Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic Processing In and Between Texts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reading Comprehension

  • 5102 Accesses

Abstract

Generally, less skilled readers have difficulty utilising overall text structure and need to be shown how to use their inferential skills when reading. Poor comprehenders appear to have difficulty processing story content at the local level of understanding and they also have difficulty retelling the gist of stories at the global level. Exposition text structures may present them with unique challenges because they usually require the reader to use more complex cognitive processes to construct meaning during reading. However, instruction that focuses on text structure has been found to have positive results for developing reading comprehension with unfamiliar text genres. Dynamic literacy involves integration of information from multiple texts. Integration of this information requires the reader to construct an overall situation model by comparing and contrasting a number of related texts. The overall situation model represents the many facets of the situations, facts, and events described in each of the separate texts. The multi-dynamic nature of electronic literacies clearly has an enormous and challenging scope for the integration and sharing of ideas from a wide range of literate sources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Armbruster, B., and T. Anderson. 1985. Producing considerate expository text: Or easy reading is damned hard writing. Journal of Curriculum Studies 17: 247–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D.P. 1968. The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, D.V.M. 1997. Uncommon understanding: Development and disorder of language comprehension in children. Hove: Psychological Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowyer-Crane, C., and M.J. Snowling. 2005. Assessing children’s inference generation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure? British Journal of Educational Psychology 75: 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., and J. Oakhill. 1999. Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 11: 489–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H.W., T.P. Hogan, and M.E. Fey. 2003. Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 36: 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, J.J., L. Bennetto, and E.C. Young. 2006. Story recall and narrative coherence of high-functioning children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 34(1): 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreher, M.J., and J.L. Grey. 2009. Compare, contrast text structures with ELLs in K-3 classrooms. The Reading Teacher 63(2): 132–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N.K. 2004. The case for informational text. Educational Leadership 61: 40–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N.K., and P.D. Pearson. 2002. Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In What research has to say about reading instruction, 3rd ed, ed. A.E. Farstrup and S.J. Samuels, 205–242. Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, D.W. 1996. Helping readers comprehend stories from the characters’ perspectives. The Reading Teacher 49: 534–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, D.W., and C. Mihalevich. 1992. Directed discussion of character perspectives. Reading Research and Instruction 31: 51–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajria, M., A.K. Jitendra, S. Stood, and G. Sacks. 2007. Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities 40(3): 210–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersten, R., L.S. Fuchs, J.P. Williams, and S. Baker. 2001. Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research 71: 279–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, C.C., L.D. Malone, and E.J. Kameenui. 1995. Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research 89: 98–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J.T. 2003. Concept-oriented reading instruction. In Rethinking reading comprehension, ed. A.P. Sweet and C.E. Snow, 115–140. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J.T., A. Wigfield, P. Barbosa, K.C. Perencevich, A. Taboada, M.H. Davis, N.T. Scafiddi, and S. Tonks. 2004. Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 96(3): 403–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansfield, L.J., T.R. Dean, and K.M. Cielocha. 2009. Becoming critical consumers and producers of text: Teaching literacy with Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. The Reading Teacher 63(1): 40–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K.R., and M. Pressley. 1991. The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy instruction. Exceptional Children 57: 392–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassett, D.D. 2008. Teacher flexibility and judgment: A multidynamic literacy theory. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 8: 295327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, A., S. Vaughn, J. Wanzek, and S. Wei. 2004. Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities 37: 105–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. 1982. Memory for text. In Discourse processing, ed. A. Flammer and W. Kintsch, 186–204. New York: North Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, E. 2005. Comprehension theory as a guide for the design of thoughtful questions. Topics in Language Disorders 25(1): 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laing, S.P., and A.G. Kamhi. 2002. The use of think-aloud protocols to compare inferencing abilities to average and below-average readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities 35(5): 436–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, L.C. 2009. Reader response meets new literacies: Empowering readers in online learning communities. The Reading Teacher 62(8): 638–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marr, M.B., and K. Gormley. 1982. Children’s recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly 18: 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B.J.F. 1975. The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B.J.F., and R.O. Freedle. 1984. Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal 21(1): 121–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B.J.F., and L.W. Poon. 2001. Effects of structure strategy training and signalling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology 93(1): 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, L.M. 1985. Retelling stories: A strategy for improving young children’s comprehension, concept of story structure, and oral language complexity. Elementary School Journal 85: 647–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nation, K., and F. Norbury. 2005. Why reading comprehension fails; Insights from developmental disorders. Topics in Language Disorders 25: 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesbit, J.C., and O.O. Adesope. 2006. Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 76(3): 413–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P.D., L.R. Roehler, J.A. Dole, and G.G. Duffy. 1992. Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In What research has to say about reading instruction, ed. S.J. Samuels and A.E. Farstrup, 101–144. Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. 2007. Reading ability: Lexical Quality to Comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading 11(4): 357–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C.A. 2009. Sentences, individual differences, and multiple texts: Three issues in text comprehension: Three issues in text comprehension. Discourse Processes 23(3): 337–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C., J. Rouet, and M.A. Britt. 1999. Toward a theory of documents representation. In The construction of mental representation during reading, ed. H. Oostendorp, 99–122. Malwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., E. Wood, V.E. Woloshin, V. Martin, A. King, and D. Menke. 1992. Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist 27: 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renz, K., E.P. Lorch, R. Milich, C. Lemberger, et al. 2003. On-line story representation in boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 31(1): 93–105 [sic].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reutzel, D.R. 1986. Investigating a synthesized comprehension instructional strategy: The Cloze story map. Journal of Educational Research 79(6): 343–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, L.K. 2009. Developing multiple literacies in a website project. The Reading Teacher 62(7): 592–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, N.L., and Trabasso, T. 1981. What’s in a story: An approach to comprehension instruction. Technical report No. 200, National Institute of Education, Washington, DC. 1981-04-00 (ED201990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stull, A., and R.E. Mayer. 2007. Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organisers. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(4): 808–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester, R., and W. Greenidge. 2009. Digital storytelling: Extending the potential for struggling writers. The Reading Teacher 63(4): 284–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Therrien, W.J., K. Wickstrom, and K. Jones. 2006. Effect of combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 21(2): 89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trabasso, T. 1981. On the making of inferences during reading and their recall. In Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews, ed. J.T. Guthrie, 56–75. Chicago: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trabasso, T., and L.L. Sperry. 1985. Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language 24: 595–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Schoot, M., A.L. Vasbinder, T.M. Horsley, A. Reijntjes, and E.C.D.M. Van Lieshout. 2009. Lexical ambiguity resolution in good and poor comprehenders: An eye fixation and self-paced reading study in primary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology 101(1): 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vipond, D. 1980. Micro- and macroprocessess in text comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 19: 276–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westby, C. 2002. Beyond decoding: Critical and dynamic literacy for students with dyslexia, language learning disabilities (LLD), or attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In Speaking, reading, and writing in students with language learning disabilities: New paradigms in research and practice, ed. K.C. Butler and E.R. Silliman. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., J.T. Guthrie, S. Tonks, and K.C. Perencevich. 2004. Children’s motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. The Journal of Educational Research 97(6): 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, G.E., and I. Hay. 2004. Using imagery as a strategy to enhance students’ comprehension of read text. In Learning difficulties: Multiple perspectives, ed. B.A. Knight and W. Scott, 85–101. Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zawilinski, L. 2009. HOT Blogging: A framework for blogging to promote higher order thinking. The Reading Teacher 62(8): 650–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H., and R. Hoosain. 2001. The influence of narrative text characteristics on thematic inference during reading. Journal of Research in Reading 24: 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. 2002a. At-risk students: Learning to break through comprehension barriers. In Improving comprehension instruction, ed. C. Collins Block, L.B. Gambrell, and M. Pressley, 354–369. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. 2002c. Comprehension instruction: What makes sense now, what might make sense soon. International Reading Association Online Document, http://www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/pressley/index.html.

  • Whaley, J.F. 1981a. Readers’ expectation for story structures. Reading Research Quarterly 17: 90–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raphael, T.E., and P.D. Pearson. 1982. The effect of metacognitive awareness training on children’s question-answering behaviour. Urbana: University of Illinios, Centre for Study of Reading.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Mt. Gravatt Campus, Brisbane, Queensland, 4111, Australia

    Dr. Gary Woolley

Authors
  1. Dr. Gary Woolley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary Woolley .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Woolley, G. (2011). Dynamic Processing In and Between Texts. In: Reading Comprehension. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1174-7_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation