1987
DOI: 10.1177/001440298705400107
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving Reading Comprehension by Using Paragraph Restatements

Abstract: Thirty-two elementary learning disabled students were randomly assigned either to a condition in which they were trained to use a comprehension monitoring strategy or to a control condition. In the strategy condition, students were instructed to write brief restatements of the important ideas of paragraphs as they read. Following training, all students read and completed comprehension measures for narrative passages under conditions which constituted (a) a test of training, (b) a near transfer test, and (c) a … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
34
0

Year Published

1989
1989
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When compared with good readers, poor readers were considerably less strategic (Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983). Good readers used the following skills and strategies: (a) reading words rapidly and accurately; (b) noting the structure and organization of text; (c) monitoring their understanding while reading; (d) using summaries; (e) making predictions, checking them as they read, and revising and evaluating them as needed; (g) integrating what they know about the topic with new learning; and (h) making inferences and using visualization (Jenkins, Heliotis, Stein, & Haynes, 1987; Kamil, 2003; Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2007; Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, & Whedon, 1996; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Swanson, 1999; Wong & Jones, 1982). …”
Section: Expectationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When compared with good readers, poor readers were considerably less strategic (Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983). Good readers used the following skills and strategies: (a) reading words rapidly and accurately; (b) noting the structure and organization of text; (c) monitoring their understanding while reading; (d) using summaries; (e) making predictions, checking them as they read, and revising and evaluating them as needed; (g) integrating what they know about the topic with new learning; and (h) making inferences and using visualization (Jenkins, Heliotis, Stein, & Haynes, 1987; Kamil, 2003; Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2007; Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, & Whedon, 1996; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Swanson, 1999; Wong & Jones, 1982). …”
Section: Expectationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The trained group, however, had difficulty in separating supporting ideas from unimportant details. Jenkins, Heliotis, Stein, and Haynes (1987) trained 16 LD children from Grades 3 and 4 in summarizing paragraphs by requiring them to write brief statements of what they had read. The control group, which did not receive training, consisted of an equal number of LD children.…”
Section: Demise Of Discrepancy Formulamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result of research designed to improve the reading comprehension of subjects with learning disabilities, a variety of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring techniques and strategies have been identified. A sampling of interventions include paraphrasing, finding the main idea, self-questioning, and detection of inconsistencies in text (Clark, Deshler, Schumaker, Alley, & Warner, 1984;Graves, 1986;Holmes, 1985;Jenkins, Heliotis, Stein, & Haynes, 1987;Palincsar & Brown, 1984;Wong, Wong, & Sawatsky, 1986). Numerous studies have focused on methods (i.e., adjunct aids, teaching techniques, or instructional strategies) specifically designed to improve the comprehension of expository text of students with learning disabilities.…”
Section: Investigating the Effectiveness Of Graphic Organizer Instrucmentioning
confidence: 99%