This article was downloaded by: [Ohio State University Libraries]On: 11 November 2014, At: 14:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading & Writing Quarterly:Overcoming LearningDifficultiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl20

USING DIRECT INSTRUCTIONTO INTEGRATE READING ANDWRITING FOR STUDENTS WITHLEARNING DISABILITIESMary M. Gleason aa University of Oregon , Eugene, Oregon, USAPublished online: 28 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Mary M. Gleason (1995) USING DIRECT INSTRUCTION TOINTEGRATE READING AND WRITING FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES,Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 11:1, 91-108, DOI:10.1080/1057356950110107

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1057356950110107

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

USING DIRECT INSTRUCTION TO INTEGRATEREADING AND WRITING FOR STUDENTS WITH

LEARNING DISABILITIES

Mary M. GleasonUniversity of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA

An increasing interest in the connections between reading and writing hasresulted in new research in the past decade. The research on effective strategiesfor teaching reading comprehension and written composition of narrative andexpository text and on strategies for integrating reading and writing is re-viewed. After each research review, a set of teaching guidelines is provided. Anargument is made for teaching reading and writing as connected processes thathave many similar structures.

Other articles in this special issue focus on various aspects of teaching readingto students with learning disabilities using direct instruction. In this article, Iexamine the empirical basis for using direct instruction to integrate readingand writing, specifically, reading comprehension and written composition. Iaddress three questions:

1. How are reading and writing related?2. What strategies can be taught to help children with learning disabilities

integrate reading and writing?3. What role does direct instruction play in the integration of reading and

writing?

I answer these questions by providing theoretical models of the reading-writing relationship, instructional guidelines for teaching strategies to im-prove students' reading and writing, and descriptions of and empirical supportfor selected instructional strategies.

THEORETICAL MODELS

In recent years, educators and researchers have become increasingly inter-ested in the relationship between reading and writing. Many theorists andresearchers have come to believe that reading and writing are both acts thatrequire a learner to be actively involved in constructing meaning (Wong, 1991).The interest in the connections between reading and writing has led to manyquestions, including how much overlap exists between the processes of readingand writing, which process ought to be taught first, and whether teaching oneprocess can influence the learning of the other process.

To explore the effects of children's reading on their writing, Eckhoff (1983)

Address correspondence to Mary M. Gleason, Room 275 Education, University ofOregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA.

Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 11:91-108, 1995 91Copyright © 1995 Taylor & Francis

1057-3569/95 $10.00 + .00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

92 M. M. GLEASON

analyzed reading texts and writing samples from two groups of average orabove-average second graders. One basal reader used a literary style withlonger, smoother sentences. The other used a more simplified style withshorter sentences. Amazingly, Eckhoff found that children copied the linguisticstructures, format, and style of the particular basals from which they learnedto read, leading her to caution that basal stories should provide models of thekind of writing desired of students.

Juel (1988) examined the development of reading and writing from firstthrough fourth grade and found that poor readers were poor writers and thatpoor writers in Grade 1 ended up being poor writers in Grade 4.

It is thus obvious that a relationship exists between reading and writing,but questions remain about the nature of the relationship.

According to Shanahan and Lomax (1986), attempts to examine this rela-tionship have failed to indicate the interplay of various components of readingand writing and to specify whether that interplay occurs in any particularorder. Instead, researchers have investigated the effect of one aspect of readingon some global measure of writing or the influence of one aspect of writing ona global measure of reading. Still, these studies rarely explain, for example,what exactly is learned from writing that is applicable to a particular compo-nent of reading. Moreover, it is not clear whether reading's influence on writ-ing is stronger than writing's influence on reading.

In a comprehensive examination of the relationship between reading andwriting, Shanahan and Lomax (1986) compared three theoretical models. Theyexamined the reading and writing performance of second and fifth graders todetermine the direction and order of relationships between various readingand writing variables. In an interactive model, they hypothesized that readingcomponents influenced writing development and writing components influ-enced reading development. In a second model, the reading-to-write model,they predicted that the direction of influence was from reading to writing. Theimplication of this model was that students would learn to read before theylearned to write. In the last model, the writing-to-read model, they posited thatall influence emanated from writing to reading, implying that writing devel-opment preceded reading development.

Shanahan and Lomax (1986) concluded that the interactive model bestsummarized the empirical relationships they found in their reading and writ-ing data. Reading and writing influenced each other. Furthermore, each pro-cess influenced the other at increasingly higher levels. In other words, asstudents learned to decode, they learned to spell; as they learned to spell, theylearned to comprehend the meanings of more words. Predictably, students alsoused more word meanings in their writing, which increased their use of syn-tactical structures in writing. Not surprisingly, their increased writing expe-rience increased students' comprehension of reading passages, which led themto use structures more often in their writing. In addition, the reading-to-writemodel was superior to the writing-to-read model. Despite the superiority of theinteractive model, however, Shanahan and Lomax found that the studentsdemonstrated little growth between second and fifth grades. They hypothe-sized that the students were not receiving writing instruction consistently

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

INTEGRATION OF READING AND WRITING 93

across all grades and that they would not learn writing from reading instruc-tion unless they also received writing instruction.

Students with learning disabilities have great difficulty writing at all ages.In fact, in one study, they demonstrated greater differences from their non-handicapped peers on writing tasks than on reading tasks (Englert & Thomas,1987). These results seem to support Shanahan and Lomax's (1986) contentionthat writing is not learned from reading without separate direct instruction inwriting skills.

