This study investigated the effectiveness of a main idea strategy and self-monitoring instructional procedure for improving comprehension of textual material in students with high-incidence (e.g., learning and behavioral) disabilities. Thirty-three middle school students with disabilities were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. Students in the experimental condition were trained to identify and generate main idea statements using main idea strategy instruction and a self-monitoring procedure. Results indicated that the instructional procedures led to increased reading comprehension of students in the experimental group on the training measure, which was maintained over time. On near and far transfer measures, the experimental group statistically outperformed students in the control group on posttest and delayed posttest items requiring selection responses. Students in the experimental group maintained strategy usage 6 weeks later on selection type responses on the near transfer measure but, not on the far transfer measure. Implications for practice are discussed.
Students with reading problems tend to be less aware of text structure and have poorer recall of textual ideas than good readers (Hare, Rabinowitz, & Schieble, 1989; Seidenberg, 1989; Sjostrom & Hare, 1984; Spring & Prager, 1992; Stevens, 1988; Taylor & Beach, 1984; Warren & Fitzgerald, 1997). In addition, they have difficulty with comprehension, particularly in identifying main ideas and important details. Williams (1988) noted the importance of identifying main ideas as essential to successful reading comprehension in terms of drawing inferences from text, studying effectively, and reading critically.
A growing body of literature has shown that explicit teacher-mediated instruction can effectively promote main idea comprehension (Gajria & Salvia, 1992; Graves, 1986; Malone & Mastropieri, 1992; Nelson, Smith, & Dodd, 1992; Pearson & Dole, 1987; Williams, Brown, Silverstein, & deCani, 1994). At the same time, teacher-mediated instruction alone is not sufficient to facilitate strategy use (Gajria & Salvia, 1992). In particular, students with learning disabilities who are characterized as inactive learners (Bender, 1987; Torgesen, 1982) fail to spontaneously transfer learned strategies by activating them in tasks or situations different from those in the training setting (Chan, 1991; Chan, Cole, & Morris, 1990; Day & Zajakowski, 1991; Wong, 1994).
Clearly, it is important to emphasize procedures that promote the application of learned skills (Anderson-Inman, 1986). Wong (1994) noted that mediation of student mindfulness during strategy instruction and transfer-promoting instruction increases strategy transfer for students with learning disabilities. The transition from teacher control to student self-regulation of strategy use is critical (Billingsley & Wildman, 1990; Butler, 1997; L. Graham & Wong, 1993; S. Graham, Harris, & Reid, 1992; McDougall, 1998; Palincsar, 1986; Paris & Newman, 1990; Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992). Self-management interventions that involve a gradual decrease of teacher control and increase of student involvement may serve to bridge the gap between effective teacher-mediated instruction and student-managed independent learning (Anderson-Inman, 1986; Cole & Bambara, 1992).
A self-management technique that has been used successfully with diverse students in school-based settings is self-monitoring, which involves the systematic observation and recording of one's own behavior (Shapiro & Cole, 1994). The effectiveness of self-monitoring for students with learning disabilities has been adequately demonstrated in numerous studies (for reviews, see Reid, 1996; Webber, Scheuermann, McCall, & Coleman, 1993). Studies on main idea instruction in conjunction with self-monitoring training have yielded positive results for students with learning disabilities. First, Graves (1986) compared the differential effects of three conditions--direct instruction only, direct instruction plus self-monitoring, and a control group--on identifying main ideas of passages. Students with learning disabilities in both conditions were taught an explicit strategy for identifying main ideas of passages. In addition, students in the direct instruction plus self-monitoring condition were taught to use a self-questioning procedure to check main idea comprehension. Results indicated that both groups' performance was better than that of the control group. Further, direct instruction plus self-monitoring was found to be more effective than direct instruction alone.
In a subsequent study, Graves and Levin (1989) investigated the effects of a direct instruction condition, a direct instruction plus monitoring condition, and a direct instruction plus mnemonic condition. Students with learning disabilities in each condition received a single session of training followed immediately by a test of recall and main idea identification. Findings indicated that the monitoring strategy was most effective for identifying main ideas, whereas students in the mnemonic condition performed better than those in the monitoring condition on a test of recall.
The study by Chan (1991) further supports the use of self-monitoring. In this study, students in a standard instruction approach and a generalization induction approach were taught how, why, and when to use a self-questioning procedure for identifying the main ideas of paragraphs. The self-questioning procedure involved a series of 15 questions that students were taught to ask themselves while reading. In addition, students in the generalization induction condition were provided with a five-stage instructional procedure to promote strategy generalization. The five stages were cognitive modeling, overt external guidance, overt self-guidance, faded self-guidance, and covert self-guidance. Mean scores from the pretest to posttest increased for both groups when participants were cued to use the strategy during the posttest. However, only the generalization induction group's performance increased when strategy use was not cued on the posttest.
In another study, Malone and Mastropieri (1992) taught students in a summarization training condition to use a two-step self-questioning strategy, such as "Who or what is the paragraph about?" and "What is happening to them?" (p. 273). Students in the summarization training plus monitoring condition were taught the same summarization strategy, but were also taught to monitor strategy use. Following 2 days of training, all students completed comprehension tests. During testing, pencils, paper, and self-monitoring cards were made available to all students. Students with learning disabilities who received summarization plus self-monitoring training outperformed those who received summarization training only on a measure of passage-specific recall. The two instructional approaches produced outcomes greater than those seen for a control group. Further, the improved performance was evident for two passages similar to those used in training and for social studies passages not used in training.
In addition, Jitendra, Cole, Hoppes, and Wilson (1998) used a single-subject design with three middle school students with learning disabilities to assess the effectiveness of a teaching procedure for identifying the main ideas of passages. In this study, direct instruction of main idea strategy training was followed by 2 days of self-monitoring training. Results indicated an increase in scores on narrative passages similar to those used in training. Although scores on expository passages also improved, they were not as marked. However, students' scores on both narrative and expository passages increased further following self-monitoring training. On maintenance probes administered 6, 10, and 16 weeks after training, results indicated a steady decline in scores and possibly a decrease in strategy use over time. One possible explanation for this decline was that the 2 days of self-monitoring training in isolation was insufficient for students to effectively activate the strategy over time.
Content & Design © Winsor Learning, Inc.
Site designed by: CaDan Computers