I (Post1) for the less skilled (L) and the skilled (H) readers for the different training conditions are shown in Table I, and displayed graphically in Figure 2. A 2 (reading group) × 3 (training condition) x 2 (assessment period) analysis of variance with the last factor repeated was performed on the data. The effect of reading group was significant (F (1, 24) = 15.68, p = .0006). Neither the treatment condition nor the pre/ post assessment period main effect was significant. However, the reading group x assessment period and the reading group × treatment

~o O~ Assessment Period Pretest I (Pretl) Posttest I (Post1) Pretest 1 (Pretl) Posttest 1 (Post1)

Reading Group

Less Skilled Readers (L) n = 14

Skilled Readers (H) n = 16

44.20 (5.50) 30.40 (3.21)

30.40 (7.50) 25.80 (6.69)

Control (C)

36.25 (6.99) 33.50 (4.51)

24.50 (5.92) 28.50 (6.14)

Partial (P)

35.71 (5.77) 38.71 (3.35)

27.40 (10.0T} 32.80 (5.12)

Enriched (E)

Table I Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) of Word Meaning Scores by Reading Group, Training Condition, and Assessment Period I for Grade 5 Readers Training Condition

TR.4XNINC

199 45

D

Pretl, L 40

Post1, L z - -

Pretl, H

35

b

Post1, H 30

25

20

1 1 Control

Figure 2.

2 2 Partial

3 3 Enriched

Performance in word meaning of less skilled (L) and skilled (H) grade 5 readers in Pretest I (Pretl) and Posttest I (Postl) for the control, partial and enriched training conditions.

interactions were significant with F (1, 24) = 12.18, p = .002, and F (2, 24) = 22.62, p < .001 respectively. These results are a bit puzzling. One plausible explanation is that the posttest requiring responses in sentence formats as compared with the free association of the pretest might pose special difficulties to the control subjects who did not receive any explicit vocabulary training. Their "regressed" posttest scores might lead to the reading x assessment and the reading x treatment interaction effects. Careful inspection of Table I, however, would suggest that there was an improvement for both the less skilled and skilled readers trained under the enriched condition with respect to the Pretest I and Posttest I time periods. Pretest 2 and Posttest 2. The means and standard deviations of Pretest 2 and Posttest 2 in the second block of three weeks for the less skilled and skilled readers for the different training conditions are shown in Table II and graphically in Figure 3. A 2 (reading group) x 3 (training condition) x 2 (assessment period) analysis of variance with the last factor repeated was used to analyze the data. The main effects for reading group and for treatment were significant with F (1, 24) = 17.75, p = .0003, and F (2, 24) = 4.31, p = .025 respectively. The main effects for the two assessment periods hovered around significance (F (1, 24) = 4.00, p = .057). However, the

t,o

Assessment Period Pretest 2 (Pret2) Posttest 2 (Post2) Pretest 2 (Pret2) Posttest 2 (Post2)

Reading Group

Less Skilled Readers (L) n = 14

Skilled Readers (H) n = 16

45.00 (13.51) 34.00 (3.16)

31.40 (14.47) 27.40 (6.35)

Control (C)

45.25 (4.50) 28.75 (4.50)

29.00 (12.83) 22.75 (7.27)

Partial (P)

Training Condition

46.29 (5.77) 45.29 (3.68)

26.40 (8.20) 43.20 (9.04)

Enriched (E)

Table II Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) of Word Meaning Scores by Reading Group, Training Condition, and Assessment Period 2 for Grade 5 Readers

201

TRAXNZZCC 50

f~

Pret2, L 45 Post2, L m - -

40 Pret2, H

"6

11=

o

0 c~

35

Post2, H

Z

30

25

20 1 1 Control

F~u~3.