Shanahan (1987) cautioned against expecting improvements by combiningreading and writing or by replacing one with the other. In other words, stu-dents must receive instruction in each area so that writing development will beinfluenced by reading instruction and reading development will be influencedby writing instruction. In addition, writing instruction should begin simulta-neously with reading instruction.

Although Shanahan and Lomax's (1986) interactive model included manycomponents of reading and writing, I focus on the relationship between pas-sage comprehension components and story organization components in thisarticle. This focus assumes that (a) students have already progressed throughthe beginning stages of reading (e.g., word analysis, vocabulary, and sentencecomprehension) and writing (e.g., spelling, vocabulary, and sentence struc-ture) and (b) students' comprehension and composition processes must go be-yond the stage of organization and planning. Reading and writing are recur-sive processes. After reader's extract meaning from a passage, they assimilatethe information, form questions, and go back for a second reading. Writers usea text structure to plan out what they want to say, but the plan likely changeswhile the writer is composing. The strategies presented herein address onlythe organizational structures of reading comprehension and written composi-tion. Space does not permit the examination of all aspects of reading andwriting. Therefore, the research studies reviewed in this article were chosen onthe basis of the following criteria:

1. The interventions were implemented using instruction that included a dem-onstration by the teacher and then guided and independent practice (usu-ally labeled direct instruction or cognitive strategy instruction).

2. Strategies were taught to improve reading comprehension, written compo-sition, or both.

3. The interventions attempted to improve students' understanding and use oftext structures.

INSTRUCTIONAL GUIDELINES FOR TEACHING STRATEGIES

Before discussing the specific reading and writing strategies examined in thestudies reviewed, a description of the direct instruction teaching proceduresused in all the studies may be helpful. In learning any instructional strategies,students must receive teacher-directed instruction on component skills before

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

94 M. M. GLEASON

they combine these skills and use them in the entire strategy (Belmont &Butterfield, 1977). This principle of direct instruction has been examined inthe literature in relation to teaching basic skills (Carnine et al., 1990), but it isequally important in teaching higher order comprehension (Carnine & Ka-meenui, 1992). In a recent observational study, Winograd (1984) examinedstudents' ratings of sentence importance as well as their use of macrorules inproducing written summaries and found strong evidence that poor readerscould not identify important elements in a text even when they knew that awritten summary should contain important information. Identifying impor-tant elements is a strategic skill that underlies both reading comprehensionand written summarization, and it must be taught before students can learnhigher order strategies (Brown & Day, 1983; Hare & Borchardt, 1984). Like-wise, before students can complete the task of completing a map to show theircomprehension recall of expository text, they must be taught strategic skills for(a) identifying and naming the main topic of each paragraph (Gleason et al.,1991), (b) discriminating important details from unimportant details, and (c)organizing the information into a visual structure in which details are depictedas subordinate to main topics (Archer & Gleason, 1989). Learning to performeach component skill in a strategy before applying the entire strategy is im-portant to the success and efficient learning of the entire strategy.

For students with learning disabilities to independently and successfullyuse the reading and writing strategies reviewed in this article, the teachermust systematically follow several steps. In nearly all the studies reviewed,the teacher began by explaining to students how the new strategy would assistthem in their reading or writing (e.g., Brown et al., 1981). Then, strategyinstruction was conducted that followed an instructional design used in teach-ing a new cognitive routine; that is, the instruction moved from teacher mod-eling to guided practice, to independent practice (Engelmann & Carnine,1982). For example, if students were learning to summarize informationfrom a text (Armbruster et al., 1987, 1989), the teacher first presented guide-lines for summarizing. Next, the teacher showed the students how to readthe text selection, decide which information to include in a summary ofthe text, and how to record the important information in a visual represen-tation called a frame. The teacher then showed the students how to use theframe to write a summary. Most studies also described how the teacher wouldthink out loud during the demonstration to show students how to reason (Duffy& Roehler, 1987; Rosenshine & Meister, 1992). After modeling the strategy,the teacher used a different text selection to guide students in practicingthe strategy. During this phase of instruction, the teacher asked questions,looked for correct answers in students' workbooks, and provided correctivefeedback.

As the guided practice continued, the teacher allowed students to graduallyuse more and more of the strategy on their own without the teacher's cueing orprompting the next step. After several (e.g., three or four) sessions of guidedpractice, students became independent users of the strategy. The teacher con-tinued to monitor students' performance and provided corrective feedback oradditional guided practice when needed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

INTEGRATION OF READING AND WRITING 95

TEACHING NARRATIVE AND EXPOSITORY TEXT STRUCTURES

In the following sections, research-based strategies for teaching reading andteaching writing of narrative and expository prose using the instructionalguidelines outlined earlier are described. Although narrative prose and expos-itory prose appear on the surface to have little in common, they are structur-ally the same in one important way: Both types of prose represent specificpatterns or text structures. The "sameness analysis" (Carnine, 1991) of cur-riculum design calls for the presentation of greatly different examples thatexhibit sameness in their structures (Kameenui, 1991). The sameness analysisguides my discussion because of the recognition or the use of recurring pat-terns or text structures in all the instructional strategies reviewed (Englert &Mariage, 1991). The goal of reading instruction with regard to both narrativeand expository texts is to make the underlying structures of the prose apparentto the learner (Carnine & Kinder, 1985), rather than expect the learner merelyto infer the structure from exposure to stories and informational text. Simi-larly, the goal of writing instruction is to make the structures and processes inwriting visible to students and to help them use these same underlying struc-tures to plan and write (Englert & Mariage, 1991), rather than leave studentsto discover for themselves how to accomplish the various purposes of writing.For both narrative and expository prose, students are taught to constructmeaning through the use of basic organizational structures that activate var-ious interpretive schemata (Adams & Collins, 1979) for comprehending textsas well as for writing original pieces of prose.

