Comparison if Monitoring and Mnemonic Text-Processing Strategies in Learning Disabled Students

Abstract

Thirty learning disabled students were given several reading passages for which they first had to identify and then remember the main ideas. Students were randomly assigned in equal numbers to three experimental conditions. In the control condition, subjects were simply taught what a main idea is in accordance with a direct-instruction format; in the monitoring condition, students were taught how to self-question in order to monitor and check their progress toward identifying the main idea of each passage. Finally, subjects in the mnemonic condition were taught to use an adaptation of the mnemonic “keyword method” to create an interactive image between the keyword for the passage title and the main idea for the passage. Consistent with predictions based on both a comprehension-versus-memory distinction and a selective-strategy principle, the monitoring strategy was most effective for main-idea finding, whereas the mnemonic strategy was most effective for main-idea remembering. Implications for theory and practice are considered.

Reading Comprehension Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities

“…Results indicated improvement in both groups' comprehension performance in comparison to a control condition; the self-monitoring component had an added value in increasing comprehension of main ideas. In a related study, Graves and Levin (1989) documented that self-monitoring of main ideas was more effective than a mnemonic condition for discerning main ideas in texts. Similarly, Jitendra, Cole, Hoppes, and Wilson (1998) affirmed the positive effects of direct instruction and selfmonitoring fo r identifying main ideas in passages for three 6th-grade students with LD.…”

Improving Comprehension of Expository Text in Students With LD

“…Semantic feature analysis 1.64 Darch & Carnine, 1986 Advance organizer 1.80 Darch & Eaves, 1986 Visual display 1.34 0.36 −0.67 Darch & Gersten, 1986 Visual-spatial display, advance organizer 1.78 0.67 DiCecco & Gleason, 2002 Graphic organizer 0.33 Griffin, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 1991 Graphic organizer 0.54 Brigham, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 1995 Mnemonic illustration 1.08 Mnemonic illustration 0. Graves, 1986 Identifying main idea 1.64 1.49 Graves & Levin, 1989 Main idea, self monitoring 2.55 2.56 Graves & Levin, 1989 Mnemonic technique 1.42 Ellis & Graves, 1990 Paraphrasing 2.39 3.41 Gajria & Salvia, 1992 Summarization 4.45 Malone & Mastropieri, 1992 Summarization 2.95 1. 35 Mastropieri, Scruggs, Hamilton, et al, 1996 Elaborative interrogation 0.42 Darch & Kame'enui, 1987 Critical thinking skills 1.64 Wong & Jones, 1982 Self-questioning 0.49 Simmonds, 1992 Question-answer relationship 1.53 Graves, 1986 Identifying main idea, self-monitoring 4.59 3.6 Malone & Mastropieri, 1992 Summarization, self-monitoring Graphic organizers were as effective as a list of facts in facilitating content area learning for students with LD.…”

Universal Design for Learning: meeting the challenge of individual learning differences through a neurocognitive perspective

“…Although not always recognized as such, reading is no less strategic a process, and the frontal cortex is active during skilled reading [66,68]. Skilled readers call upon the strategic networks as they identify the reading purpose, select among various reading strategies, monitor progress, and revise as needed their course through the text [31,59]. Reading competency also requires knowing how to look for patterns in the text: for example, how to examine the critical features of the letters, how to decode an unknown word, how to use the headings to leverage understanding, and how to investigate stylistic devices.…”