View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teaching Expository Text Management and Proficiency Skills for Comprehension for Students with Language/Learning Disabilities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teaching Expository Text Management and Proficiency Skills for Comprehension for Students with Language/Learning Disabilities
Language: English
Authors: Shannon S. Hall-Mills (ORCID 0000-0002-1928-3827), Leesa M. Marante
Source: Learning Disability Quarterly. 2025 48(2):88-101.
Availability: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 5
Intermediate Grades
Middle Schools
Descriptors: Students with Disabilities, Language Impairments, Learning Disabilities, Expository Writing, Reading Comprehension, Grade 5, Elementary School Students, Syntax, Word Recognition, Direct Instruction, Reading Instruction, Instructional Materials, Instructional Effectiveness
Geographic Terms: Florida
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test
DOI: 10.1177/07319487221145689
ISSN: 0731-9487
2168-376X
Abstract: The purpose of this registered report study was to determine the effects of explicit text structure instruction on the expository text comprehension of students with language and learning disabilities (LLD) using a multiple baseline design across conditions (e.g., compare-contrast and cause-effect) and participants. Participants included four children enrolled in the fifth grade of Florida schools with previous diagnoses of language impairment and reading comprehension deficits. Text structure instruction was provided during the intervention phases using a researcher-designed intervention program called TEXT-MAPS. The dependent variables included text structure and signal word identification and percentage of idea units recalled from expository text. All participants showed improved recall of idea units for compare-contrast and cause-effect texts with maintained performance 1-month post-intervention. The program also had notable effects on participants' identification of signal words and text structures in compare-contrast and cause-effect texts. The magnitude of the Tau-U effect sizes was in the large, medium, and small range, and varied across participants. The results indicate that short-term, explicit text structure instruction can be effective for children with LLD with deficits in expository reading comprehension. Considerations for further research and practical implications are presented.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1469596
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFhqgY5YNF6TBO8UhcUrqG5AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEP_5LHNoEWzr567mwIBEICBm5SEtTvRkSxBZ8fLFAvTOrmQX3uVChlJLo2DtcVQuLgg_IrUg74ohXbFyUC8lMix8HlckOWBBw9FUfy_qR0yYtpLmNmNUAj4bkBLCb46MpG0UX92HSH2650693Ljhl5MYy5bVsEpton3nX8IlcQFYIGUGiLq-rpSKllL-Z8rcO_c2bLlkrXWQEW1RA0JJoMVjcyRK52-loDpDkdR
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184107780;dyw01may.25;2025Apr01.06:02;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184107780-1">Teaching Expository Text Management and Proficiency Skills for Comprehension for Students With Language/Learning Disabilities </title> <p>The purpose of this registered report study was to determine the effects of explicit text structure instruction on the expository text comprehension of students with language and learning disabilities (LLD) using a multiple baseline design across conditions (e.g., compare–contrast and cause–effect) and participants. Participants included four children enrolled in the fifth grade of Florida schools with previous diagnoses of language impairment and reading comprehension deficits. Text structure instruction was provided during the intervention phases using a researcher-designed intervention program called TEXT-MAPS. The dependent variables included text structure and signal word identification and percentage of idea units recalled from expository text. All participants showed improved recall of idea units for compare–contrast and cause–effect texts with maintained performance 1-month post-intervention. The program also had notable effects on participants' identification of signal words and text structures in compare–contrast and cause–effect texts. The magnitude of the Tau- U effect sizes was in the large, medium, and small range, and varied across participants. The results indicate that short-term, explicit text structure instruction can be effective for children with LLD with deficits in expository reading comprehension. Considerations for further research and practical implications are presented.</p> <p>Keywords: instructional strategies; reading; speech/language; single-subject methods</p> <p>Many school-age children with language and learning disabilities (LLD) struggle to comprehend expository text, even with adequate decoding skills ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref1">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref2">23</reflink>]). A significant portion of these readers perform five or more grade levels below their peers in reading ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>]). Prior evidence has established that students with language impairment (LI) often experience reading comprehension difficulties due to underlying linguistic weaknesses ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]), insufficient schema knowledge of expository text organization to support inferencing ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref5">44</reflink>]), and deficits in working memory capacity ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>]), and they may have limited knowledge of the various types of text organization and structure ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref7">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref8">12</reflink>]). A reader's awareness of text structures is associated with reading comprehension because text structure knowledge supports inferencing, especially for expository text ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref9">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref10">36</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-2">Theoretical Basis</hd> <p>The simple view of reading (SVR) helps explain the role of language skills in reading comprehension. In this view, reading comprehension is the product of decoding and language comprehension. Code-breaking skills, such as phonological awareness, phonics, and word recognition establish decoding, while vocabulary, syntactic awareness, inferencing, and the ability to construct mental schemas of text give rise to language comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref11">13</reflink>]). Simple view of reading has been put to the test by prior researchers interested in exploring the connections among language comprehension and reading comprehension for students enrolled in kindergarten through Grade 8 ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref12">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref14">20</reflink>]). Readers with specific deficits in comprehension in the absence of decoding deficits exhibit greater difficulties with language comprehension compared with their peers, as documented through measures of listening comprehension and semantic processing ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref16">30</reflink>]). Thus, the SVR underscores the importance of language comprehension in reading comprehension.</p> <p>Central to text comprehension is the reader's formation of coherence between and among ideas in the text. When a reader has established text structure awareness, it is then possible to develop mental representations of the ideas in a hierarchical, genre-specific structure. The role of coherence and mental representations in comprehension support the text structure model originally posited by [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>], who proposed that information in a text is organized hierarchically and that proficient readers use their knowledge of text structure to organize ideas for comprehension. Meyer and colleagues posited that proficient readers encode information from text via structured schemata, signal words, overarching structure, and content of a text in an effort to form coherent mental representations to support comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>]). It is the reader's awareness of the text's structure that serves as their framework for the organization of information.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-3">Text Structure Instruction</hd> <p>A reader's ability to infer expository text structure is significantly related to their reading comprehension. Readers must be able to use signaling words to link concepts and ideas to form a coherent meaning from the text ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref19">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref20">36</reflink>]). For example, a compare and contrast reading passage may include keywords, such as "same," "different," "similar," and "on the other hand" to signal to the reader that there is a relationship between two or more items or ideas that are being compared or contrasted. The relationships of ideas unfold within and across the sentences and paragraphs of a reading passage. Skilled readers strategically utilize text structure knowledge to construct their own mental representation of the text. In this way, they learn to read the text structure map within each reading passage. However, many students do not independently engage with the text structure and require explicit and systematic instruction to improve their expository text structure awareness to support reading comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref21">43</reflink>]). Children who have received explicit instruction of text structure are better able to recognize distinct text structures, identify the key relationships in the text, recall a greater number of content units (ideas) after reading, and demonstrate increased performance on standardized measures of reading comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref22">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref23">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref24">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>There is a host of evidence from randomized and quasi-experimental studies spanning a few decades regarding the benefits of explicit text structure instruction to develop readers' text structure awareness and support their expository reading comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>]). Struggling readers can learn to identify and discriminate among expository text structures with a limited dose of direct instruction (e.g., one 60-minute session or two total hours of instruction in a 2-week time span; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref26">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref27">22</reflink>]). Furthermore, compare–contrast and cause–effect comprehension gains have been observed with as little as 5 minutes of daily text structure instruction across 8 weeks for children in elementary grades ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref28">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref29">47</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref30">50</reflink>], 2014). Moreover, two recent meta-analyses have reported the collective evidence of studies investigating the effects of text structure instruction. A meta-analysis of [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>] reviewed 45 studies that incorporated text structure instruction for students across the full range of performance in Grades 2 through 12, revealing a mean effect size of 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.43, 0.69], which were maintained over time and transferred to untaught text structures. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref32">16</reflink>] drew attention to the need for research that includes instruction in multiple text structures (e.g., compare–contrast and cause–effect). A second meta-analysis by [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref33">35</reflink>], which focused on the effects of text structure instruction for students in kindergarten through Grade 12 who had learning disabilities (LDs), revealed an average effect size of 0.83, CI [0.76, 0.91], across 19 studies, including several not reviewed in the work of [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref34">16</reflink>]. Students with LDs also benefit from text structure instruction. Finally, a systematic review revealed the benefits of explicit instruction and scaffolding strategies for students with LD were increased skills for self-monitoring and recalling details of text and transfer of information across expository texts and reading levels ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref35">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-4">Components of Text Structure Instruction</hd> <p>Prior research, including two meta-analyses and one systematic review, has revealed which specific components of text structure instruction are effective for boosting expository reading comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref36">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref37">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref38">35</reflink>]). The TEXT-MAPS (<emph>Teaching Expository Teaching Expository Text Management and Proficiency Skills</emph>) program was designed with consideration of several of these features, including explicit, systematic instruction; focus on signal words; use of graphic organizers; and support for the identification and discrimination of expository text structures.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-5">Explicit, Systematic Instruction</hd> <p>The combination of explicit and systematic instruction aligns with recommendations generated by prior researchers based on large effects for at-risk learners, including students who have LDs ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref39">42</reflink>]). By participating in explicit instruction, students learn how to use their text structure knowledge strategically to store and retrieve information from text ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref40">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref41">48</reflink>]). Williams and her colleagues have established an extensive line of evidence supporting the use of explicit, systematic text structure instruction for students in the elementary grades ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref42">47</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref43">50</reflink>], 2014). In the work of [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref44">48</reflink>], Grade 2 students were assigned to one of three experimental conditions: explicit, systematic text structure intervention; comparison program without explicit text structure instruction; and a no-instruction control. The intervention group outperformed the other groups on measures of reading comprehension. Williams et al noted that during their post-intervention interviews with teachers, it was revealed that some of the teachers in the comparison and no instruction conditions may have provided superficial attention to text structure. These findings suggest that incidental attention to text structure alone is not sufficient for supporting improved comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-6">Signal Words Identification</hd> <p>The identification of signal words has been a component of many prior investigations of text structure instruction. For example, half of the 45 studies reviewed in the work of [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref45">16</reflink>] included instruction for using signal words for text structure identification. The identification of signal words allows readers to recognize the relationships among ideas in the text to the extent that they can then classify the text by its organization (e.g., compare–contrast, cause–effect; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref46">45</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-7">Graphic Organizers</hd> <p>Another frequently reported component of text structure instruction is a graphic organizer. Recent meta-analyses indicate wide use of graphic organizers across studies; 34 studies reviewed in the work of [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref47">16</reflink>] incorporated graphic organizers, and [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref48">35</reflink>] noted that studies incorporating graphic organizers resulted in the largest effects. Graphic organizers support comprehension by assisting the reader in locating and recalling key ideas to create a text specific schema.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-8">Discrimination of Text Structures</hd> <p>The act of identifying specific text structures and discriminating among a variety of such structures is another research-based instructional strategy that helps children meet the objectives of text structure instruction ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref49">38</reflink>]). This can be accomplished through a variety of methods, including introducing the concept of structures without reading materials, teaching signal words, and providing discrimination training. Text structure identification skills can be assessed in a variety of ways. In the work of [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref50">50</reflink>], an interviewer read a paragraph and then asked the participant to answer a question about the structure of the text. In the work of [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref51">4</reflink>], the text structure identification of Grades 4 and 5 students was measured by asking them to read 15 short passages and identify the structure from a closed set of five options. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref52">17</reflink>] explored the feasibility of a text structure intervention component to teach students ways to identify and discriminate five expository text structures. The present study is related directly to two of Hebert et al.'s recommendations: further research should incorporate (a) identification and discrimination training and (b) a maintenance measure for text structure identification.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-9">Rationale and Hypotheses</hd> <p>Direct instruction in the organizational framework of various text structures has led to improved comprehension via increased accuracy in identifying specific structures ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref53">24</reflink>]). While identifying the pattern of text organization is not the ultimate goal—that role belongs to comprehension itself—text structure identification is an important prerequisite to comprehension. Text structure awareness leads to increases in the number of text ideas recalled ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref54">36</reflink>]). The present study extends the evidence base by implementing an expository reading comprehension intervention that incorporated several research-based strategies to support both the identification and comprehension of multiple text structures in an explicit instruction paradigm with an understudied population (e.g., students with LLD in later grades). Expository text structures are especially salient throughout the curriculum in the later grades, yet not all students acquire knowledge of these structures without direct support ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref55">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to determine whether explicit text structure instruction increases expository text comprehension and accuracy in identification of expository text structures and signal words across multiple participants and conditions (e.g., text structures). We anticipated that a short-term period of biweekly intervention sessions focusing on explicit text structure instruction would result in positive changes in participants' comprehension of compare–contrast and cause–effect texts as measured by the percentage of idea units recalled. Intervention effects were expected to be maintained for at least 4 weeks following the conclusion of the explicit text structure instruction. We also hypothesized that participants' accuracy in identifying signal words and expository text structures would improve as a result of explicit text structure instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-10">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184107780-11">Participant Recruitment and Selection Criteria</hd> <p>The approved Stage 1 manuscript is available at https://osf.io/bwnea/. The investigators obtained approval from the university's institutional review board for human participants' research to conduct the study. School-age children with a diagnosis of LI are at risk for LDs due to the influence of language skills in reading and writing development. Many students enrolled in later grades (5–6) have a co-diagnosis of LI and specific learning disability (SLD). For example, in a sample of over 3,000 fifth-grade students, 47% of students with LI also had a diagnosis of SLD ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref56">15</reflink>]). Language and learning disabilities can be defined by the presence of oral and written language deficits that adversely affect academic performance, even with nonverbal cognitive abilities in the average range and no sensory deficits ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref57">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>We recruited four participants in the fifth grade from different schools in Florida who had a prior diagnosis of LI and deficits in reading comprehension (confirmed by school staff). All four participants were receiving support for language and reading comprehension deficits through an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Bryanna also had a prior diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and both Peter and Alison had prior diagnoses of speech impairment. In Florida, the identification of students with LI is based on standardized evaluation and eligibility criteria as noted in the State Board of Education rules and regulations, bringing consistency among eligibility team in their decision-making.