Narrative Stories

In young children, a sense of story develops as early as 2 1/2 years of age(Applebee, 1978); children with disabilities seem capable of this sense of storyas well. Children ages 7 through 12 years old who had learning disabilitieswere able to listen to stories and orally retell them as well as their nonhandi-capped peers in Ripich and Griffith's (1988) study. However, comparabilityended when students read or wrote stories themselves. Nodine et al. (1985)found that students without disabilities used story schema to write stories byage 11. In contrast, students with learning disabilities in fifth grade lagged farbehind in their ability to write narrative stories, with only 22% of them able towrite partial stories.

More recently, Laughton and Morris (1989) confirmed significant groupdifferences at Grades 3-5 between students with disabilities and those withoutdisabilities. However, they also found that greater proportions of students withlearning disabilities wrote complete stories at each grade level and that bysixth grade, two-thirds of these students were using story schema to writestories. This finding led Laughton and Morris to assume that the students hadinduced story schema from exposure to reading narratives. However, one-thirdof the students were not able to learn this structure on their own and requiredexplicit teaching.

Finally, Montague et al. (1990) reported the results of administration of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

96 M. M. GLEASON

both reading and writing measures and argued that students with learningdisabilities had not acquired a fully developed schema for narrative prose. Inthe next section, I present evidence that teaching story grammar improvesreading comprehension and written expression for students with learning dis-abilities and that using story schema as an organizational structure allowsstudents to integrate reading and writing.

Strategies That Improve ReadingResearch. In their article in this issue, Dimino et al. provide an empirically

validated approach for teaching students with learning disabilities to use storygrammar to comprehend not only the parts of a story, but also the overallstructure. They demonstrated that students of varying ages who had disabil-ities could be taught to identify the main character, articulate the problem orconflict the character faced, discern the attempts the character made to solvethe problem, and identify the resolution. Older students also learned to de-scribe character motivation and the story's theme. At all age levels, storygrammar has been shown to improve comprehension when direct instruction isprovided (Carnine & Kinder, 1985; Dimino et al., 1990; Fitzgerald & Spiegel,1983; Griffey et al., 1988; Gurney et al., 1990; Idol, 1987; Idol & Croll, 1987;Short & Ryan, 1984).

In most of these studies, students were taught not only to answer oralquestions, but also to write out the answers in a story map (Beck & McKeown,1981; Beck et al., 1979). The use of a visual presentation of information before,during, or after instruction to assist poor readers with comprehension makessense. Children with learning disabilities find it difficult to recall and organizeverbal information (Wong, 1978). The story map visually presents all majorpoints of the content, aiding recall. In addition, the story map helps poorreaders organize new content as they read it (Sinatra et al., 1985; Sinatra etal., 1984). Bereiter and Scardamalia (1982) referred to use of the story map asprocedural facilitation. Through procedural facilitation, the teacher reducesthe demands of a complex task.

In two studies, students with learning disabilities were taught to usenotesheets and to write summaries instead of completing story maps (Diminoet al., 1990; Malone & Mastropieri, 1992). Malone and Mastropieri attributedthe beneficial result of written summaries to students' attending to the mate-rial more closely, restating parts of the story in their own words, and process-ing the information at greater depth than would have occurred with readingonly.

Translating research into teaching. On the basis of the research studiesjust reviewed, a number of teaching suggestions can be made. Teachers should

1. Explain to students that a common set of questions can be asked about eachstory and that keeping track of the answers to those questions on a storymap or notesheet should reveal to them that stories are written using pre-dictable plans.

2. Demonstrate the use of story grammar by interrupting students' readingand showing them how to ask themselves the story grammar questions,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

INTEGRATION OF READING AND WRITING 97

write the answers on their story maps, and then use their story maps toretell the stories at the end.

3. Provide guided practice by having students read the story, ask themselvesthe story grammar questions, and then fill in the information on their storymaps and retell the stories. Assist students in rereading parts of the storiesif they are not finding reasonable answers to write on their maps. Provideguided practice until students are proficient in reading stories and complet-ing the maps (or notesheets) while they read.

4. Provide independent practice.5. Stimulate recall by providing students with opportunities to write retell-

ings or summaries of stories they have read, as either a supplement to or asubstitute for reading-workbook activities. The retellings or written sum-maries should first be written with the maps or notesheets as prompts.Later, students should be asked to write retellings without the assistance oftheir maps or notesheets.

Across the entire process, the teacher must expose students to a wide rangeof examples, using some stories in which the story grammar elements are easyto identify and other stories in which the elements are more difficult to locate.

Strategies That Improve Writing

Research. The same type of story map or notesheet used for reading com-prehension provides a vehicle for poor writers to organize content in bothwriting narrative stories and talking about the content of their writing (Eng-lert & Mariage, 1991). When students learned to construct story maps whilethey read, they became familiar with the underlying structure used by theauthor. In approaching the role of author themselves, students with disabili-ties use a similar organizational structure to assist them with writing. As withreading, a story schema seems to provide a cognitive basis for writing devel-opment and for the organizational structure that underlies the production ofnarratives (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986).

Englert and Mariage (1991) described the responses of a fourth-grade stu-dent with learning disabilities when she was questioned about how she wouldorganize her ideas. The student answered, "Think" (p. 330). Upon hearing suchan answer, most educators would conclude that she didn't know what to talkabout. Typically, students with learning disabilities who write very little ac-tually do have something to say, but they lack strategies for planning andputting words to paper (Graham & Harris, 1989). The story grammar outlineserves as the vehicle for planning.

Graham and Harris (1989) examined the benefit of directly teaching stu-dents to use story grammar as an organizational structure for their stories andprovided alternatives to a story map. They taught students to use a mnemonicfor planning and composing stories and to respond to a picture as a source ofideas for planning the elements of a story. They found that learning disabledstudents could be taught to use significantly more story components in theirwriting. However, the overall quality of their writing did not improve appre-ciably. This result is not surprising. Students with learning disabilities must

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

98 M. M. GLEASON

be taught to attend to many other aspects of writing. For example, Cox et al.(1990) explained that cohesion in writing differed remarkably for good andpoor readers. '

In a comprehensive review of 10 years of research, Graham et al. (1991)reported a series of studies in which students with learning disabilities im-proved their writing performance after learning to use a story schema as aguide for generating and organizing narrative content. They concluded thatstrategy instruction is a productive method for improving what students withlearning disabilities write.

Translating research to teaching. The successes that Graham and Harrisand their colleagues have reported allow the following teaching suggestions tobe made. Teachers should

1. Explain to students that they can use the same story structure they used toguide their reading of narrative text to write narrative stories. Moreover,they should be told to use the story map to plan the elements of their story.

2. Provide demonstrations, guided practice, and independent practice untilstudents are proficient in using the maps to decide what components theirnarrative stories should contain.

3. Teach students to translate the information from the maps into stories.Again, move from teacher modeling to guided and then independent prac-tice.

4. Stimulate the generation of content by providing a series of pictures. (Otherresearchers have found that students wrote more words and higher qualitynarrative stories when they responded to a series of pictures than whenthey responded to one picture [Barenbaum et al., 1987; Nodine et al., 1985].)

Integration of Reading and WritingThe previous sections outlined how students could be taught separate strate-gies for using story schema to comprehend narrative stories and to write sto-ries. After learning the separate strategies, students should be ready to inte-grate reading and writing.

Research. At least one study has demonstrated the importance of the in-tegration of reading and writing for students with learning disabilities. Fuchsand Maxwell (1988) explored the effects of reading mode, production format,and thematic importance level on the reading comprehension of students withlearning disabilities. Not surprisingly, the poor readers in this study realizedmuch better comprehension scores through an oral production format (i.e.,recall summary statements) than through a written format. Moreover, thisdifference became increasingly evident as the importance levels of the storycontent increased. Fuchs and Maxwell called for strategies to enhance writtenproduction and to increase students' sensitivity to structural levels of text.They hypothesized that increased attention to writing and to structural levelsof both reading and writing should improve students' reading comprehension.

Theoretically, increased attention to writing and to structural levels of read-ing and writing should also lead to higher quality writing. Several researchershave examined the integration of reading and writing activities (Gordon &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

INTEGRATION OF READING AND WRITING 99

Braun, 1985; Graham & Harris, 1989; Sinatra et al., 1986; Spiegel & Fitz-gerald, 1986); however, only Graham and Harris (1989) conducted a study withlearning disabled students. Obviously, strategies for integrating the readingand writing of narrative stories with learning disabled students await futureresearch.

Although not all the studies were conducted with students with learningdisabilities, all of the researchers found that as children's concepts of storystructure improved, they used that knowledge both in reading and in writingstories. The integration of reading and writing was accomplished in one of twoways: Students (a) used stories to learn about story elements and then gener-ated their own elements to write original compositions or (b) used stories ascontent for story maps and then reconstructed the author's story, using thestory map as a guide. Spiegel and Fitzgerald (1986) provided students whowere poor at identifying structures with an overview of the narrative storystructure, showed students how the story elements could be found in stories,and then helped students generate their own story elements and stories. As aresult, low-performing fourth graders produced more complex and fully formedstories and also improved their reading comprehension.

Gordon and Braun (1985) taught fifth-grade students the elements of nar-ration based on story grammar research by first giving them a series of ques-tions to use to identify information from texts with various structures. Stu-dents were given 15 lessons in which they were taught to generate their ownquestions about stories and to use similar questions in planning and compos-ing their own narratives. Learning about the structure of events in narrativestories improved both reading comprehension and written composition.

Sinatra et al. (1986) taught students to fill in maps with information theyrecalled from their reading and then had students reconstruct the author'swork by using their map as a guide. In subsequent class periods, students wereasked to use their own ideas to fill in similar maps and write original compo-sitions. Students improved in both reading comprehension and composition.

After teaching a mnemonic for story elements, Graham and Harris (1989)taught students how to find the elements in stories and then generate theirown elements in response to pictures. Following demonstrations and guidedpractice, students wrote stories independently and improved their use of storyelements considerably.

Translating research to teaching. The following teacher guidelines can besuggested on the basis of the preceding research. Teachers should

1. Review the parts of a story with students and talk about how the same partsare found in reading or writing.

2. Examine models of writing, analyze the critical features contained in them,and talk about how those compositions could be improved.

3. Demonstrate that students could read a story (e.g., a story written by an-other student); complete a story map; and then reconstruct the author'sstory in their own words, using the map as a guide.

4. Teach students to use the story grammar outline to generate original con-tent for their compositions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

100 M. M. GLEASON

5. Encourage students to notice specific examples of elements while readingstories that they might use later in writing one of their stories (e.g., denot-ing a character's emotion by describing the character throwing his or herhat and stomping on it).

Expository Text

Understanding and recalling expository discourse are much more difficult forchildren than understanding and recalling narrative discourse (Freedle &Hale, 1979). When students read content-area material, they must attend to avariety of text structures: problem/solution, compare/contrast, cause/effect, se-quential, enumeration, description, and thematic (Englert & Hiebert, 1984;Meyer, 1975; Richgels et al., 1987; Sinatra, 1986). Yet, many students withlearning disabilities are unaware of the different types of organizational struc-tures in expository text (Englert & Hiebert, 1984; Taylor & Beach, 1984).Consequently, they experience difficulty in both comprehension and composi-tion (Raphael et al., 1989). These students should be taught to recognize dif-ferent expository text structures (Meyer, 1975).

As in the section on narrative stories, in this section I outline strategies forrecognizing and using basic organizational text structures to improve readingcomprehension and written composition. I also present evidence that usingtext structures as organizational structures allows students to integrate read-ing and writing.

Strategies That Improve ReadingResearch. A number of researchers have used direct instruction to teach

elementary or secondary students with learning disabilities strategies for com-prehending expository materials (e.g., Adams et al., 1982; Armbruster et al.,1989; Chan & Cole, 1986; Gleason et al., 1991; McGee & Richgels, 1985; Schu-maker et al., 1982; Shunk & Rice, 1992; Taylor, 1982). These strategies exhibitseveral similarities (Gleason et al., 1991).

First, the strategies directed students' attention to the most importantideas and details in the passages. For example, Armbruster et al. (1989) taughtstudents to look for the problem, the action that was taken to solve the prob-lem, and the results. Learning to identify important information is critical forstudents with learning disabilities. Winograd (1984) found that poor readers atthe eighth-grade level were unable to select the information considered impor-tant by adults and by eighth-grade good readers, and this affected their read-ing comprehension and their ability to write summaries.

Second, the strategies attempted to focus students on the overall organiza-tional structures of texts by asking students to formulate and answer ques-tions, take notes or make maps, or use textbook features such as headings orsignal words (e.g., on the other hand and in contrast) to identify text structure.In Armbruster et al.'s (1989) study, for example, students took notes on theproblem—solution structure using a visual representation called a frame.

Third, the strategies involved rehearsal, whereby students were asked torecite or write down critical information. Many researchers trained students to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

INTEGRATION OF READING AND WRITING 101

write summaries of what they had read. For example, the students in Arm-bruster et al.'s (1989) study used the information in the frame to write asummary. According to Hare and Borchardt (1984), the process of summariz-ing enables readers to understand text structure better. However, studentswith learning difficulties experience difficulty in summarizing expository texts(Brown & Day, 1983; Hare & Borchardt, 1984).

The most useful strategies for integrating reading and writing were those inwhich students completed visual representations and used them to write sum-maries of what they had read. Berkowitz (1986) compared two interventiongroups (map construction and map study) with two groups who received con-ventional instruction. Students who constructed their own maps recalled moreinformation than did those who studied the teacher's map.

Translating research into teaching. On the basis of the research summa-rized above, the following teaching suggestions may be made. Teachers should

1. Teach the various types of text structures one at a time.2. Choose one of the following text structures to begin instruction: problem/

solution, compare/contrast, cause/effect, sequential, enumeration, descrip-tion, or thematic.

3. Describe how every text selection that uses a particular structure (e.g.,compare/contrast) is similar and could be represented by a map.

4. Demonstrate how to locate the information that is important to the partic-ular structure being learned by interrupting the reading and showing stu-dents what ideas will be used to fill in the map. Then demonstrate how tofill in the map and write a summary using the map as a guide.

5. Provide guided practice. Together with the students, read the text, fill outthe map, and write a summary. Students should complete more than oneexample with you.

6. After students have mastered the first text structure, allow independentpractice.

7. To stimulate comprehension recall, have students write summaries usingmaps as prompts. Later, students should be able to write without usingmaps.

Because more than one type of text structure can be taught, a number ofsequencing guidelines must be taken into account (Grossen & Carnine, 1991).Students should learn the easiest map type (probably the descriptive or the-matic) or the most frequently used type of structure first. Materials used forteaching should sample a range of expository selections from those in whichthe important information is quite easy to identify (i.e., text patterns are cuedby explicit signal words, such as on the other hand and in contrast) to those inwhich the information is not easily identifiable.

Strategies That Improve WritingResearch. Direct instruction of text structures can also improve writing

(Englert et al., 1988a; Graham & Harris, 1989; Graham et al., 1992; Sinatra,1986). Children experience great difficulty writing the expository prose re-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

102 M. M. GLEASON

quired by reports or essay questions (Applebee et al., 1989). Students withlearning disabilities, in particular, differ from normal- and low-achieving stu-dents in their ability to organize ideas for composition (Englert & Thomas,1987; Englert et al., 1988b; Englert et al., 1988c). Students with learningdisabilities are less aware of the need to provide expository details instead ofnarrative details in their compositions. Englert et al. (1988a) made the casethat insofar as students are taught to become aware of text structures, theywill more appropriately plan, organize, and edit their compositions.

