Text structure instruction: the research is moving forward

In this meta‐analysis, the authors synthesize results from 44 (quasi‐)experimental studies on informational and narrative text structure interventions involving students in grades 4–6 in regular school settings. Findings show that text structure instruction had positive immediate effects on students’ reading comprehension but that effect sizes varied largely across outcome measures: questions (Hedges’ g = 0.25), summarization (g = 0.57), recall (g = 0.37), and knowledge about text structure (g = 0.38). However, students who received text structure instruction no longer outperformed control groups at delayed posttests. Content‐related features, such as a focus on paragraph‐level structure, active construction of graphic organizers, and teaching rule‐based summarization techniques, moderated the effectiveness of text structure instruction, but these effects also varied across outcome measures. Instructional features moderated delayed effects: Interventions with opportunities for individual student practice resulted in higher delayed effects for comprehension questions. The authors argue that text structure instruction deserves a place in the primary school curriculum so the positive effects on reading will be maintained.

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Instructional Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta‐Analysis on the Effects of Text Structure Instruction on Reading Comprehension in the Upper Elementary Grades

Bogaerds-Hazenberg

Evers-Vermeul

Bergh

2020

“…Teachers who taught the text structure intervention responded positively to its goals because it addressed grade‐level literacy standards and used content area texts, but they were concerned about the level of text complexity. These themes reflect three goals of text structure instruction: using structure to comprehend and organize ideas in informational text, combining literacy instruction with content area instruction by using text structure to build knowledge, and teaching students to use text structure to navigate complex texts (Hebert et al, 2016; Pyle et al, 2017; Williams, 2018). To be considered socially valid, text structure interventions should address these goals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The inclusion of components such as explicit instruction, signal words, graphic organizers, and writing may have influenced teachers’ perceptions of its effectiveness (Hebert et al, 2016). Their perceptions might have also been influenced by seeing students’ improvement in skills associated with the text structure model of comprehension (Meyer, 1987) and in students’ ability to use an instructional routine that they could consciously and independently implement when reading or writing informational text (Hebert et al, 2016; Williams, 2018). These perceptions might be important indicators of social validity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, observations in upper elementary classrooms revealed that teachers and students referred to informational text structures when reading in only 5% of the observed time and never used text structure to write a summary of text (Beerwinkle, Wijekumar, Walpole, & Aguis, 2018). Attention to text structure in elementary classrooms might be limited depending on teachers’ knowledge of text structure instruction and its coverage in textbooks (Beerwinkle et al, 2018; Williams, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Investigating a Text Structure Intervention for Reading and Writing in Grades 4 and 5

Strong¹

2020

The purpose of this mixed‐methods experimental study was to investigate the effects and social validity of a text structure intervention for reading and writing in upper elementary grades. Fourth‐ and fifth‐grade teachers (N = 11) in three elementary schools were randomly assigned to implement the text structure intervention or a comprehension strategies intervention. The student sample (N = 351) comprised 160 students who received the text structure intervention and 191 students who received the comprehension strategies intervention, across grades 4 and 5. Quantitative measures of text structure awareness, reading comprehension, and writing quality were analyzed using three‐level hierarchical linear modeling. Qualitative interviews were analyzed typologically to assess upper elementary teachers’ perceptions of the social validity of each intervention. Quantitative results indicated that students who received the text structure intervention outperformed the students who received the comprehension strategies intervention on a measure of text structure awareness, a graphic organizer task, and use of ideas and details in informational writing. Qualitative findings indicated that teachers found the goals, procedures, and effects of the text structure intervention to be socially valid for upper elementary grades.

Written Versus Oral Cues: The Role of Rhetorical Competence in Learning From Texts

Sánchez

García

Bustos

2020

Learning from expository texts demands the processing of metatextual cues (rhetorical devices) and the activating of reading strategies. The main objective of this study was to examine whether profiting from written metatextual cues to launch reading strategies needs higher level of rhetorical competence than profiting from oral cues. Specifically, this study addresses two questions: (1) Is there a gap between the sensitivity to oral versus written metatextual cues depending on the student’s reading skill level? (2) Do the reader’s rhetorical competence, general reading comprehension, and decoding levels interact with the processing of each type of metatextual cue? Three hundred sixty‐seven students (11–13 years old) summarized an expository text after reading it under one of the following four conditions: with written cues, with oral cues, with both cues combined, or with no cues. The less skilled readers who received oral or combined cues provided better summaries (they selected and organized the main ideas better) than the less skilled readers who received written cues or no cues. However, the performance of the more skilled readers was equal under the conditions with written cues, oral cues, and combined cues; these three groups outperformed the readers from the no‐cues condition group. A multicategorical moderator analysis showed that following written cues demanded higher levels of general comprehension and rhetorical competence than following oral and combined cues. These data confirm that rhetorical competence is a specific capability for processing, especially written metatextual cues, and for overcoming the gap between the sensitivity to oral versus written cues.