</p> <p>Parents provided their written consent for their child to participate in the study. Consenting parents were contacted by the research team for a brief phone interview to provide them the opportunity to ask questions about the study, and they completed a background questionnaire regarding their child, including information about their language and reading concerns for the child. The first author conducted a screening assessment to confirm the presence of oral language and reading comprehension deficits based on standard scores below the average range and decoding skills within the average range. Participant demographic and screening data are reported in Table 1. The screening is described further in the section below.</p> <p>Table 1. Demographic and Screening Data for the Study Sample.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Participant</th><th align="center">Gender</th><th align="center">Ethnicity</th><th align="center">Age (years)</th><th align="center">WRMT-WISS (percentile rank)</th><th align="center">WRMT-WASS (percentile rank)</th><th align="center">WRMT-PCSS (percentile rank)</th><th align="center">CELF5-RSScS, SS (percentile rank)</th><th align="center">KBIT-2 matricesSS (percentile rank)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alison</td><td>Female</td><td>Hispanic</td><td>12</td><td>90 (25)</td><td>91 (27)</td><td>82 (12)</td><td>5, 75 (5)</td><td>103 (58)</td></tr><tr><td>Arthur</td><td>Male</td><td>African American</td><td>11</td><td>108 (70)</td><td>93 (32)</td><td>83 (14)</td><td>5, 75 (5)</td><td>96 (39)</td></tr><tr><td>Bryanna</td><td>Female</td><td>African American</td><td>12</td><td>88 (21)</td><td>89 (23)</td><td>82 (12)</td><td>4, 70 (2)</td><td>91 (27)</td></tr><tr><td>Peter</td><td>Male</td><td>Hispanic</td><td>12</td><td>92 (30)</td><td>91 (27)</td><td>82 (12)</td><td>4, 70 (2)</td><td>84 (14)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. WRMT and KBIT have a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. CELF-5 scaled scores have a mean of 10 and standard deviation of 3. WRMT = Woodcock Reading Master Test; WI = Word Identification subtest; WA = Word Attack subtest; PC = Passage Comprehension subtest; SS = standard score; CELF-5 = Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (5th ed.); RS = Recalling Sentences subtest; ScS = scaled score; KBIT-II = Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (second edition).</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-12">Screening</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184107780-13">Word Reading and Reading Comprehension</hd> <p>Participants' decoding and reading comprehension skills were assessed using the Word Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Third Edition (WRMT-III; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref58">51</reflink>]). The WRMT-III is a norm-referenced battery of measures for reading readiness and reaching achievement. The Word Identification and Word Attack subtests served as a broad measure of participants' decoding skills by asking them to read aloud printed English words (Word Identification) and nonsense words (Word Attack) with increasing difficulty. For the Passage Comprehension subtest, participants read a short passage and provided one word to fill in the blank. Internal consistency for WRMT-III ranges from.90 to.99 and the split-half reliability for these WRMT-III subtests ranges from.81 to.94. To qualify for the study, participants had to obtain Word Identification scores above the 16th percentile and Passage Comprehension scores below the 16th percentile. Prior researchers have utilized the 16th percentile on the Word Identification subtest as the cutoff score for dyslexia (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>]). Children with Word Identification scores below the 16th percentile were excluded from the study.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-14">Oral Language</hd> <p>Participants' oral language skills were screened using the Recalling Sentences subtest (average reliability coefficient across ages =.94) of the <emph>Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Fifth Edition</emph> (CELF-5; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref60">40</reflink>]). The CELF-5 has excellent sensitivity (.97) and specificity (.97) to detect language disorders. Sentence recall tasks have excellent diagnostic accuracy levels for LI ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref61">37</reflink>]). Furthermore, the Recalling Sentences subtest has the highest levels of reliability of all the CELF-5 subtests for the clinical groups of language disorder (.98) and reading and writing LD (.92). To qualify for the study, participants needed a Recalling Sentences subtest below the 16th percentile. This cutoff score for language skills has precedence in prior research (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>]). Participants with Recalling Sentences scores above the 16th percentile were excluded from the study.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-15">Nonverbal Cognitive</hd> <p>To examine nonverbal cognitive skills, the Matrices subtest of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT-II; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref63">18</reflink>]) was administered. The KBIT-II is a norm-referenced brief measure of intelligence. The Matrices subtest and similar nonverbal cognitive measures have been utilized in prior research as descriptive measures for participants with LI ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>]). The split-half reliability coefficients are in the.80s and.90s, and it has a mean test–retest reliability coefficient of.83.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-16">Setting</hd> <p>The text structure instruction was delivered primarily by the first author, and secondarily by the second author, both of whom are licensed speech–language pathologists with prior experience working in schools and advanced training in language learning disorders. Due to the university's restrictions on face-to-face human participant interaction during the COVID-19 pandemic, all sessions occurred via a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant telehealth platform. Telepractice is an established service delivery model in university clinics, private practices, healthcare, and the schools as a means to deliver language therapy via geographic distances. Participants were scheduled for two 45-minute telehealth services per week for the duration of the study. The sessions were one-on-one with the participant and the interventionist. All sessions were video- and audio-recorded. Sessions were scheduled around the participants' instructional time at school to minimize disruptions. To minimize distractions and maximize student engagement in the distance learning platform, we collaborated with parents to arrange the child's environment at home. This included clearing off a table or desk, deactivating notifications on the computer, providing headphones, placing siblings and pets in other rooms of the home, and assisting with video and audio connections when necessary. In addition, we designed the flow of the intervention sessions to cycle through different activities every 5 to 10 minutes.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-17">Independent Variable</hd> <p>The independent variable was explicit text structure instruction with a focus on two text types (i.e., two conditions; compare–contrast and cause–effect text structures), delivered by the authors live and online through Zoom. Participants received explicit instruction in how to recognize specific signal or clue words that signify a particular text structure framework (such as compare–contrast, cause–effect structures), learn about the nature and function of the expository text structure, complete repeated readings with clue word recognition, and use graphic organizers to assist in a retell of the reading passage.</p> <p>We developed eight instructional units in PowerPoint, each with modeled, guided, and independent practice with text structure strategies and connected text ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref65">43</reflink>]). Examples of signal words for the compare–contrast and cause–effect text structures are provided in Table S2 in the Online Supplemental Material. We selected the Bill of Rights topic to support development of the participants' content knowledge. Reading materials included (a) trade books focused on the Bill of Rights content topic (written for children in Grades 5 and 6 with a Lexile range of 890Lto 970L and similar number of words and paragraphs) and (b) researcher-made compare–contrast and cause–effect paragraphs. The first author selected the trade books with validation of three educators with Grades 5 and 6 civics curriculum experience, who reviewed the books for their alignment with the content topic theme, level of interest to participants, and text complexity level for read-alouds. Each lesson targeted a few pages of the book. Odd-numbered lessons focused on the compare–contrast structure while even-numbered lessons focused on the cause–effect structure. Therefore, each participant completed one compare–contrast and one cause–effect lesson per week during the intervention phase. Each 45-minute intervention session included 10 minutes of introductory time (greeting, establishing rapport, checking audio quality, and introducing the lesson topic), 20 minutes of text structure instruction, and 10 to 15 minutes of independent practice. Each instructional lesson included a review of the purpose and characteristics of the targeted text structure (including signal words), a read-aloud activity using content from a trade book with discussion following a think-aloud procedure, guided practice with the first compare–contrast or cause–effect paragraph to identify signal words and recall comparative or causative statements/ideas from the paragraph using a graphic organizer, and a review of the target text structure characteristics including signal words. We incorporated think-aloud procedures ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref66">19</reflink>]) during guided practice with text structure strategies to comprehend text. Participants were periodically asked to comment about the text while they were reading. Interventionists probed comments by asking questions, modeling the answer, and providing support to engage in inferential thinking. Examples of statements that we presented prior, during, and after reading to participants include: "What do I know about this topic?" "What do I think I will learn about this topic?" "Do I understand what I just read?' "Do I have a clear picture in my head about this information?" We developed scripted instructions for progress-monitoring measures and scripted instructions for activities in the lesson plans for the intervention sessions. However, there needed to be individualized scaffolding and prompting throughout the intervention, which was not scripted. More information regarding scaffolding and prompting is provided below.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-18">Scaffolding and Prompting</hd> <p>Participants required varying degrees of assistance, or scaffolding, for learning new tasks during the intervention phase. Adjustments in prompting were based on, and responsive to, the participants' perceived understanding. We began by providing the expectations for each task and reviewing the skills necessary to complete. If necessary, participants were then given verbal cues to refer to visuals and their notes (e.g., highlighted signal words, main idea statements). The next level of support included segmenting the task into smaller components and asking questions to elicit background knowledge. The final level of support provided was direct skill modeling by the session facilitator. If a participant had difficulty decoding a word during guided reading, the investigator provided prompts for morphemic analysis of the target word, discussed the meaning of the word, and provided additional examples of its use. If a participant had difficulty decoding a word during the probes at the end of the session, the investigator noted the word(s) of difficulty, modeled the pronunciation, and revisited the word for morphemic analysis and discussion of the word's meaning after probes were completed.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-19">Dependent Variables and Measures</hd> <p>The primary outcome variable was expository reading comprehension, as measured by the percentage of idea units orally recalled from an expository reading passage. Secondary dependent variables were signal word identification and text structure recognition. The dependent measure consisted of two researcher-developed passages (one for each text structure) and prompts to measure all three dependent variables. Similar to the passage format used by [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref67">49</reflink>], each cause–effect paragraph included one main idea sentence, three or more causal sentences including a cause or effect with a signal word, and a noncausal sentence. Each compare–contrast paragraph included one main idea sentence, three or more comparative sentences about two amendments or two features of a single amendment from the Bill of Rights, and a distractor sentence (general information about amendments that cannot be used in a comparative statement). Comparative sentences included a similarity or difference and a signal word. For both paragraph sets, three educators with fifth- and sixth-grade civics curriculum experience validated the paragraphs by judging each sentence in each paragraph for the type of sentence (e.g., for compare–contrast paragraph, noting whether sentences are main idea, comparative, or distractor sentences). Paragraph length and complexity remained consistent across probes, with an average of 80 words and Lexile of 810L to 1,000L. Two example paragraphs are provided in Table S1 in the Online Supplemental Material.</p> <p>Participants read each passage orally and were asked to identify any signal words in the text. The text then was removed from view and the participants were asked to recall all they could about the passage without referencing the text. Finally, the participants were asked to identify the text structure from a list of four options. To score the dependent measure, an idea unit was defined by a single fact from the passage (e.g., "They didn't vote"). The average number of idea units for cause–effect and compare–contrast passages was the same (36.43). A coding book included each probe passage with the list of all the possible idea units that could be provided during the recall task as well as the key for text structure type and signal words for each passage.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-20">Reliability</hd> <p>For the primary outcome variable, a checklist of appropriate answers was used to calculate the number and accuracy of ideas recalled by the participant. Two reviewers validated an answer key for each passage. Using a practice set from pilot data, the first author trained a research assistant to score the recalled idea units to 95% inter-rater agreement. The assistant reviewed and scored a minimum of 25% of the data points for each phase for each participant. To calculate reliability, we divided the number of agreements by the total number of agreements plus disagreements, then multiplied by 100. Inter-rater reliability on the scoring of recalled ideas across all participants was 98% for compare–contrast texts and 99% for cause–effect texts.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-21">Phases</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184107780-22">Baseline</hd> <p>A timeline of study phases is presented in Figure S1 in the Online Supplemental Material. Participants received five or more 30-minute baseline sessions. Each session included an introduction to the day's activities (5 minutes); an audio quality check (5 minutes); time to develop rapport, such as discussion of participants' topics of interest for reading or what they learned at school that day (5 minutes); and baseline compare–contrast and cause–effect reading probes (10–15 minutes). Participants were randomly assigned to an order for receiving the intervention within the multiple baseline design. The interventionist did not provide instruction or feedback regarding the text structures. A trained research assistant reviewed audio samples of baseline sessions using the procedural integrity checklist to ensure there was no inadvertent text structure instruction during this phase. We examined baseline data for consistent trends, wherein a stable baseline was defined by a series of data points that showed little to no variability.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-23">Intervention</hd> <p>The intervention phase lasted 1 month. Each participant received two 45-minute sessions weekly for 4 weeks. Participants completed eight text structure lessons, one lesson per session, for a total of eight intervention sessions. During the intervention phase, the participants received explicit text structure instruction focusing on the compare–contrast and cause–effect expository text structure. Reading passages were read aloud, thus providing opportunities to assist with any word errors that may occur. Data points were graphed and examined for a linear, ascending trend that would reflect a positive response to the text structure intervention. After a consistent pattern was established in the data as a response to the intervention, the explicit text structure instruction ceased and we proceeded to the maintenance phase.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-24">Maintenance Phase</hd> <p>Participants entered the maintenance phase after the conclusion of their final intervention session. Participants attended two 30-minute maintenance sessions 4 weeks after concluding the intervention. We administered measures of the children's text structure and signal word identification and recall for compare–contrast and cause–effect reading passages to examine whether the initial gains made during the intervention phase persisted over the 4 weeks post-intervention. Reading passages were read aloud by the participants with support for correction of word errors. Both maintenance sessions included an introduction of the activities (5 minutes), a review of the 10 amendments from the Bill of Rights in layman's terms (content review; 10 minutes), and independent reading practice with compare–contrast and cause–effect probes (10–15 minutes). The second maintenance session also included the social validity checklist.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-25">Procedural Integrity</hd> <p>For procedural consistency, we developed lesson plans for the baseline and intervention sessions, including scripted instructions for each activity. The intervention was not fully scripted to allow for individualized scaffolding and prompting as needed for participants. Furthermore, a procedural integrity checklist was used to ensure the intervention procedures were not implemented during the baseline phase but were adequately implemented as intended during the intervention phase. Audio recordings for 25% of the intervention sessions per participant were checked for the presence of identified features using the procedural reliability checklist in Table S3 in the Online Supplemental Material. Procedural integrity was established with a mean of 7.75/8 items present across intervention sessions reviewed, documenting 97% fidelity of implementation.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-26">Research Design</hd> <p>To determine the effects of text structure instruction on expository text structure identification and comprehension for students with LLD, we employed a single-case design in alignment with the What Works Clearinghouse standards for multiple baseline designs across conditions (e.g., compare–contrast versus cause–effect text structure) and participants. Stable baselines were established with the dependent variable (e.g., recall of ideas from expository text). The start of the intervention phase was staggered across participants. During the intervention phase, we initiated treatment focusing on the compare–contrast text structure while the baseline condition continued for the cause–effect structure. The initiation of the compare–contrast treatment condition was staggered across sessions from one participant to another (i.e., a staggered baseline phase). Thus, there was staggered initiation of treatment across conditions (i.e., target text structures) for each participant and a staggered initiation of treatment across participants. We obtained a minimum of five data points per phase and a minimum of three participants to support intra-case replication of the effects. Replication of intervention effects across and within participants is important for external validity. Furthermore, the research design allowed for a comparison of two text structure instruction conditions (compare–contrast and cause–effect structures) with each child participant. During the intervention phase, the program was implemented with a focus on both the compare–contrast and cause–effect text structures. The maintenance phase addressed whether the intervention had lasting effects on children's reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-27">Data Analytic Strategy</hd> <p>Visual analysis of the data determined the presence and strength of the relationship between the treatment and the outcome variable and for within and between phase data patterns, including level (mean score for data within a phase), trend (slope of data), variability (fluctuation or range of the data), immediacy of the effect, overlap, and consistency across similar phases. Effect size is reported for each outcome by participant as the percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND), which is defined as the proportion of data points in the specific text structure condition (e.g., compare–contrast as the first intervention phase), that exceed the highest value in the respective baseline phase (e.g., the first baseline phase; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref68">6</reflink>]). Visual analysis was supported with Tau-<emph>U</emph> effect size calculations, which combine the nonoverlap between phases with trend from the intervention phase ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref69">33</reflink>]). Tau-<emph>U</emph> scores are interpreted as 0.93 to 1.0 = large effect, 0.66 to 0.92 = medium effect, and 0 to 0.65 = small effect ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref70">32</reflink>]). In all but one case (Arthur's scores for identifying signal words), the 90% CIs for Tau-<emph>U</emph> values did not cross zero.