As in narrative writing, visual representations appear to assist studentswith learning disabilities in this process. Sinatra (1986) examined the use ofnetworking or mapping in teaching writing to learning disabled children. Dur-ing 6 weeks of instruction, students were asked to write three compositionsfrom ideas that were given to them in a list form and three compositions fromideas arranged in narrative, thematic, and classificatory network designs. Asignificant effect was found for the network designs but not for the list design.Writing improved over a relatively short period of time when students usedvisual outlines to organize their thoughts prior to writing. Englert and hercolleagues (Englert & Mariage, 1991; Raphael et al., 1989) are engaged in aprogram of research on the use of think-sheets as outlines for text structures.However, as they have noted, writing requires more than simply learning oftext structures. After conducting a study in which students with learningdisabilities learned to translate a particular text structure into prose, Englertand Mariage (1991) commented that they were not satisfied with the quality ofthe written products. Since that time, their research studies have also includedwork with students on writing for "real audiences" and for "authentic pur-poses" (Englert & Mariage, 1991). As students write to audiences other thanthe teacher, they learn to use the text structures to communicate for a varietyof purposes.

Translating research to teaching. On the basis of the research of Sinatraand Englert and their colleagues, the following guidelines for teaching may beoffered. Teachers should

1. Explain to the students that the same structures and signal words theyused to read expository text can be used to write expository text.

2. For each type of structure in reading (e.g., compare/contrast, problem/solu-tion, or thematic), teach students to use that structure whenever they aretrying to achieve that same purpose in writing.

3. Demonstrate how to use visual maps to assist in planning the organizationand content of writing a particular type of composition. For example, if thestudents are learning to write compare/contrast pieces, show them how toplan out the features of the two topics being compared and contrasted, thespecifics of how those topics are alike and different, and the signal wordsthat could be used to indicate comparisons and contrasts.

4. Demonstrate how the content of the map is translated into prose.5. Provide guided practice in which you and the students work together to

complete a map and write the compare/contrast composition. Practice may

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

INTEGRATION OF READING AND WRITING 103

need to occur with several examples before students are ready for indepen-dent work.

6. Allow for independent practice.

Integration of Reading and WritingIn the preceding sections, I reviewed the research-based strategies for usingtext structures to improve reading comprehension or written composition. Af-ter the students learn these strategies separately, teachers should work withthem to integrate the processes of reading and writing.

Research. Little research on the integration of reading and expositorywriting for learning disabled students has been conducted. Of the studies thathave looked at integration of reading comprehension and written composition(Konopak et al., 1990; Raphael & Englert, 1990; Raphael et al., 1989; Sinatraet al., 1986; Taylor & Beach, 1984; Tierney et al., 1989), only those conductedby Raphael and Englert used subjects with learning disabilities.

Raphael et al. (1989) contended that teaching expository writing is linked toreading and that a writing program that includes instruction in specific ex-pository text structures improves both reading and writing. In a series ofstudies, they examined the role of text structure instruction in comprehensionand composition. Their interventions were designed to increase students'awareness of different text structures, as well as their abilities to comprehendand produce text. The results indicated that students demonstrated a consid-erable increase in knowledge of and ability to articulate different text struc-tures. Students also improved their abilities to organize and convey informa-tion. When writing, students first used a planning think-sheet to determinetheir topic, audience, and purpose. They then selected the appropriate orga-nizing think-sheet, depending on the structure they needed to meet their pur-pose. They used the organizing sheet to organize the information generatedduring planning, including new information they gathered by reading. Theyalso used the organizing think-sheet as a basis for composing a first draft.Raphael and Englert (1990) described this part of the total writing process asthe "intersection" of reading and writing. Students recorded what they alreadyknew about a topic, read further to find out more information, recorded thatinformation, and then used both sources of information to write. In teachingstudents to use the think-sheets, the teacher moved them through teachermodeling, guided writing, and independent writing.

Translating research to teaching. The work of Raphael and Englert sug-gests a number of teaching procedures. Teachers should

1. Select a particular text structure and review its components, noting thesimilarities found in reading or writing.

2. Demonstrate how students could read text (perhaps written by former stu-dents), fill out a text structure map of the text, and then reconstruct theauthor's text in their own words.

3. Teach students to generate original content but to continue to read and usethe text structure map to gather information they might use in their writ-ing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

104 M. M. GLEASON

4. Work with students on reading what they have written and revising thecontent until they judge it to communicate with their readers.

5. Study the text structures and signal words used in content-area materialand point them out to students while they are reading so they can usesimilar structures and signal words in their writing.

SUMMARY

In recent years, researchers have examined the relationship between readingand writing from a variety of conceptual and research perspectives (McCarthey& Raphael, 1992; Wong, 1991). In the last two decades, major shifts haveoccurred from viewing readers as passive decoders and recipients of knowledgeto viewing them as active information processors and from viewing writers aslinear producers of products to viewing them as active constructor/generatorsof a recursive process. This revised view of the reader and writer as activegenerators of meaning has led to an increased interest in how reading andwriting are connected (Wong, 1991). Recent journals and books discuss manydifferent aspects of integrating reading and writing.

However, the word connected may represent the desired goal better than theword integrated. Implementing the interactive model called for by Shanahanand Lomax (1986) does not necessarily mean that every student activity shouldinvolve the use of reading and writing simultaneously. "Integration of readingand writing instruction can be useful, but only if children have reading andwriting knowledge available for sharing" (Shanahan, 1988, p. 637). Shana-han's model encourages side-by-side teaching of reading and writing strategiesfrom first grade, so that reading and writing skills build on each other.

In this article, I have provided instructional guidelines for teaching sepa-rate reading and writing strategies to students with learning disabilities be-fore involving them in activities in which reading and writing are integrated.However, I have also emphasized the commonality or sameness that readingand writing share in terms of their underlying organizational structures andsuggested that teachers explicitly teach the recognition and use of those com-mon structures.

REFERENCES

Adams, A., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1982). Instructional strategies for studying con-tent area texts in the intermediate grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(1), 27-55.

Adams, M. J., & Collins, A. (1979). A schema-theoretic view of reading. In R. O. Freedle(Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 1-22). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summa-rization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quar-terly, 22, 331-346.

Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1989). Teaching text structure toimprove reading and writing. The Reading Teacher, 43, 130-137.

Applebee, A. N. (1978). The child's concept of story: Ages two to seventeen. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

INTEGRATION OF READING AND WRITING 105

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., & Mullis, I. V. S. (1989). Crossroads in American educa-tion. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Archer, A., & Gleason, M. (1989). Skills for school success (grades 3-6). North Billerica,MA: Curriculum Associates.

Barenbaum, E., Newcomer, P., & Nodine, B. (1987). Children's ability to write stories asa function of variation in task, age, and developmental level. Learning DisabilityQuarterly, 10, 175-188.

Beck, I. L. & McKeown, M. G. (1981). Developing questions that promote comprehension:The story map. Language Arts, 58, 913-918.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M., McCaslin, E. S., & Burkes, A. M. (1979). Instructional dimen-sions that may affect reading comprehension: Examples from two commercial readingprograms. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Devel-opment Center.

Belmont, J. M., & Butterfield, E. C. (1977). The instructional approach to developmentalcognitive research. In R. V. Kail, Jr., & J. W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on thedevelopment of memory and cognition (pp. 437-481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role ofinstruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructionalpsychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berkowitz, S. J. (1986). Effects of instruction in text organization on sixth-grade stu-dents' memory for expository reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 161-178.

Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C, & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On trainingstudents to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10(2), 14-21.

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

Carnine, D. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to allstudents: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24,261-269.

Carnine, D., & Kameenui, E. J. (Eds.). (1992). Higher order thinking: Designing curric-ulum for mainstreamed students. Austin, TX: ProEd.

Carnine, D., & Kinder, D. (1985). Teaching low-performing students to apply generativeand schema strategies to narrative and expository materials. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 6(1), 20-30.

Carnine, D., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. J. (1990). Direct instruction reading (2nd ed.).Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Chan, L. K., & Cole, P. G. (1986). The effects of comprehension monitoring training onthe reading competence of learning disabled and regular class students. Remedialand Special Education, 7(4), 33-40.

Cox, B. E., Shanahan, T., & Sulzby, E. (1990). Good and poor elementary readers' use ofcohesion in writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 47-65.

Dimino, J., Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Blake, G. (1990). Story grammar: An approach forpromoting at-risk secondary students' comprehension of literature. ElementarySchool Journal, 91, 19-32.

Duffy, G. G., & Roehler, L. R. (1987). Improving reading instruction through the use ofresponsive elaboration. The Reading Teacher, 43, 514-520.

Eckhoff, B. (1983). How reading affects children's writing. Language Arts, 60, 607-616.

Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications.New York: Irvington.

Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children's developing awareness of text struc-tures in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65-74.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

106 M. M. GLEASON

Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1991). Shared understandings: Structuring the writingexperience through dialogue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 330-342.

Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., Fear, K. L., & Gregg,S. L. (1988a). A case for writing intervention: Strategies for writing informationaltext. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3(2), 98-113.

Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Fear, K L., & Anderson, L. M. (1988b). Students' meta-cognitive knowledge about how to write informational texts. Learning DisabilityQuarterly, 11, 18-46.

Englert, C. S., Stewart, S. R., & Hiebert, E. H. (1988c). Young writers' use of textstructure in expository text generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 143-151.

Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading andwriting: A comparison of learning disabled and nonhandicapped students. LearningDisability Quarterly, 10, 93-105.

Fitzgerald, J., & Spiegel, D. L. (1983). Enhancing children's reading comprehensionthrough instruction in narrative structure. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(2), 1-17.

Freedle, R., & Hale, G. (1979). Acquisition of new comprehension schemata for exposi-tory prose by transfer of a narrative schema. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions indiscourse processing (pp. 121-135). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Fuchs, L. S., & Maxwell, L. (1988). Interactive effects of reading mode, production for-mat, and structural importance of text among LD pupils. Learning Disability Quar-terly, 11, 97-105.

Gleason, M. M., Colvin, G., & Archer, A. L. (1991). Interventions for improving studyskills. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achieve-ment and behavior problems (pp. 137-160). Silver Spring, MD: National Associationof School Psychologists.

Gordon, C. J., & Braun, C. (1985). Metacognitive processes: Reading and writing nar-rative discourse. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.),Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (pp. 1-75). San Diego, CA: Aca-demic Press.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruc-tion: Effects on learning disabled students' compositions and self-efficacy. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 81, 353-361.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C. A., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing and writinginstruction for students with learning disabilities: Review of a research program.Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89-114.

Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Page-Voth, V. (1992). Improving the com-positions of students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving product andprocess goal setting. Exceptional Children, 58, 322-334.

Griffey, Q. L., Zigmond, N., & Leinhardt, G. (1988). The effects of self-questioning andstory structure training on the reading comprehension of poor readers. LearningDisabilities Research, 4(1), 45-51.

Grossen, B., & Carnine, D. (1991). Strategies for maximizing reading success in theregular classroom. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions forachievement and behavior problems (pp. 333-355). Silver Spring, MD: National As-sociation of School Psychologists.

Gurney, D., Gersten, R., Dimino, J., & Carnine, D. (1990). Story grammar: Effectiveliterature instruction for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 23, 335-342.

Hare, V. C, & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of summarization skills.Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 62-78.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

INTEGRATION OF READING AND WRITING 107

Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled andunskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 196-205.

Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving readingcomprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 214-229.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from firstthrough fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

Kameenui, E. J. (1991). Toward a scientific pedagogy of learning disabilities: A samenessin the message. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 364-372.

Konopak, B. C, Martin, S. H., & Martin, M. A. (1990). Using a writing strategy toenhance sixth-grade students' comprehension of content material. Journal of Read-ing Behavior, 22, 19-37.

Laughton, J., & Morris, N. T. (1989). Story grammar knowledge of learning disabledstudents. Learning Disabilities Research, 4(2), 87-95.

Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Sum-marization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Ex-ceptional Children, 58, 270-279.

McCarthey, S. J., & Raphael, T. E. (1992). Alternative research perspectives. In J. W.Irwin & M. A. Doyle (Eds.), Reading/writing connections: Learning from research(pp. 2-30). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (1985). Teaching expository text structure to elementarystudents. The Reading Teacher, 38, 739-748.

Meyer, B. J. P. (1975). The structure of prose: Effects on learning and memory andimplications for educational practice. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Mon-tague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 179-200). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Montague, M., Maddux, C. D., & Dereshiwsky, M. I. (1990). Story grammar comprehen-sion and production of narrative prose by students with learning disabilities. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 23, 190-197.

Nodine, B. F., Barenbaum, E., & Newcomer, P. (1985). Story composition by learningdisabled, reading disabled, and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8,167-179.

Raphael, T. E., & Englert, C. S. (1990). Writing and reading: Partners in constructingmeaning. The Reading Teacher, 43, 388-400.

Raphael, T. E., Englert, C. S., & Kirschner, B. W. (1989). Acquisition of expositorywriting skills. In J. M. Mason (Ed.), Reading and writing connections (pp. 261-290).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Richgels, D. J., McGee, L. M., Lomax, R. G., & Sheard, C. (1987). Awareness of four textstructures: Effects on recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 177-196.

Ripich, D. N., & Griffith, P. L. (1988). Narrative abilities of children with learningdisabilities and nondisabled children: Story structure, cohesion, and propositions.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 165-173.

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-levelcognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26-33.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 778-803.) New York: Macmillan.

Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Alley, G. R., Warner, M. M., & Denton, P. H. (1982).Multipass: A learning strategy for improving reading comprehension. Learning Dis-ability Quarterly, 5, 295-304.

Shanahan, T. (1987). The shared knowledge of reading and writing. Reading Psychology:An International Quarterly, 8, 93-102.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

108 M. M. GLEASON

Shanahan, T. (1988). The reading-writing relationship: Seven instructional principles.The Reading Teacher, 41, 636-647.

Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical modelsof the reading-writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 116-123.

Short, E. J., & Ryan, E. B. (1984). Metacognitive differences between skilled and lessskilled readers: Remediating deficits through story grammar and attribution train-ing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 225-235.

Shunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1992). Influence of reading-comprehension strategy infor-mation on children's achievement outcomes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 5 1 -64.

Sinatra, R. C. (1986). Visual literacy connections to thinking, reading, and writing.Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Sinatra, R. C, Stahl-Gemake, J., & Berg, D. N. (1984). Improving reading comprehen-sion of disabled readers through semantic mapping. The Reading Teacher, 38, 22-29.

Sinatra, R. C, Berg, D., & Dunn, R. (1985). Semantic mapping improves reading com-prehension of learning disabled students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 17, 310-314.

Sinatra, R. C, Stahl-Gemake, J., & Morgan, N. W. (1986). Using semantic mapping afterreading to organize and write original discourse. Journal of Reading, 30, 4-13.

Spiegel, D. L., & Fitzgerald, J. (1986). Improving reading comprehension through in-struction about story parts. The Reading Teacher, 39, 676-682.

Taylor, B. M. (1982). Text structure and children's comprehension and memory forexpository material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 323-340.

Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students' comprehension and production of expository text. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 19, 134-146.

Tierney, R. J., Soter, A., O'Flahavan, J. G., & McGinley, W. (1989). The effects of readingand writing upon thinking critically. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 134-173.

Winograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 19, 404-425.

Wong, B. (1978, September/October). The effects of directive cues on the organization ofmemory and recall in good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Research, 72,32-38.

Wong, B. Y. L. (1991). Three conceptual perspectives on the connections between readingand writing processes. In L. Lupart & A. McKeogh (Eds.), Toward the practice oftheory-based instruction: Current cognitive theories and their educational promise(pp. 66-91). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

53 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014