Abstract
Students with learning disabilities face challenging reading and learning demands as they move beyond the primary grades. While many of these students continue to encounter difficulties with basic reading skills, moving into the intermediate and secondary grades means they also need to use a cadre of cognitive and metacognitive strategies for negotiating informational text. Within the content areas, they are expected to deepen and broaden their knowledge through reading. However, with regard to reading and learning in the content areas, learning disabled students seem to be in jeopardy for several reasons. First, these students spend much of their in-school time learning how to read in materials that are either narrative or do not require purposeful learning of the content (Snider & Tarver, 1987). Second, at the elementary level it is not unusual for learning disabled students to miss content instruction within the regular classroom due to the time spent in resource rooms (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989; Richardson, Casanova, Placier, & Guilfoyle, 1988). Consequently, they miss opportunities to develop rich knowledge structures on which to build content knowledge and domain-specific strategies for comprehending content texts. Third, current teaching techniques used for teaching content knowledge often do not provide the scaffolding necessary for interacting with the concepts presented in texts (Durkin, 1978–79; Roth, Smith, & Anderson, 1984).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, A. (1985). Semantic syntactic feature analysis: A reading writing strategy for ESL learners. Paper presented at the Southwest Regional meeting of the national Council of Teachers of English, March, Phoenix, Arizona.
Allington, R.C., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). School responses to reading failure: Chapter one and special education students in grades 2, 4, & 8. Elementary School Journal, 89, 529 – 542.
Anders, P.L., & Bos, C.S. (1986). Semantic feature analysis: An interactive strategy for vocabulary development and text comprehension. Journal of Reading, 29, 610 – 616.
Anderson, R.C. (1984). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning and memory. In R.C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R.J. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers and content texts(pp. 243 – 258 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, R.C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J.T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews(pp. 77 – 117 ). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Anderson, R.C., Reynolds, R.E., Schallert, D.L., & Goetz, E.T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 367 – 382.
Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research(pp. 353 – 394 ). New York: Longman.
Billingsley, B.S., & Wildman, T.H. (1988). The effects of prereading activities on the comprehension monitoring of learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 36 – 44.
Bos, C.S., & Anders, P.L. (1989). The effectiveness of interactive instruction practices on the content area reading comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, April, San Francisco.
Bos, C.S., & Anders, P.L. (1990a). Toward an interactive model: Teaching text- based concepts to learning disabled students. In H.L. Swanson and B. Keogh (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Theoretical and research issues(pp. 247 – 261 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bos, C.S. & Anders, P.L. (1990b). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31 – 42.
Bos, C., Anders, P.L., Filip, D., & Jaffe, L.E. (1985). Semantic feature analysis and long term learning. In J.A. Niles & R.V. Lalik (Eds.), Issues in literacy: A research perspective(Thirty-fourth yearbook, pp. 42 – 46 ). Rochester, NY: The National Reading Conference.
Bos, C., Anders, P.L., Filip, D., & Jaffe, L.E. (1989). The effects of an interactive instructional strategy for enhancing learning disabled students’ reading comprehension and content area learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 384 – 390.
Bos, C.S., & Reyes, E.I. (1989). Knowledge, use, and control of an interactive cognitive strategy for learning from content area texts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, December, Austin, Texas.
Bulgren, J., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 3 – 17.
Cross, D.R., & Paris, S.G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 131 – 142.
Duffy, G.G. & Roehler, L.R. (1989). Why strategy instruction is so difficult and what we need to do about it. In C.B. McCormick, G.E. Miller, & M. Pressley (Eds.). Cognitive research: From basic research to educational applications(pp. 133 – 156 ). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., & Wesselman, R. (1985). Disentangling the complexities of instructional effectiveness: A line of research on classroom reading instruction. In J. A. Niles & R.V. Lalik (Eds), Issues in literacy: A research perspective(Thirty-fourth yearbook, pp. 244 – 250 ). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
Durkin, D. (1978–79). What classroom observations reveal about comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481–533.
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D.W. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.
Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., Anderson, L.M., Stevens, D.D., & Anthony, H.M. (1989). Making writing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, San Francisco.
Englert, C.S. & Raphael, T.E., Fear, K.L., & Anderson, L.M. (1988). Students’ metacognitive knowledge about how to write informational texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 18 – 46.