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-28">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184107780-29">Effects on Reading Comprehension</hd> <p>Figure 1 shows the results for the percentage of idea units recalled across the baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases. Alison, Arthur, Bryanna, and Peter established a stable baseline with means of 25.00%, 23.17%, 8.81%, and 22.41% for compare–contrast text and 18.50%, 22.60%, 8.24%, and 18.90% for cause–effect texts, respectively. Immediacy of effect was evident with an increase trend in the intervention phase for all four participants. The percentage of idea units recalled during intervention was higher than baseline, with compare–contrast means of 40.0%, 33.7%, 17.40%, and 36.63% and cause–effect means of 39.20%, 38.91%, 14.14%, and 33.84% for Alison, Arthur, Bryanna, and Peter, respectively. Comparing baseline and intervention performance, the PND was 100% and Tau-<emph>U</emph> = 1.0 for Alison in both text structure conditions and for Arthur in the compare–contrast condition. The PND was 75% with Tau-<emph>U</emph> = 0.88 for Bryanna in both text conditions. Arthur's cause–effect PND as 75% with Tau-<emph>U</emph> = 0.66. Peter's PND was 75%, with Tau-<emph>U</emph> = 0.62 and 0.72 for compare–contrast and cause–effect conditions, respectively. Due to illness, Arthur did not complete one of the compare–contrast probes (Session 12). Bryanna took a week-long personal trip with a break between Sessions 15 and 16. All four participants maintained similar levels 1 month later. The maintenance means for the compare–contrast condition were 40.50%, 39%, 23%, and 42% for Alison, Arthur, Bryanna, and Peter, respectively. The cause–effect means were 50% for Alison and Arthur and 22% and 28.5% for Bryanna and Peter, respectively.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Participants' Data Across Study Phases and Sessions for Percentage of Recalled Idea Units.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-30">Effects on Signal Word Identification</hd> <p>Figure S2 in the Online Supplemental Material illustrates the results of the TEXT-MAPS program on the percentage of signal words identified across the baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases. Participants did not identify any signal words at baseline, thus demonstrating a stable baseline and the need for intervention. Immediacy of effect was evident, with an increase trend in the intervention phase for Alison and Peter, a delayed treatment effect for Bryanna, and more variability for Arthur. The average percentages of signal words identified for the compare–contrast condition were 62.5%, 14.71%, 19.40%, and 53.13%, and for cause–effect were 58.25%, 11.25%, 40%, and 58.25% for Alison, Arthur, Bryanna, and Peter, respectively. Comparing baseline and intervention performance, the PND was 100% and Tau-<emph>U</emph> = 1.0 for Alison and Peter in both text structure conditions. Bryanna's PND was 63% for compare–contrast (Tau-<emph>U</emph> = 0.30) and 75% for cause–effect (Tau-<emph>U</emph> = 0.42). Arthur's PND was 50% for both text conditions, with Tau-<emph>U</emph> = 0.60 for compare–contrast and Tau-<emph>U</emph> = 0.67 for cause–effect text. The maintenance means for the compare–contrast condition were 67.50%, 25.0%, 50.0%, and 55.0% and for the cause–effect condition were 83.35%, 50.0%, 61.5%, and 58.25% for Alison, Arthur, Bryanna, and Peter, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-31">Effects on Text Structure Recognition</hd> <p>The participants' scores for text structure recognition are illustrated in Figures S3 and S4 in the Online Supplemental Material. This variable received a binary score of 1 (for correctly identified text structure) or 0 (incorrectly identified text structure). The scores represented are the phase-level average percentage of text structures that were correctly identified by the participants. Visual analysis indicated significant increases from baseline to intervention and maintenance phases for all participants, with the exception of Arthur for the cause–effect text condition. Alison's average recognition of text structures for both structures was 40.0%, 88.0%, and 100.0% during the baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases, respectively. Arthur recognized an average of 28.60%, 37.5%, and 100.0% of compare–contrast and 29.60%, 12.5%, and 0.0% of cause–effect structures in the baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases, respectively. Bryanna recognized an average of 22.22%, 25.0%, and 50.0% of compare–contrast and 0.0%, 37.50%, and 50.0% of cause–effect structures for the baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases, respectively. Peter recognized 27.30%, 62.50%, and 100.0% of compare–contrast and 18.20%, 25.0%, and 50.0% of cause–effect text structures during the baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-32">Social Validity</hd> <p>Social validity was measured after the intervention was concluded using a researcher-developed Qualtrics survey (see Table S4 in the Online Supplemental Material). The second author presented the survey via screen share to each participant during the final maintenance session, marking the participant's responses directly on the survey. A reliability coder reviewed the session videos to confirm the participants' responses had been entered correctly. The first portion of the checklist asked participants to rate their responses to a set of statements, using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = <emph>strongly disagree</emph>, 2 = <emph>disagree</emph>, 3 = <emph>agree</emph>, and 4 = <emph>strongly agree</emph>), regarding their ability to apply TEXT-MAPS strategies to reading tasks. Participants answered open-ended questions in the second half about what they liked and disliked about TEXT-MAPS. Overall, all participants perceived that their ability to comprehend what they read, to identify signal words, and to identify text structure increased as a result of the intervention. Three of the participants reported to have enjoyed learning how to use TEXT-MAPS strategies while they read. Bryanna reported less enjoyment than her peers did in learning about the strategies, which was linked to a dislike of the topic (e.g., Bill of Rights), even though she reported that the program was helpful for her reading comprehension. When asked what they liked most about the intervention strategies, one participant reported that they enjoyed learning how to enhance their reading and "how to become more understanding of the words [they] were reading." The social validity of this intervention is important to consider because of the implications it may have for a student's reading motivation. Future studies could incorporate participant feedback on the topic selection to increase motivation.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-33">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to determine whether explicit and systematic text structure instruction could effectively support the expository reading comprehension of fifth-grade students with a history of LLD. To address this aim, we measured the recall of idea units, identification of signal words, and recognition of text structure for two text conditions (compare–contrast and cause–effect). Across the intervention phase, results indicated that text structure instruction increased performance for all four participants for recalling idea units and recognizing text structures from passages with compare–contrast and cause–effect text structures. Maintenance data indicated that the participants' performance was maintained 1 month after the conclusion of the intervention phase. An experimental effect was demonstrated by the changes in the dependent measures upon introduction of the TEXT-MAPS intervention. Experimental control was achieved with four demonstrations of the experimental effect (i.e., across four participants and two text conditions). The results yielded by this study support the practice of explicit text structure instruction for comprehension of expository texts for students with LLD ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref71">43</reflink>]). This approach is appropriate for students with LLD, who have been reported to have limited knowledge of text types and seldom use text structure to support comprehension.</p> <p>A unique contribution of the present study is that it helps fill the gap in prior research by illustrating the effectiveness of text structure instruction for students who have a history of LI with concomitant deficits in reading comprehension. Furthermore, the TEXT-MAPS program was designed with consideration of effective instructional features from prior studies. Several key components of effective text structure instruction for students with and at risk for LD also appear to be effective for students with concomitant LI and comprehension difficulties ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref72">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref73">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref74">35</reflink>]). As demonstrated in the present study, instruction that is focused on text structure improves readers' recognition of various structures to identify key relationships in the text, increase their content recall after reading, and improve their reading comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref75">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref76">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref77">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>In contrast to the work of [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref78">17</reflink>], our fifth-grade participants were able to remember more information related to the text structure of the passages after text structure instruction, as measured by the percentage of ideas recalled. There was a similar number of intervention sessions in our TEXT-MAPS program as in Hebert et al.'s structures intervention. However, there were a few important differences between both programs that may account in part for the increased recall performance of our participants. First, the overall dosage differed between programs; TEXT-MAPS incorporated eight 45-minute lessons with twice weekly sessions over a 4-week period, whereas Structures included eight 25- to 30-minute sessions, four times weekly over 2 weeks. The longer, more intensive individual sessions across more weeks seemed to be a benefit of the TEXT-MAPS program. Second, the Structures program did not incorporate explicit instruction with compare–contrast and cause–effect signal words. Each TEXT-MAPS session included a specific focus on signal words prior to guided reading practice.</p> <p>Consistent with the work of [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref79">17</reflink>], we found that struggling readers in the fifth grade could learn to identify and discriminate expository text structures with a short-term intervention period. An important finding of our study was that struggling readers who have a history of LI can learn to identify and discriminate among expository text structures with a limited dose of direct instruction (e.g., two 45-minute sessions weekly for 4 weeks). Our participants were similar to those from the Hebert et al. study in regard to prerequisite decoding and comprehension scores (decoding within average range; comprehension below average range) but different in regard to oral language functioning (e.g., our participants had confirmed deficits in oral language). Our results indicate that a text structure approach to reading intervention is beneficial for students who have oral and written language deficits.</p> <p>We also found similar results to the findings of [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref80">27</reflink>] regarding the effects of text structure instruction on fifth-grade students' identification of comparative signal words. In both studies, students with low comprehension benefited from explicit instruction regarding compare–contrast signal words. As Meyer et al. noted, students can be taught to utilize the signaling properties of certain words to understand relationships among ideas in the text. This is the case because the specific signal words of each text structure reflect the structure's unique organizational pattern ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref81">45</reflink>]). We observed this connection being made for our participants, who incorporated the signal words in their oral recall of idea units from the passages. Participants in the current study demonstrated maintenance of the effects over time. Each participant maintained intervention phase performance levels for at least 1 month following the conclusion of the intervention. Compared with the studies reviewed in the [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref82">16</reflink>] meta-analysis, the median time period between post-test and maintenance measures was only 1 week, leaving open the question as to whether effects would last for a longer period of time. The observation of maintenance 1-month post-intervention among our participants is promising as it gives us some idea that the effects can be sustained over time.</p> <p>There was variable performance for two of the participants that warrants further consideration. Arthur performed less well than his peers with identifying cause–effect signal words and recalling cause–effect idea units. His case underscores the connection between signal word identification and comprehension. The cause–effect text structure appeared to be more difficult for him overall, which is consistent with prior observations that the cause–effect text structure is more difficult to comprehend than the compare–contrast structure. For an individual student engaged in text structure instruction at school, additional instructional time may be necessary for an explicit focus on signal word recognition and application to comprehension of cause–effect passages.</p> <p>Of the four participants, Bryanna had the lowest recall scores and the most inconsistent identification of signal words. While completing the dependent measures, Bryanna noted to the interventionist that she had difficulty remembering details from the passage and wanted to refer back to the passage. To determine whether passage referencing would improve her recall of idea units, the interventionist introduced a different passage with the same dependent measures task after completing the planned measures for one session. At that time, Bryanna's recall was not any greater with passage reference. We observed that Bryanna did not appear to actively summarize the text, even with a visible passage. Instead, she would attempt to memorize and then recite specific sentences verbatim from the passage. She struggled to identify signal words in both text conditions, which underscores the meaningful connection between signal words and her levels of attention, and retrieval of learned content appeared to fluctuate across and within sessions. As we reviewed a range of factors that may have influenced her performance on reading and recall tasks, we considered one aspect of Bryanna's diagnostic profile that differed from her peers in the study: having a concomitant diagnosis of ADHD. Attention is necessary for both the processing and retrieval of information and serves as a vital component of working memory ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref84">21</reflink>]). Bryanna's working memory capacity may not have been optimal for the dependent measures tasks that were conducted in the absence of visual or graphic cues, including the passage itself. Difficulties with working memory capacity are a common challenge among children with language disorders because working memory plays an important role in language comprehension and production ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref86">29</reflink>]). Graphic organizers were used during guided reading activities but not during independent tasks. Modifications could be made to the delivery of TEXT-MAPS, such as additional visual anchors (e.g., advance organizers, graphic organizers, thinking maps) and reductions in the semantic and/or syntactic complexity of the passages, to further support Bryanna's recall and comprehension in the classroom ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref87">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, while the intervention was effective in increasing participants' recall of idea units from two expository text structures after only eight TEXT-MAPS lessons, none of the participants reached ceiling on the comprehension measure, indicating there is still room for improvement. This finding suggests that additional instructional time would be beneficial for each of them.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-34">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>To our knowledge, this was the first study to implement text structure instruction within a fully remote, synchronous design through telepractice methods. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the delivery of the TEXT-MAPS program through a virtual platform. Remote delivery of text structure intervention is feasible, and it increases access for students who are in need of reading comprehension support. Gains on outcome measures were observed with a short-term intervention. This can have implications for direct instruction in the school setting. Similar to the Herbert et al. (2018) study, the time and dosage of the intervention was feasible for the interventionist. Furthermore, another practical implication of our study is the effectiveness of including multiple text structures in a short-term intervention. As noted in prior summaries of text structure instruction research, additional research that targets multiple structures, such as compare–contrast and cause–effect, has been warranted ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref88">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref89">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref90">35</reflink>]). Teachers and reading and language interventionists can incorporate occasional explicit instruction with a variety of text structures into their practice.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-35">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>First, the study included four participants with LLD who exhibited common comorbidities, such as ADHD and speech impairment, reflecting a realistic yet heterogeneous sample, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings to other groups or individuals. Second, experimenter bias cannot be fully ruled out because the investigators conducted all of the TEXT-MAPS sessions and administered all of the measures. However, all sessions were recorded, and reviewed sessions had high fidelity levels for implementation and reliability for scoring, thus minimizing the potential effects of experimenter bias. Replication of the TEXT-MAPS program could incorporate interventionists who are not investigators (e.g., speech–language pathologists, teachers, paraprofessionals) to reduce the threat of experimenter bias.</p> <p>Third, it is not known whether the effects of the TEXT-MAPS intervention transferred to other text structures (<emph>near contexts</emph>) or to general reading comprehension (<emph>far contexts</emph>; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref91">16</reflink>]). In the present study, two text structures were targeted and measured, reflecting transfer of skills in the temporal context. Other researchers have measured transfer to untaught structures and to global reading comprehension, although with weaker effects for the latter (see [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref92">16</reflink>], for a summary). Thus, future studies should consider near and transfer measures in near and far contexts. Finally, we measured participants' use of strategies from the TEXT-MAPS program in texts reflecting the selected civics content topic (i.e., Bill of Rights). It is recommended that the addition of some passages with untaught content would enable an examination of the generalizability of text structure knowledge to texts with less familiar or untaught content.