2 2 Partial

3 3 Enriched

Performance in word meaning of less skilled (L) and skilled (H) grade 5 readers in Pretest 2 (Pret2) and Posttest 2 (Post2)for the control, partial and enriched training conditions.

reading group x assessment period and the reading group x treatment interactions were also significant with F (1, 24) = 10.21, p = .004, and F (2, 24) = 11.06, p = .0004 respectively. These significant interactions would tamper the interpretations of the main effects differences. Careful study of the data as summarized in Table II would suggest the enriched condition did bring about enhanced performance as compared with the two other training conditions, particularly for the less skilled readers. Where the results were blurred could be due to the slightly ambiguous effects between the partial and control conditions. Pretest Total and Posttest Total. The means and standard deviations of the Pretest Total and the Posttest Total for the whole of the sixweek training period for the target and control groups in the different training conditions are shown in Table III and graphically in Figure 4. A 2 (reading group) x 3 (training condition) x 2 (assessment period) ANOVA with the last factor repeated was used to analyze the combined data. The main effects for reading group and for assessment period were significant with F (1, 24) = 20.28, p = .0001, and F (1, 24) = 5.16, p = .032 respectively. These results would need to be interpreted cautiously because of the significant reading group x assessment period and treatment x assessment period interactions with F (1, 24) = 15.60, p = .0006, and F (2, 24) = 17.00, p < .0001 respectively. Again, careful examination of the data would suggest the improved perfor-

b,J

bO

Assessment Period Pretest Total (Prett) Posttest Total (Postt) Pretest Total (Prett) Posttest Total (Postt)

Reading Group

Less Skilled Readers (L) n = 14

Skilled Readers (H) n = 16

89.20 (18.54) 64.40 (4.56)

61.80 (20.32) 53.20 (12.60)

Control (C)

81.50 (6.81) 62.25 (6.65)

53.50 (16.11) 51.25 (13.30)

Partial (P)

Training Condition

82.00 (9.43) 84.00 (3.70)

53.80 (17.78) 76.00 (13.47)

Enriched (E)

Table III Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) of Word Meaning Scores by Reading Group, Training Condition, and Total Assessment Period for Grade 5 Readers

TK4ZNINC

203 90

E3

Prett, L I

80

Postt, L N - -

Prett, H

70

Posit, H 60

50

40 1 1 Control

2 2 Partial

3 3 Enriched

Figure 4. Performance in word meaning of less skilled (L) and skilled (H) grade 5 readers in Pretest Total (Prett) and Posttest Total (Postt ) for the control, partial and enriched training conditions. mance of the children trained under the enriched conditions, espedally for the less-skilled readers. Discussion. By its very nature, training studies in situ in the classroom situation are not easy to carry out, even for the reasonably sustained period of some six weeks. There are methodological and practical problems to overcome. The trainer and experimenter must work in such a way so as to maintain high interest among the target subjects and at the same time to minimize any possible disruption to the normal classroom activities. In addition, it is difficult to control for extraneous factors such as the differential background knowledge and growth rate of word knowledge in students. The present modest Study I must be read within the above context. Despite the small number of experimental and comparison subjects, the study was theory-based and empirically verifiable. The robust statistical analyses would overcome some of the problems of the relatively small sample size. The training period extending over six weeks for 25 minutes of each of the five school days per week for each training condition was longer than a number of the training studies reported in the literature. This sustained period of instruction with pretests and posttests at two time periods would provide for some stability of the results over time. While the findings are not clearcut because of the many uncontrolled, or uncontrollable, factors, there seems

204

RESEARCn INSlCnTS

to be some evidence that the enriched training condition did enhance word knowledge in readers, especially amongst the less skilled ones. With a more refined selection of the words to be taught, tighter experimental control, it is possible that these results would be sustained.

Study 2 The study of the effect of elaboration training in prose comprehension was predicated on the works of Brown, Palincsar, and Armbruster (1983), Paris, Cross, and Lipson (1984), and Wong (1986, 1987), among others. The learning to learn approach is summed up by Leong (1982, p. 12) as "integrative (bringing together interrelated concepts), inferential (going beyond the information given), and performance oriented (applicable to different situations)." Within the above framework, the specific hypotheses were that systematic training in elaboration strategies should lead to more searching self-questions in readers, especially among "poor" ones, and there should also be an increase in metacognition awareness in reading as sampled by a scale adapted from Paris, Cross, and Lipson (1984). Some enhancement in paragraph comprehension and, in the periphery, in paraphrasing, was also expected, even though these subskills were not trained directly.

Method Sample. The sample consisted of a target group of 22 grade 7 "poor" readers (mean age of 152.64 months with a standard deviation of 5.29 months), who scored amongst the lowest 25 percent for the grade on the aggregate Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension subtest scores of the Canadian Test of Basic Skills (King 1982). Of these 22 poor readers, nine children were given full elaboration (FE) training; seven, partial elaboration (PE) training; and six, minimal elaboration (ME) training (details in the next section). A contrast group of 19 "average" readers was drawn from grade 5 on the assumption that these younger, average readers as a group would approximate the reading performance of the target group. Of the 19 grade 5 controls (mean age of 131.32 months with a standard deviation of 5.42 months), eight, three, and eight students were in the FE, PE, and ME training subgroups. The target and contrast groups were taught separately by a second experimenter (DRS) under the different training conditions. To estimate the children's level of general ability, the Matrix E Subtest of the British Ability Scales (BAS) (Elliott, Murray, and Pearson 1978) was administered. There was no significant difference across the three training conditions for both groups.

TRAINING

205

Prose Materials. Seven expository prose passages of about 400 words each plus two practice passages were selected from various sources including The Reader's Digest Reading Skill Builder Series, Young Canadian Readers, and Young Children's Encyclopedia. These passages were rewritten by the present authors so as to conform to the principles of "considerate" texts in terms of vocabulary, organization, and cohesion. An excerpt from the passage on Whales begins with these lines: "There is something very fishy about whales. They live in the water. They look like fish. They swim like fish. But they are not fish at a l l . . . " Another excerpt from the passage on Calendars begins with this paragraph: "One of the first acts of Robinson Crusoe, alone on his island, was to keep a record of the passing days. In doing this, he was following the custom of many primitive peoples who marked time by knotting a cord or notching a stick every day. For us today a much easier method is to use our c a l e n d a r s . . . " T h e modified and rewritten passages averaged about the grade 6 level of difficulty as assessed by the Kincaid readability formula with the UNIX computer system (Cherry 1982). Training Procedure. The elaboration training was predicated on the model of Anderson (1980) with these characteristics: (a) information presentation, (b) response-demand events, (c) student responding, (d) response judging, feedback, and (e) heuristics on the next step. These interrelated components translated into the different steps of the teacher describing and modelling alternative strategies, and the teacher interacting with students when the latter develop and use such strategies (Duffy, Roehler, and Mason 1984). During the course of this direct, systematic instruction (Bauman 1988), the students were also helped to develop their comprehension monitoring with such selfquestions as: Are there new words? Does this make sense? What are the important points? What does the passage remind us of? Which part should I skim? Which part should I reread c a r e f u l l y ? . . . The differential elaboration training for the different groups (target and contrast groups), and the different conditions (full elaboration, partial elaboration, and minimal elaboration) consisted of 20 sessions of 30 minutes each given in four weeks for five school days a week divided into two blocks to allow for two assessment periods. The seven expository passages were taught during the 20-day period. These were the sequences of the full elaboration training: (a) introduction of motivation set with such discussions as purposes of reading, skimming, and getting main ideas; (b) use of reinforcement (verbal praise); (c) use of general procedure with teacher modelling of self-questioning, and summarizing; (d) use of extended or enriched procedure with teacher emphasizing main ideas, drawing out inferences with feedback on both comprehension and its monitoring. In

206

RESEARCH INSIGHTS

the partial elaboration training, the enriched procedure was not used and there was no specific instruction for summarizing and paraphrasing the passages. In the minimal elaboration training, students were asked to answer general questions, rather than to generate specific and inferential questions. Assessment of the efficacy of training took place in week 3 (Period I or P1) and in week 5 (Period 2 or P2). The main focus was on the students' ability to generate "thoughtful" questions assessed on a fivepoint scale and scored blind by two independent judges. An example of a thoughtful question on the first paragraph of the Calendar passage was: "Why does the writer say Robinson Crusoe was on his island? What is the difference between 'his' island and 'an' island here [in this context]? [Robinson Crusoe was monarch of all he surveyed.]" The mean interrater reliability over the sew.~nprose passages was .937. The related focus was the students' metacognitive awareness in reading comprehension as assessed by a scale adapted from Paris, Cross, and Lipson (1984). Comprehension was estimated from answers to openended questions, and, in the periphery, paraphrasing was also examined (see Wong et al. 1986). Results and Discussion

The basic design used to analyze the data was the 3 (training condition) x 2 (reading group) x 2 (assessment period) ANOVA with the last factor repeated. Self-Questioning. For self-questioning, the means and standard deviations of the performance of the target and control groups in the three training conditions for the two assessment periods are displayed in Table IV. The ANOVA results show that there were significant main effects for training condition (F (2, 35) = 6.97, p = .003, for assessment period (F (1, 35) = 4.98, p = .032). Scheffe multiple comparisons reveal that for assessment Period I students in the full elaboration (FE) condition performed significantly better at the .05 level than the students in the partial elaboration (PE) condition or in the minimal elaboration (ME) condition. During assessment Period 2, both the FE and PE subgroups performed significantly better at the .05 level than the ME subgroup. For all training conditions, the grade 5 contrast subgroups performed better overall than the grade 7 subgroups. However, it was the partial elaboration condition that provided greater growth. But this must be interpreted within the significant training by assessment period interaction (F (2, 35) = 4.35, p -= .021). These results are shown in the two panels in Figure 5. Metacognitive Awareness. For metacognitive awareness the means and standard deviations of the performance of the target and control groups in the three training conditions for the two assessment periods

NI

t,o

Week 3 (P1) Week 5 (P2) Week 3 (P1) Week 5 (P2)

Average Grade 5 Readers (Control) n = 19

Assessment Period

Less Skilled Grade 7 Readers (Target) n = 22

Reading Group

Partial (PE) 9.71 (4.39) 13.88 (5.15) 10.67 (2.52) 15.00 (3.00)

Minimal (ME) 9.33 (3.33) 5.83 (4.47) 7.36 (2.88) 4.47 (4.30)

Elaboration Training Condition

12.13 (4.64) 13.13 (4.88)

12.11 (2.57) 12.22 (2.64)

Full (FE)

Table IV Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) of Self-Questioning Scores (Max. 25) by Reading Group, Training Condition, and Assessment Period

208

RESEARCMINSIGHTS PERIOD 1

FE Gr. 7 £3 O Gr. 5 £ F - - - Q

16

PE Gr. 7

O

Gr5

O,- - - - o

PERIOD 2

O

~ .O PE, P2 //

14

PE

ME

14

O~ /

Gr$

EE

8

13,- - - -G

~3 FE, P2

~ [~ ~ ~

O

FE, P1

E~ lO

ME

~

lO

~

8

PE, P1 ..........1.•3 ~ ME, P2

~

M

/

E

,

Pt

J 6

I

WEEK 3 (P1)

f

WEEK 5 (P2)

ASSESSMENT PERIOD (P)

6 f

I

TARGET (Gr 7) CONTROL (Gr. 5) GROUP

F~u~5. Performance in self-questioning of less skilled grade 7 readers (target) and average grade 5 readers (control) in assessment periods I (P1) and 2 (P2) for the minimal elaboration (ME), partial elaboration (PE) and full elaboration (FE) training conditions.