Frayer, D.A., Frederick, W.C., & Klausmeier, H.J. (1969). A schema for testing the level of concept mastery(Working Paper No. 16). Madison: The University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning.
Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39, 93 – 104.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Goodman, K.S. (1984). Unity in reading. In A.C. Purves & O. Niles (Eds.), Becoming readers in a complex society(Eighty-third yearbook, pp. 79 – 114 ). Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.
Graves, A.W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1, 90 – 100.
Irwin, P.A., & Mitchell, J.N. (1983). A procedure for assessing the richness of retellings. Journal of Reading, 26, 391 – 396.
Johnson, D.D., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). Teaching reading vocabulary( 2nd ed. ). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Klausmeier, H.J. (1984). Conceptual learning and development. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychology, (Vol. 1, pp. 266 – 269 ). New York: Wiley.
Klausmeier, J.H., & Sipple, T.S. (1980). Learning and teaching process concepts: A strategy for testing applications for theory. New York: Academic Press.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1988). Increasing content area learning of learning disabled students: Research implementation. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 17 – 25.
McCormick, S. (1989). Effects of previews on more skilled and less skilled readers– comprehension of expository text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, 219 – 240.
Moll, L.C.,& Diaz, R. (1987). Teaching writing as communication: The use of ethnographic findings in classroom practice. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and schooling(pp. 193 – 221 ). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Naveh-Benjamin, M., McKeatchie, W., Lin, Y., & Tucker, D. (1986). Inferring students’ cognitive structures and their development using the “ordered tree technique.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 130 – 140.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117 – 175.
Pany, D., Jenkins, J.J., & Schreck, J. (1982). Vocabulary instruction: Effects on word knowledge and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 202 – 215.
Paris, S.G., Lipson, M.Y., & Wixson, K.K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293 – 316.
Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Van der Westhuizen, G. (1988). Meta-metacognition: A review of research on metacognition and reading. In J. Readence & R.S. Baldwin (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research(Thirty-seventh yearbook, pp. 143 – 166 ). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Pearson, P.D., & Johnson, D.D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Richardson, V., Anders, P.L., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1989). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. A paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, Texas.
Richardson, V., Cassanova, U., Placier, M., & Guilfoyle, K. (1988). School children at-risk. Bristol, PA: Falmer.
Roth, K.J., Smith, E.L., & Anderson, C.W. (1984). Verbal patterns of teachers: Comprehension instruction in the content areas. In G.G. Duffy, L.R. Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions(pp. 281 – 293 ). New York: Longman.
Rumelhart, D.E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce, & W.F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension(pp. 33 – 58 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scanlon, D., Gallego, M., & Reyes, E. (1989). Developing teacher’s repertoire: The effectiveness of an interactive staff development model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Schunk, D.H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions(Vol. 3, pp. 13 – 44 ). San Diego: Academic Press.
Snider, V.E., & Tarver, S.G. (1987). The effect of early reading failure on acquisition of knowledge among students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 351 – 356.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wong, B.Y.L. (1987). Conceptual and methodological issues in interventions with learning-disabled children and adolescents. In S. Vaughn & C. Bos (Eds.), Research in learning disabilities: Issues and future directions(pp. 185 – 196 ). San Diego: College-Hill.
Wong, B.Y.L. (1988). An instructional model for intervention research in learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 5 – 16.
Wong, B.Y.L., & Wong, R. (1988). Cognitive interventions for learning disabilities. In K. Kavale (Ed.), Learning disabilities: State of the art and practice(pp. 141 – 160 ). Boston: College-Hill Publication, Little, Brown.
Wong, B.Y.L., Wong, R., Perry, N., & Sawaktsky, D. (1986). The efficacy of a self-questioning summarization strategy for use by underachievers and learning disabled adolescents in social studies. Learning Disabilities Focus, 2, 20 – 35.
Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151 – 175.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1990 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bos, C.S., Anders, P.L. (1990). Interactive Teaching and Learning: Instructional Practices for Teaching Content and Strategic Knowledge. In: Scruggs, T.E., Wong, B.Y.L. (eds) Intervention Research in Learning Disabilities. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3414-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3414-2_7
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-97280-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-3414-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive