Self-Regulated Strategy Development Instruction for Expository Text Comprehension

By Mason, Linda H; Meadan, Hedda; Hedin, Laura; Corso, Laurie

Students who exhibit delays in their acquisition of reading skills demonstrate inefficient application of reading strategies and poor background knowledge (Baker & Brown, 1984). In addition, they often lack the metacognitive strategies required to comprehend texts, not only in language arts/literature classes, but also in the content areas. Knowing this, Ms. Smith began her reading session by asking Olivia, a fourth-grade student with a learning disability in reading, to complete a reading self-efficacy questionnaire (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).

Olivia reads: I like to read outside of school. Olivia without hesitation places an X over the anchor A lot like me and explains, “Me and my mom read about horses sometimes.” The next item reads: I learn more from reading than most students in the class. This time she considers carefully, frowns slightly, and marks the anchor Very different from me.

This short vignette illustrates a pervasive problem in schools today-struggling readers who like to read and want to read but who do not feel confident in their abilities to learn from reading text. Olivia is one of a large group of students with and without disabilities who struggle with reading and understanding material written for school classrooms. Fourth-grade Olivia, and more than 30% of all readers at the fourth-grade level, unfortunately, do not meet standards for reading (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2003) and, therefore, are at risk for academic failure. In the upper elementary grades, reading comprehension, or the ability to construct meaning from a variety of texts, can be the key to academic success.

Many upper elementary grade teachers, regrettably, presume that their students have mastered the fundamentals of reading. Assuming that students have basic comprehension skills, the teacher may not provide explicit instruction in strategic practices that provide the foundation to good reading comprehension (Durkin, 1978-79; Moody, Vaughn, Hughes, & Fischer, 2000; Vaughn, Moody, & Schumm, 1998). The limited use of explicit comprehension instruction is a problem for those students who are behind their peers (Mason, 2004). What do Olivia and others like her need to know about good reading that will allow them to begin the process of comprehending expository texts effectively?

What Do Good Readers Do?

Reading is a complex process that requires children to be engaged. Good reading relies on a familiarity with text structure, background knowledge, motivation for reading, and adequate vocabulary (Baker & Brown, 1984). Metacognition, the act of monitoring one’s comprehension, is also essential when considering effective reading processes. To succeed in understanding what is read, children must simultaneously and persistently attend to text. Students must be able to monitor their own comprehension and apply specific reading strategies when necessary. Good readers maintain conscious control of their reading process and implement strategies to “fix-up” comprehension as they deconstruct text (decode) and reconstruct meaning (Brown, 1978).

What Do Students With Learning Disabilities (LD) Do?

Students with LD that is manifested in reading, in contrast to good readers, rely on simpler, less efficient strategies and fail to implement what strategies they do know in a fluid, controlled fashion (Mason, 2004). These children constitute the largest group of students identified for special education services and are most frequently included in the general education curriculum with minimal supports (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003). A large proportion of students with LD, perhaps over 70%, are at risk for academic failure in the general education curriculum because of a lack of foundational skills in literacy. When their achievement is compared to their peers who struggle with reading, students with LD may appear similar; however, they experience comprehension problems that are more severe (Mason).

What Should Teachers Do to Promote Expository Comprehension?

The difficulty that many students, especially those with reading comprehension difficulties, have in understanding material read from expository text (factual/reference material vs. story/ narrative material) begins in elementary school (Saenz & Fuchs, 2002). Expository text characteristics-organization, unfamiliar/harder vocabulary, graphics, and inferences-often create a barrier for students resulting in a breakdown in reading comprehension. When reading instructors consider the instructional process for those students with reading comprehension difficulties, they must be careful to plan methodologies that promote the metacognitive processes critical to successful expository reading comprehension. As noted by Pressley (2000):

The frequent admonition for children to ‘Read, read, read,’ makes sense in that extensive reading promotes fluency, vocabulary, and background knowledge (i.e., it promotes a number of competencies simultaneously). Immersion in reading alone, however, is unlikely to lead to maximally skilled comprehension . . . nor is there evidence that such immersion in the later elementary years results in the development of the many consciously articulated comprehension processes used by good readers, (p. 556)

Fortunately, single-approach strategies (e.g., RAP for main ideas, Ellis & Graves, 1990) and multiapproach strategies (e.g., POSSE, Englert & Mariage, 1991) have been developed for teaching students how to obtain meaning from text. One strategy, TWA (Think before reading, think While reading, think After reading), combines previously validated reading comprehension strategies into a nine- step, multiple-strategy expository reading package.

TWA for Expository Reading Comprehension

Recent empirical studies investigating TWA taught within the Self- Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD; Graham & Harris, 2003) instructional framework, have yielded excellent results and noted improvement in reading comprehension for struggling readers with and without LD (Mason, 2004; Mason & Bentz, 2004; Mason, Hickey Snyder, Jones, & Kedem, in press). TWA is a nine-step procedural facilitator (Baker, Gertsen, & Scanlon, 2002) that promotes reading comprehension throughout the reading process (see Figure 1). Students are explicitly taught strategies that can be used before they read, while they read, and after they read an expository passage.

Before reading, students are taught to activate prior knowledge by thinking about the author’s purpose, what they know about the topic, and what they want to learn about the topic (Ogle, 1989). During reading, students are encouraged to think about their reading speed, linking knowledge, and rereading parts (Graves & Levin, 1989; Hansen & Pearson, 1983). After reading, students are first taught to develop main ideas using the RAP (Read the paragraph, Ask yourself: What is the sentence in the paragraph that tells the gist of the paragraph? Put the main idea into your own words) strategy (Ellis & Graves, 1990). Next, they summarize by using Brown and Day’s (1983) summarization strategy (delete trivial information, delete redundant information, substitute super-ordinate terms for a list of terms or actions, select a topic sentence, invent a topic sentence). Finally, students are provided the opportunity to practice orally retelling the information from the passage. Retelling is supported by the teacher as needed for those students who have difficulty with expressive language deficits or short-term memory difficulties. To foster metacognition, maintenance, and generalization, TWA is taught using the SRSD instructional approach developed by Harris and Graham (1999).

SRSD is a structured instructional approach that incorporates (a) preskill development, (b) discussion of strategy usage and how it helps with reading, (c) teacher cognitive modeling (talk out loud while implementing the strategy), (d) strategy step memorization, (e) student and teacher collaborative practice, (f) partner practice, and (g) independent practice. Student application of selfregulation (goal setting, self-monitoring, self-instruction, self-reinforcement) in reading comprehension is explicitly taught fostering students’ independence in strategy use across settings, materials, and time.

This article explains how to use SRSD instruction for the TWA strategy for expository reading comprehension with science and social studies reading material. Also illustrated is a students’ application of the TWA strategy by describing Olivia’s performance during our recent intervention research. Baseline information can be illustrated using a pretest example: Olivia’s oral retell of a social studies passage about the Puritans read prior to instruction:

When the Puritans would watch you everyday if you were their next door neighbor cause if you go help. Sometimes they might be nosy. If you have house burned down. If sick.

Lessons

Each SRSD for a TWA lesson addresses a specific component of strategy acquisition. For example, a lesson may focus on the teacher modeling the TWA strategy, whereas another may focus on student peer collaborative practice. In order to follow the guidelines of effective instruction (Bos & Vaughn, 200\2), each lesson includes time for establishing prior learning and review; demonstration, discussion, and guided practice; independent practice; and closure. Lessons are designed to be repeated if needed and are recursive in design. In other words, in order to support the students’ mastery of TWA, a lesson or part of a lesson may be revisited at any time during instruction. Plans for each lesson that clearly state lesson objectives; materials needed; methods for setting the context for student learning; methods for developing the strategy by modeling, providing collaborative/ guided practice, and peer/independent practice; and lesson closure can be accessed at http:// www.ed.uiuc.edu/ sped/twaplans/ (Mason, 2005).

Setting the Context for Student Learning

Prior to starting each day’s lesson, students practice memorizing TWA and develop examples of how TWA helps with reading assignments. This time provided for reviewing previously taught information establishes a framework for understanding the lesson that will follow and activates previous knowledge and understanding. In order to facilitate student memorization, students are encouraged first to write out the TWA reminder mnemonic:

T _____ _____ _____

W _____ _____ _____

A _____ _____ _____

Figure 1. TWA Chart

Students record their performance by writing a checkmark on their handwritten chart after verbally rehearsing each step. The daily practice of writing the TWA mnemonic reminder and verbal rehearsal of the nine steps allows the teacher quickly to assess students’ memorization fluency. Students who are unable to recall the steps are provided additional time to practice the strategy with a peer.

After completing the mnemonic chart rehearsal, the teacher and the students discuss how TWA can assist them with their reading assignments. The teacher reminds them that using TWA will help them read, understand, and remember information about what they have read so they can answer questions and talk about what they have read. Students are given specific examples of how they can use the strategy when reading. For example, the teacher may state that when using TWA, they will be able to know to reread portions that are not clear, know to link knowledge and make connections while reading, and be able to discuss main ideas. All of these strategy tools will assist them as they begin the process of learning information found in informational texts.

Setting the Context for Olivia

Olivia was able to learn the steps of TWA within the first couple of lessons. Each day she would write the mnemonic reminder and begin to state the parts without prompting. By the end of the instruction, her memorization of the strategy steps was fluent. Olivia developed many ideas for applying TWA to reading outside of the research setting-for example, “when reading a Web page” and “when taking ISAT (Illinois State Achievement Test).”

Figure 2. TWA Checklist

Developing Hie TWA Strategy

For the duration of this phase of instruction, students have the opportunity to interact directly using TWA before, while, and after reading expository text. Reading passages selected for initial lessons should be limited to those with simple text structure (i.e., those with straightforward rhetorical style). As the students become competent in applying the strategies, reading material found in authentic science and social studies texts can be used. Instruction begins with modeling, followed by collaborative/guided practice, and ending with pair or independent practice.

Modeling

During the modeled lesson, the students observe and interact with the teacher as strategy application is explicitly demonstrated. The teacher follows a previously developed and practiced lesson plan script, ensuring inclusion of examples and connections that assist the students as they begin to understand how TWA can work when reading a passage. In addition to modeling the strategy, the teacher uses self-statements throughout reading to guide and support the process. For example, prior to reading, the teacher may say, “I have a passage to read. It will be easy to understand because I know the steps in TWA that will help me understand and remember the passage. What is the first thing I should do?” The teacher models the use of the TWA checklist (see Figure 2) to ensure that each step of TWA is completed and models the use of yellow (main ideas), green (important details), and pink (unimportant information) markers to highlight sentences to foster development of the main idea and summarization steps in after reading. Following the teacher-led modeling, students write a list of personal self-statements that they can use before, while, and after reading.

Guided/Collaborative Practice

After modeling, subsequent lessons focus on collaborative practice during which the teacher and students work as a team to practice the steps of TWA. This collaborative approach provides a scaffold for students as they gradually take over the process of using TWA independently. During collaborative practice, the teacher guides the lesson and solicits student input and ideas. The teacher encourages the students to use their previously written self- statements while reading with TWA. Students are directed to use the TWA checklist to monitor strategy steps completed. Highlighters are used to emphasize main ideas, important details, and trivial details located in text sentences.

Pair/Independent Practice

After students have demonstrated competence in using TWA with teacher support, pair practice is implemented. Initially, student pairs practice completing each step, monitor their performance using the checklist, and then report results of their reading to the teacher. The teacher continues to provide as much assistance as needed to ensure students’ accurate and successful use of TWA. This lesson is repeated until students have demonstrated that they can complete the steps of the strategy independently. The checklist and the highlighters are eventually faded.

During independent practice, the students practice the use of TWA independently without the use of support materials. At this time, the teacher meets with students individually to validate students’ performance and provide differentiated support and guidance.

Olivia Learns to Implement the TWA Strategy

Olivia worked well with the other students in her instructional group. Her self-statements reflected her thoughts about using TWA throughout the reading process. Before reading, she stated, “TWA is here for me” and “This might be fun.” During reading, self- statements continued to support her affective behavior as she applied direct strategy use. “This is interesting” and “I think I need to check this over.” After reading, she reminded herself to look at reading goals: “If you are done see if you understand it and try to meet you goal.” Like her peers, she often needed guidance in correctly marking which pieces of information were important and which ones were trivial. Olivia was able to achieve independence in using the nine steps of TWA without support materials within twelve 30-minute lessons.

Lesson Closure

At the end of each lesson, the teacher asks the students to review their checklists and count how many TWA steps they have completed. Students graph this number on a graphing rocket sheet (see Figure 3). The rockets give the students and the teacher visual representation of how each student performed. The teacher can, at a glance, see how many steps each student completed and can provide verbal reinforcement. To close each lesson, the teacher reviews the steps of TWA and reminds students that they will be writing out the mnemonic reminder at the beginning of the next lesson, telling what it means from memory. The teacher charts student progress and identifies that each student has mastery of TWA steps. The teacher identifies students who are struggling and individual and/or repeated lessons are planned and implemented.

Olivia Reflects on What She Has Learned

Following instruction, Olivia was asked some questions about her perceptions about SRSD instruction for TWA. When asked if the TWA strategy helped her, she replied, “Yes. I can go through and learn and understand.” She continued, “While we’re reading think about reading speed, too fast or too slow, the main idea, try to put a summary together, what you know and what you want to learn.” When asked whether the strategy would help other children, she stated, “A lot because some don’t know about reading so they need help.” She had no suggestions for things to add to either instruction or TWA. Following instruction, at posttest, Olivia gave the following oral retell for a social studies passage about the Igbo in Nigeria.

Figure 3. TWA Rocket

What would it be like in Africa in the 140Os? It mostly depends on which society you are in. One group is called the Igbo. If you were born in the Igbo the first 3 years you will spend time with friends and your family and be showered with affection. Adults would let you do about anything at that age.

After your first 3 years it will come to an end. Ages 3 or 4 you will start having chores to do. For boys they carry messages. Girls would bring home firewood for cooking. At 5 or 6, boys or girls would work in the field. Girls or boys would also help their parents in the village by making yams and rice.

When you had spare time you would mostly be in the center of the village mixing with other kids. You did not go to formal schools and when you also had spare time you might play sand games or wrestle with friends.

In conducting this instructional method, the authors learned that students like Olivia can benefit from the explicit approach in SRSD instruction for TWA. Although the lesson plan format and short 30- minute lessons make TWA accessible and easy to implement, teaching expository reading comprehension takes time and requires careful scaffolding. TWA with SRSD instruction is an approac\h that can be utilized for whole class general education instruction, for small group instruction, or for individualized instruction or tutoring. TWA is a strategy that students will be able to utilize not only during specific reading time, but also across all areas of the curriculum.

Effective reading instruction should always include a comprehension component, but unfortunately for some students, early literacy instruction may revolve solely around decoding text and may not emphasize comprehending and responding to different types of text. Teachers need to build reading instruction around the notion that, simply put, “reading equals meaning.” In addition, teachers need to provide the type of practice and opportunities to respond to text that TWA with SRSD provides. TWA with SRSD offers teachers an option for beginning, developing, and increasing students’ capacity in expository reading comprehension.

Good reading comprehension relies on a familiarity with text structure, background knowledge, motivation for reading, and adequate vocabulary.

TWA with SRSD instruction is an approach that can be utilized for whole class general education instruction, for small group instruction, or for individualized instruction or tutoring.

References

Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skill in reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.

Baker, S., Gertsen, R., & Scanlon, D. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 65-77.

Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (2002). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1; pp. 77-157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macro rules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.

Durkin, D. (1978-79). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 482-533.

Ellis, E. S., & Graves, A. W. (1990). Teaching rural students with learning disabilities: A paraphrasing strategy to increase comprehension of main ideas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10, 2-10.

Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading “POSSE.” Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 14, 123-138.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323-344). New York: Guilford.

Graves, A. W., & Levin, J. R. (1989). Comparison of monitoring and mnemonic text-processing strategies in learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 12, 232-236.

Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fifthgrade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 821-829.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic intervention research: Illustrations from the evolution of self-regulated strategy development. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 251-262.

Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effect on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283-296.

Mason, L. H. (2005). TWA and PLANS (2005). Retrieved January 5, 2005 from University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Special Education Department Web site: http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/sped/twaplans/

Mason, L. H., & Bentz. J. (June, 2004). Self-regulating and guiding reading comprehension for 87 students who struggle with expository text. Paper presented at Society for the Scientific Study of Reading llth annual conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Mason, L. H., Hickey Snyder, K., Jones, D. P., & Kedem, Y. (in press). TWA + PLANS Strategies for expository reading and writing: Effects for nine 4th-grade students. Exceptional Children.

Moody, S. W, Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Fischer, M. (2000). Reading instruction in the resource room: Set up for failure. Exceptional Children, 66, 305-316.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2003). Results from the NAEP 2000 reading assessment. Retrieved January 5, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/reading/results

Ogle, D. M. (1989). The know, want to know, learn strategy. In K. D. Muth (Ed.), Children’s comprehension of text (pp. 205-223). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Volume 3; pp. 545-461). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Saenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 31-41.

Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities? Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 140-147.

Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W, & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in resource rooms. Exceptional Children, 64, 211- 225.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420-432.

Linda H. Mason (CEC PA Federation), Assistant Professor, Department of Educational and School Psychology and Special Education, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Hedda Meadan fCEC IL Federation), Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Special Education, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Laura Hedin (CEC IL Federation), Doctoral Student, Department of Special Education, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Laurie Corso, Assistant Principal, Chappelow Arts and Literacy Magnet School in Colorado.

Address correspondence to Linda H. Mason, Assistant Professor, Department of Educational and School Psychology and Special Education, 210 CEDAR, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 (e-mail: lhml2@psu.edu).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 47-52.

Copyright 2006 CEC.

Copyright Council for Exceptional Children Mar/Apr 2006