are displayed in Table V. The ANOVA results show that there were significant main effects for training condition (F (2, 35) = 5.67, p = .007), for reading group (F (2, 35) = 5.60, p = .024), for assessment period (F (1, 35) = 8.71, p = .006). Scheffe multiple comparisons reveal that for both the target and contrast groups, the full elaboration (FE) subgroups outperformed the partial elaboration (PE) subgroups, which, in turn, did significantly better than the minimal elaboration (ME) subgroups (except for grade 5). These results are shown in the two panels in Figure 6. Comprehension. For comprehension, the means and standard deviations of the performance of the target and control groups in the three training conditions for the two assessment periods are displayed in Table VI. The ANOVA results show that there were significant main effects for training across the two assessment periods (F (2, 35) = 8.11, p = .001), and for reading group (F (2, 35) = 5.24, p = .010). Scheffe multiple comparisons reveal that across the assessment periods the partial elaboration (PE) subgroups performed significantly better at the .05 level than the minimal elaboration (ME) subgroups and for Period 2 the contrast students performed significantly better at the. 05 level than the target students. These results are shown in the two panels in Figure 7.

t,o

Week 3 (P1) Week 5 (P2) Week 3 (P1) Week 5 (P2)

Average Grade 5 Readers (Control) n = 19

Assessment Period

Less Skilled Grade 7 Readers (Target) n = 22

Reading Group

30.75 (3.77) 34.75 (2.77)

28.67 (6.09) 31.67 (3.50)

Minimal (ME)

34.33 (3.79) 33.67 (2.31)

30.14 (4.14) 32.86 (6.15)

Partial (PE)

Elaboration Training Condition

35.00 (3.70) 37.00 (1.20)

33.00 (2.78) 35.11 (1.76)

Full (FE)

Table V Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) of Metacognition Scores (Max. 40) by Reading Group, Training Condition, and Assessment Period

210

RESEARCHINSrCZ-rrS FE Gr, 7 Gr. 5

[3 r] [ 3 - - - ~3

PERIOD 1

-

PERIOD 2

....

-

PE ~-

36

~

"

j3~ ~

)

Gr, 7 Gr. 5

[J~

ut

O 36

/ ~

o

O O O- - - ~ )

FE ME Gr7

J~

PE

C~

~

ME

--- 3~

32

:~

WEEK 3 (P1)

WEEK 5(P2)

ASSESSMENT PERIOD (P)

F~u~6.

3£'

~ ~

FE, P2

PE, P2

ME P1

TARGET (Gr 7) CONTROL (Gr 5) GROUP

Performance in metacognitive awareness of less skilled grade 7 readers (target) and average grade 5 readers (control) in assessment periods 1 (P1) and 2 (P2) for the minimal elaboration (ME), partial elaboration (PE) and full elaboration (FE) training conditions.

For paraphrasing the overall results were not significant. However, for Period 2 the full elaboration subgroup performed better than the partial or the minimal elaboration subgroups. But the force of this finding is reduced with significant training condition by reading group by assessment period interaction effect. In addition to the group results, the progress of some individual students was also charted over the four-week period to provide insight into individual differences. Discussion. In a modest way, this sustained, systematic training in situ with different subgroups of poor readers and their controls in 20 teaching sessions over a four-week period has yielded some insight into the promotion of prose comprehension, despite some inherent methodological problems with any learning or training study. In general, the full elaboration training seemed to benefit both the grade 7 target less skilled or poor readers and the grade 5 controls, and with the latter group showing more sustained performance well into the second period of assessment. The partial elaboration also helped the students; whereas those in the minimal elaboration training subgroups showed the greater variability. There is a need to refine both the training approaches and the text materials for more rigorous results.

Week 3 (P1) Week 5 (P2) Week 3 (P1) Week 5 (P2)

Average Grade 5 Readers (Control) n= 19

Assessment Period

Less Skilled Grade 7 Readers (Target) n = 22

Reading Group

6.88 (2.90) 8.75 (2.36)

6.67 (2.99) 5.67 (2.58)

Minimal (ME)

6.67 (2.31) 9.00 (3.00)

9.86 (3.08) 9.14 (3.85)

Partial (PE)

Elaboration Training Condition

12.50 (2.56) 12.00 (1.07)

7.00 (2.45) 9.11 (3.33)

Full (FE)

Table VI Means and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) of Comprehension Scores (Max. 20) by Reading Group, Training Condition, and Assessment Period

212

RESK4RC~INszc~rrs PERIOD t

FE Gr. 7 O (3 Gr. 5 0 - - - - , : 3 PE Gr. 7 Gr. 5

16

14

/j•/•

8 u)

O--_~

....

O ~3

ME Gr. 7 & Gr. 5 C~ - - -~,

14

S ¢n

o O- - -

PERIOD 2

FE'P1 FE, P2

_~

FE

~c

. . . . .

PE

0 PE. P2

8 ME /

6

6

I WEEK 3 (P1)

I

I WEEK 5 (P21

I

TARGET (Gr 7) CONTROL (Gr 5)

ASSESSMENT PERIOD (P)

GROUP

Figure 7. Performance in comprehension questions of less skilled grade 7 readers (target) and average grade 5 readers (control) in assessment periods 1 (P1) and 2 (P2) for the minimal elaboration (ME), partial elaboration (PE) and full elaboration (FE) training conditions.

General Discussion It can be said that the emphasis of the two interrelated studies is on learning words, learning about words, learning prose materials, and learning about prose materials. Lexical or word meanings vary and context helps to infer a specific interpretation. Take as an example the different senses (polysemy) of the deceptively simple word "line" in these sentences: "He typed the first line of his letter," "I am no longer in that line of business," "Please drop me a line when you have time," "The corrupt official lined his own p o c k e t . . . "(Downing and Leong 1982, p. 229). Such polysemous words are potential sources of reading comprehension difficulties. It is important to teach multiple meanings of words and appropriate discrimination of "fuzzy" meanings supported by context. In an elegant study using within-subject, hierarchical analyses to measure knowledge of unfamiliar words while reading text by eighth grade average and above average readers, Nagy, Herman, and Anderson (1985) found small but statistical reliable gains in word knowledge from context. Such learning and teaching would likely have long-term, cumulative effects on reading proficiency (see McKeown and Curtis 1987 for details). There are different approaches to enhance prose comprehension

TRAINING

213

(Leong 1987 Chapter 10; Pearson 1984). Text structure, text cohesion and the ability of the learners obviously play a part, a large part. Cohesive text, for example, enhances comprehension because the cohesive ties and signalling units make explicit the relationships of propositions within the text (Beck et al. 1984). What is suggested in the very modest Study 2 is that appropriate learning strategies such as self-questioning can help poor readers. Successive learning or metacognitive strategies should incorporate these features: (a) careful task analysis, (b) delineation of appropriate strategies, (c) explicit instruction using these strategies, (d) the provision of feedback of the usefulness of the strategies, and (e) generalization of the strategies to similar learning situations (Palincsar and Brown 1987). What Study 2 shows, just as what Study 1 does, is that direct explicit teaching with discussion and feedback could go some way in helping less skilled readers.

References Anderson, T.H. 1980. Study strategies and adjunct aids. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bertram, and B.E Brewer (eds.). Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (pp. 483-502). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Baker, L. 1984. Children's effective use of multiple standards for evaluating their comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 76:588-597. Bauman, J.E 1988. Direct instruction reconsidered. Journal of Reading 31:712-718. Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., Omanson, R.C., and Pople, M.T. 1984. Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly 19:263-277. Beck, I.L., Perfetti, C.A., and McKeown, M.G. 1982. Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 74:506-521. Brown, A.L., Palincsar, A.S., and Armbruster, B.B. 1983. Instructing comprehensionfostering activities in interactive learning situations. In H. Mandl, N.L. Stein, and T. Trabasso (eds.). Learning and Comprehension of Text (pp. 255-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Carroll, J.B., Davies, P., and Richman, B. 1971. The American Heritage Word Frequency Book. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Cherry, L.L. 1982. Writing tools. IEEE Transactions on Communication COM-30:100-105. Dansereau, D. 1978. The development of a learning strategies curriculum. In H.F. O'Neill, Jr. (ed.). Learning Strategies (pp. 1-29). New York: Academic Press. Downing, J. and Leong, C.K. 1982. Psychology of Reading. New York: Macmillan. Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., and Mason, J. 1984 Comprehension Instruction. New York: Longman. Durkin, D. 1978-1979. What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly 14:481-533. Elliott, C.D., Murra~ D.J., and Pearson, L.S. 1978. British Ability Scales: Manual 3: Directions for administration and scoring, and Manual 4: Tables of abilities and norms. Windsor, Berks.: NFER. Frederiksen, J.R. 1982. A componential theory of reading skills and their interactions. In R.J. Sternberg (ed.). Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 125-180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

214

RESEARCh INsxG~rrs

Hiebert, E.H. 1983. An examination of ability grouping for reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly 18:231-255. Jarvella, R.J. 1979. Immediate memory and discourse processing. In G.H. Bower (ed.). The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in researchand theory (Vol. 13, pp. 379-421). New York: Academic Press. Jenkins, J.R. and Dixon, R. 1983. Vocabulary learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology 8:237-260. King, E.M. (Ed.) 1982. Canadian Tests of Basic Skills: Multilevel edition 9-12~Forms 5 & 6. Toronto: Nelson. Leong, C.K. 1982. Promising areas of research into learning disabilitieswith emphasis on reading disabilities. In J.E Das, R.E Mulcahy, and A.E Wall (eds.). Theory and Research in Learning Disabilities (pp. 3-26). New York: Plenum Publishing. Leong, C.K. 1987. Children with Specific Reading Disabilities. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger. Leong, C.K. 1988. A componential approach to understanding reading and its difficulties in preadolescent readers. Annals of Dyslexia 38:95-119. Leong, C.K. 1989. Productive knowledge of derivational rules in poor readers. Annals of Dyslexia 39: McKeown, M.G. 1985. The acquisition of word meaning from context by children of high and low ability. Reading Research Quarterly 20:482-496. McKeown, M.G. and Curtis, M.E. (eds.). 1987. The Nature of VocabularyAcquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Nag~ W.E., Herman, PA., and Anderson, R.C. 1985. Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly 20:233-253. Olson, R.K., Kliegl, R., Davidson, B.J., and Foltz, G. 1985. Individual and developmental differences in reading disability. In G.E. Mackinnon and T.G. Waller (eds.). Reading Research:Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 4, pp. 1-64). New York: Academic Press. Palincsar, A. and Brown, D.A. 1987. Enhancing instructional time through attention to metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities 20:66-75. Paris, S.G., Cross, D.R., and Lipson, M.Y. 1984. Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children's awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 76:1239-1252. Pads, S.G., and Myer, II, M. 1981. Comprehension monitoring, memor)~ and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior 13:5-22. Pearson, PD. 1982. A Context for Instructional Research on Reading Comprehension (Tech. Rep. No. 230). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Pearson, P.D. (ed.). 1984. Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Longman. Perfetti, C.A. 1985. Reading Ability. New York: Oxford University Press. Sternberg, R.J. and Powell, J.S. 1983. Comprehending verbal comprehension. American Psychologist 38:878-893. van Daalen-Kapteijns, M.M. and Elshout-Mohr, M. 1981. The acquisition of word meanings as a cognitive learning process. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20:386-399. Wagoner, S.R. 1983. Comprehension monitoring: What it is and what we know about it. Reading Research Quarterly 18:328-346. Watson, R. and Olson, D.R. 1987. From meaning to definition: A literate bias on the structure of word meaning. In R. Horowitz and S.J. Samuels (eds.). Comprehending Oral and Written Language (pp. 329-353). New York: Academic Press. Wong, B. 1986. Metacognition and special education: A review of a view. The Journal of Special Education 20:9-31.

TRAINING

215

Wong, B. 1987. How do the results of metacognitive research impact on the learning disabled individual? Learning Disability Quarterly 10:189-195. Wong, B., Wong, R., Perry, N., and Sawatsk~ D. 1986. The efficacy of a self-questioning summarization strategy for use by underachievers and learning disabled adolescents in social studies. Learning Disabilities Focus2:20-35.