The Effects of Prior Knowledge and Schema Activation Strategies on the Inferential Reading Comprehension of Children with and without Learning Disabilities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 1996
The Effects of Prior Knowledge and Schema Activation Strategies on the Inferential Reading Comprehension of Children with and without Learning Disabilities
The present study compared the reading comprehension abilities of students with learning disabilities (LD) and those of both their age peers and their reading-level peers. Reading passages included familiar and unfamiliar topics, so as to assess the use of prior knowledge under varying conditions. All passages tested inferential reading ability, since the answers to test questions could be inferred from content, but were not explicitly stated. Subject activation and experimenter activation of prior knowledge were also compared. All groups benefited from experimenter activation of prior knowledge, but these benefits were most noteworthy for subjects with LD, and when passage topics were unfamiliar. The subjects with LD performed very similarly to their reading-level peers, as opposed to their age peers. Thus, the findings shed some light on the nature of learning disabilities. Implications for instruction are explored.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnderssonB.V. (1982). Creativity as a mediating variable in inferential reading comprehension (Doctoral dissertation, University of New Orleans, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 2993A.
2.
BerningerV.HartT.AbbottR.KarovskyP. (1992). Defining reading and writing disabilities with and without IQ: A flexible, developmental perspective. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 103–118.
3.
BransfordJ.D. (1985). Schema activation and schema acquisition: Comments on Richard C. Anderson's remarks. In SingerH.RuddellR.B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 385–397). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
4.
BransfordJ.D.SteinB.S.VyeN.J.FranksJ.J.AubleP.M.MezynskiK.J.PerfettoG.A. (1982). Differences in approaches to learning: An overview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111 (4), 390–398.
5.
BryanT. (1991). Selection of subjects in research on learning disabilities: A view from the social side. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 297–302.
6.
CeciS.J.BakerJ.G. (1989). On learning … more or less: A knowledge x process x context view of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 90–99.
7.
ChiM.T.H.KoeskeR.D. (1983). Network representation of a child's dinosaur knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 19, 29–39.
8.
CLD Research Committee. (1993). Minimum standards for the description of participants in learning disabilities research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 210–213.
9.
FinlanT.G. (1992). Do state methods of quantifying a severe discrepancy result in fewer students with learning disabilities?Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 129–134.
10.
FishL.J. (1988). Why multivariate methods are usually vital. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 21, 130–137.
11.
GajriaM.SalviaJ. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 508–516.
12.
GravesA.W.LevinJ.R. (1989). Comparison of monitoring and mnemonic text-processing strategies in learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 232–236.
13.
GriffeyQ.L.Jr.ZigmondN.LeinhardtG. (1988). The effects of self-questioning and story structure training on the reading comprehension of poor readers. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 45–51.
14.
HolmesB.C. (1983). The effect of prior knowledge on the question answering of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15 (4), 1–18.
15.
IdolL. (1988). Johnny can't read: Does the fault lie with the book, the teacher, or Johnny?Remedial and Special Education, 9 (1), 8–25.
16.
LangerJ.A.NicholichM. (1981). Prior knowledge and its effect on comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13 (4), 373–379.
17.
LenzB.K.HughesC.A. (1990). A word identification strategy for adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 149–163.
18.
LipsonM.Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14 (3), 243–261.
19.
LipsonM.Y.WixsonK.K. (1986). Reading disability: An interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56, 111–136.
20.
Louisiana State Department of Education. (1986). Pupil appraisal handbook: Bulletin 1508. Baton Rouge, LA: Author.
21.
MaloneL.D.MastropieriM.A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 270–279.
22.
MarrM.B.GormleyK. (1982). Children's recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 89–104.
23.
PearsonP.D.HansenJ.GordonC. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children's comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201–210.
24.
PittsM.M. (1982). Effects of cognitive styles on inferential reading comprehension (Doctoral dissertation, University of New Orleans, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 1910A.
25.
PittsM.M.ThompsonB. (1984). Cognitive styles as mediating variables in inferential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 426–435.
26.
SamuelsS.J. (1983). A cognitive approach to factors influencing reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 261–266.
27.
SiegelL.S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 618–629.
28.
SniderV.E. (1989). Reading comprehension performance of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 87–96.
29.
StanovichK.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
30.
StanovichK.E. (1991). Conceptual and empirical problems with discrepancy definitions of reading disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 269–280.
31.
SwansonH.L. (1987). Information processing theory and learning disabilities: A commentary and future perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 155–166.
32.
SwansonH.L. (1989). Strategy instruction: Overview of principles and procedures for effective use. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 3–14.
33.
SwansonH.L. (1991). Operational definitions and learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 242–254.
34.
TaftM.L.LeslieL. (1985). The effects of prior knowledge and oral reading accuracy on miscues and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 163–179.
35.
ThompsonB. (1985). Alternate methods for analyzing data for education experiments. Journal of Experimental Education, 54, 50–55.
36.
ThompsonB. (1988). The importance of planned or focused comparisons in OVA research. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 21, 98–101.
37.
ThompsonB. (1994, February). Why multivariate methods are usually vital in research: Some basic concepts. Paper presented as a featured speaker at the biennial meeting of the Southwestern Society for Research in Human Development, Austin, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED forthcoming)
38.
ThompsonB.BorrelloG.M. (1985). The importance of structure coefficients in regression research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 203–209.
39.
TorgesenJ.K. (1977). The role of nonspecific factors in the task performance of learning disabled children: A theoretical assessment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 33–40.
40.
TorgesenJ.K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Educational implications. Topics in Language and Learning Disabilities, 2, 45–51.
41.
TorgesenJ.K. (1986). Learning disabilities theory: Its current state and future prospects. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 399–407.