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-36">Conclusion</hd> <p>Prevalent theories suggest that lack of text structure recognition may explain why reading comprehension difficulties occur and persist into adolescence for some students. The TEXT-MAPS program was created to address expository text comprehension difficulties for adolescent students with LLD. As highlighted earlier, few intervention programs have focused on students with a history of developmental language disorder (DLD) specifically. This study provides preliminary evidence for the use of TEXT-MAPS for adolescents with LLD to improve expository text structure knowledge and comprehension. Given the positive outcomes for these participants with explicit text structure instruction, replication is warranted to extend the findings to other students with LLD. Further research may be directed to explore longer term maintenance and transfer of change in reading comprehension performance.</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-37">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Graph: Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ldq-10.1177_07319487221145689 for Teaching Expository Text Management and Proficiency Skills for Comprehension for Students With Language/Learning Disabilities by Shannon S. Hall-Mills and Leesa M. Marante in Learning Disability Quarterly</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-38">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Graph: Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-ldq-10.1177_07319487221145689 for Teaching Expository Text Management and Proficiency Skills for Comprehension for Students With Language/Learning Disabilities by Shannon S. Hall-Mills and Leesa M. Marante in Learning Disability Quarterly</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-39">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Graph: Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-ldq-10.1177_07319487221145689 for Teaching Expository Text Management and Proficiency Skills for Comprehension for Students With Language/Learning Disabilities by Shannon S. Hall-Mills and Leesa M. Marante in Learning Disability Quarterly</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-40">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Graph: Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-ldq-10.1177_07319487221145689 for Teaching Expository Text Management and Proficiency Skills for Comprehension for Students With Language/Learning Disabilities by Shannon S. Hall-Mills and Leesa M. Marante in Learning Disability Quarterly</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-41">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Graph: Supplemental material, sj-docx-5-ldq-10.1177_07319487221145689 for Teaching Expository Text Management and Proficiency Skills for Comprehension for Students With Language/Learning Disabilities by Shannon S. Hall-Mills and Leesa M. Marante in Learning Disability Quarterly</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-42">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Graph: Supplemental material, sj-docx-6-ldq-10.1177_07319487221145689 for Teaching Expository Text Management and Proficiency Skills for Comprehension for Students With Language/Learning Disabilities by Shannon S. Hall-Mills and Leesa M. Marante in Learning Disability Quarterly</p> <hd id="AN0184107780-43">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Graph: Supplemental material, sj-docx-7-ldq-10.1177_07319487221145689 for Teaching Expository Text Management and Proficiency Skills for Comprehension for Students With Language/Learning Disabilities by Shannon S. Hall-Mills and Leesa M. Marante in Learning Disability Quarterly</p> <ref id="AN0184107780-44"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref83" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams E. J., Nguyen A. T., Cowan N. (2018). Theories of working memory: Differences in definition, degree of modularity, role of attention, and purpose. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(3), 340–355. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref59" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alonzo C. N., McIllraith A. L., Catts H. W., Logan T. P. (2020). Predicting dyslexia in children with developmental language disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(1), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0265</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref64" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barth A. E., Elleman A. (2017). Evaluating the impact of a multistrategy inference intervention for middle-grade struggling readers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_LSHSS-16-0041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref51" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bohaty J. J. (2015). The effects of expository text structure instruction on the reading outcomes of 4th and 5th graders experiencing reading difficulties [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3689619)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref25" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bohaty J. J., Hebert M. A., Nelson J. R., Brown J. (2015). Methodological status and trends in expository text structure instruction efficacy research. Reading Horizons, 54(2). https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol54/iss2/3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref68" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Campbell J. M. (2004). Statistical comparison of four effect sizes for single-subject designs. Behavior Modification, 28(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445503259264</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Catts H. W., Adlof S. M., Weismer S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 278–293. https://doi.org/1092-4388/06/4902-0278</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref28" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Connor C. M., Phillips B. M., Kaschak M., Apel K., Kim Y., Al Otaiba S., Crowe E. (2014). Comprehension tools for teachers: Reading for understanding from prekindergarten through fourth grade. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9267-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Foorman B. R., Petscher Y., Herrera S. (2018). Unique and common effects of decoding and language factors in predicting reading comprehension in grades 1–10. Learning and Individual Differences, 63(2), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gajria M., Jitendra A. K., Sood S., Sacks G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400030301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gartland D., Strosnider R. (2018). Learning disabilities: Implications for policy regarding research and practice: A report by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(4), 195–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718789994</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gersten R., Fuchs L. S., Williams J. P., Baker S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279–320. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002279</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gough P., Tunmer W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall-Mills S., Marante L. (2022). Explicit text structure instruction supports expository text comprehension for adolescents with learning disabilities: A systematic review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720906490</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall-Mills S., Wood C., Collins S. (2019, November). Differentiating language impairment from typical language development via measures of written complex syntax [Research presentation]. 2019 Annual Convention of the American Speech Language and Hearing Association, Orlando, FL, United States.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hebert M., Bohaty J. J., Nelson J. R., Brown J. (2016). The effects of text structure intervention on expository reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000082</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hebert M., Bohaty J. J., Nelson J. R., Lambert M. C. (2018). Identifying and discriminating expository text structures: An experiment with 4th and 5th grade struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 31(2), 2115–2145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9826-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman A. S., Kaufman N. L. (2014). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT-II) (2nd ed.). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laing S., Kamhi A. (2002). The use of think-aloud protocols to compare inferencing abilities in average and below-average readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350050401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). Learning to read: Should we keep things simple? Reading Research Quarterly, 50(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.99</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leonard L. B., Weismer S. E., Miller C. A., Francis D. J., Tomblin J. B., Kail R. V. (2007). Speed of processing, working memory, and language impairment in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(2), 408–428. <ulink href="http://doi.org/1092-4388/07/5002-0408">http://doi.org/1092-4388/07/5002-0408</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLaughlin E. M. (1990). Effects of graphic organizers and levels of text difficulty onless-proficient fifth-grade readers' comprehension of expository text [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9030955)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMaster K. L., Espin C. A., Van Den Broek P. (2014). Making connections: Linking cognitive psychology and intervention research to improve comprehension of struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer B. J., Poon L. W. (2001). Effects of the structure strategy and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer B. J. F., Brandt D. M., Bluth G. J. (1980). Use of top level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 72–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/747349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer B. J. F., Ray M. N. (2011). Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 127–152. https://<ulink href="http://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/217">www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/217</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer B. J. F., Wijekumar K., Lei P. (2018). Comparative signaling generated for expository texts by 4th-8th graders: Variations by text structure strategy instruction, comprehension skill, and signal word. Reading and Writing, 31(9), 1937–1968. https://doi.org/10.1007/211145–189871-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer B. J. F., Wijekumar K., Middlemiss W., Higley K., Lei P., Meier C., Spielvogel J. (2010). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for fifth- and seventh-grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 62–92. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.1.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montgomery J. (2003). Working memory and comprehension in children with specific language impairment: What we know so far. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 221–231. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9924(03)00021-2">http://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9924(03)00021-2</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nation K., Clarke P., Marshall C. M., Durand M. (2004). Hidden language impairments in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(1), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/017)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1990). Learning disabilities: Issues on definition. <ulink href="http://www.ldonline.org/about/partners/njcld/archives">http://www.ldonline.org/about/partners/njcld/archives</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker R. I., Vannest K. (2009). An improved effect size for single-case research: Nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40(4), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker R. I., Vannest K. J., Davis J. L., Sauber S. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearson P. D., Duke N. K. (2002). Comprehension instruction in the primary grades. In Block C. C., Pressley M. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 247–258). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pyle N., Vasquez A. C., Lignugaris-Kraft B., Gillam S. L., Peutzel D. R., Olszewski A., Segura H., Hartzheim D., Laing W., Pyle D. (2017). Effects of expository text structure interventions on comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(4), 469–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720906490</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ray M. N., Meyer B. J. F. (2011). Individual differences in children's knowledge of expository text structures: A review of literature. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 67–82. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1068612</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Redmond S. M., Ash A. C., Christopulos T. T., Pfaff T. (2019). Diagnostic accuracy of sentence recall and past tense markers for identifying children's language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62(7), 2438–2454. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0388</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roehling J. V., Hebert M., Nelson J. R., Bohaty J. J. (2017). Text structure strategies for improving expository reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1590</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz A. I., Mendoza L., Meyer B. (2013). The impact of text structure reading strategy instruction in a second language: Benefits across languages. The Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 263–281. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.837092">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.837092</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Semel E., Wiig E. H., Secord W. (2013). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Fifth Edition. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singer B. D., Bashir A. S. (2018). Wait.. what??? Guiding intervention principles for students with verbal working memory limitations. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(3), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson H. L., Hoskyn M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 277–321. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003277">http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003277</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweet A. P., Snow C. E. (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westby C. E. (2012). Assessing and remediating text comprehension problems. In Kamhi A. G., Catts H. W. (Eds.), Language and reading disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 163–225). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wijekumar K., Meyer B. J. F., Lei P. (2012). Large-scale randomized controlled trial with 4th graders using intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy to improve nonfiction reading comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 987–1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9263-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wijekumar K., Meyer B. J. F., Lei P. (2017). Web-based text structure strategy instruction improves seventh graders' content area reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 741–760. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000168</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams J. P., Hall K. M., Laurer K. D., Stafford K. B., DeSisto L. A., de Cani J. S. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.538</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams J. P., Kao J. C., Pao L. S., Ordynans J. G., Atkins J. G., Cheng R., DeBonis D. (2016). Close analysis of texts with structure (CATS): An intervention to teach reading comprehension to at-risk second graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1061–1077, <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000117">http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000117</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams J. P., Pollini S., Nubla-Kung A. M., Snyder A. E., Garcia A., Ordynans J. G., Atkins J. G. (2014). An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033215</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams J. P., Stafford K. B., Lauer K. D., Hall K. M., Pollini S. (2009). Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013152</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock R. W. (2011). Woodcock reading mastery tests (3rd ed.). Pearson. https://doi.org/10.1037/t15178-000</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0184107780-45"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shannon S. Hall-Mills</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1928-3827</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supplemental material for this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221145689.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Shannon S. Hall-Mills and Leesa M. Marante</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref87"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1469596
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teaching Expository Text Management and Proficiency Skills for Comprehension for Students with Language/Learning Disabilities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shannon+S%2E+Hall-Mills%22">Shannon S. Hall-Mills</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1928-3827">0000-0002-1928-3827</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Leesa+M%2E+Marante%22">Leesa M. Marante</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Learning+Disability+Quarterly%22"><i>Learning Disability Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2025 48(2):88-101.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Impairments%22">Language Impairments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Disabilities%22">Learning Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expository+Writing%22">Expository Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Syntax%22">Syntax</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Word+Recognition%22">Word Recognition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Direct+Instruction%22">Direct Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Materials%22">Instructional Materials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Florida%22">Florida</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Woodcock+Reading+Mastery+Test%22">Woodcock Reading Mastery Test</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Clinical+Evaluation+of+Language+Fundamentals%22">Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Kaufman+Brief+Intelligence+Test%22">Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/07319487221145689
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0731-9487<br />2168-376X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose of this registered report study was to determine the effects of explicit text structure instruction on the expository text comprehension of students with language and learning disabilities (LLD) using a multiple baseline design across conditions (e.g., compare-contrast and cause-effect) and participants. Participants included four children enrolled in the fifth grade of Florida schools with previous diagnoses of language impairment and reading comprehension deficits. Text structure instruction was provided during the intervention phases using a researcher-designed intervention program called TEXT-MAPS. The dependent variables included text structure and signal word identification and percentage of idea units recalled from expository text. All participants showed improved recall of idea units for compare-contrast and cause-effect texts with maintained performance 1-month post-intervention. The program also had notable effects on participants' identification of signal words and text structures in compare-contrast and cause-effect texts. The magnitude of the Tau-U effect sizes was in the large, medium, and small range, and varied across participants. The results indicate that short-term, explicit text structure instruction can be effective for children with LLD with deficits in expository reading comprehension. Considerations for further research and practical implications are presented.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1469596
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1469596
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/07319487221145689
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 88
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Impairments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expository Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 5
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Syntax
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Word Recognition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Direct Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Materials
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Florida
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Woodcock Reading Mastery Test
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teaching Expository Text Management and Proficiency Skills for Comprehension for Students with Language/Learning Disabilities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shannon S. Hall-Mills
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Leesa M. Marante
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0731-9487
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2168-376X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 48
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Disability Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1