Journal of Learning Disabilities

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rabren, K.
Right arrow Articles by Eaves, R. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rabren, K.
Right arrow Articles by Eaves, R. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 32, No. 1, 36-47 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/002221949903200104

The Differential Effects of Two Systematic Reading Comprehension Approaches with Students with Learning Disabilities

Karen Rabren

Department of Rehabilitation and Special Education at Auburn University

Craig Darch

Auburn University

Ronald C. Eaves

Auburn University

This study compared two highly dissimilar approaches for teaching students to determine character motive when reading three types of narrative text. The three text types used were textually explicit, textually implicit, and scriptually implicit. The two approaches were an explicit rule-based instruction approach and a basal-reader activity-based approach.

Forty students with learning disabilities were randomly assigned to either the explicit rule-based or the basal-reader activity-based instructional group. Daily instructional sessions lasted 45 minutes and were conducted for 2 weeks. The groups were evaluated on four comprehension measures: (a) daily retells of stories, (b) unit tests, (c) a transfer measure, and (d) a maintenance measure. The results suggest that rule-based instruction is superior to an activity-based approach when teaching students with learning disabilities to determine character motives irrespective of text type on short-term measures. However, there were no significant differences between the two instructional groups on the maintenance and transfer tests.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?