Calais' Article Nfeas

Expository Text Structure 1 Running head: EXPOSITORY TEXT STRUCTURE AND COMPREHENSION

Expository Text Structure Dr. Gerald J. Calais McNeese State University

Abstract

Expository Text Structure 2

The demands of the Information Age make it imperative that students currently enrolled in K-12 are equipped to effectively handle expository text materials if they are to become viable citizens in today’s highly competitive, global economic markets. Accordingly, this manuscript focuses on research findings that converge on five of the most prevalent types of expository text structures that one encounters intoday’s reading materials. A matrix is employed that provides a description, signal words, and graphic organizers associated with each text structure. General Strategies that teachers can use to enhance students’ abilities to identify text structure are also provided, as are conclusions.

Expository Text Structure and Comprehension

Expository Text Structure 3 Although text structure is typically divided into two categories of text, narrative and expository, this manuscript will focus primarily on expository text structure. Initially, research findings regarding expository text structure will be discussed; then, a matrix focusing on specific attributes of five types of expository text structure will be presented. Finally, general strategies for enabling teachers to enhance students’ abilities to successfully identify various types of expository text structure will be provided. Research Findings Regarding Expository Text Structure Whereas narrative text is normally a story whose primary function is to entertain the reader, expository text’s essential function, in contrast, is to inform the reader (Weaver & Kintsch, 1991). Text structure per se refers to a text’s organizational attributes that operate as a pattern for guiding and aiding readers in detecting critical information, plus the logical connections between a text’s ideas (Seidenberg, 1989). Textbooks, journals, encyclopedias, essays, and numerous magazine articles are typical examples of expository text that learners must read in school. Seidenberg (1989) asserts that successful school achievement is highly dependent upon students’ ability to understand and formulate such diverse expository prose. When reading content area material (e.g., social studies, math, science), learners need to distinguish amongst various types of text structure (Vacca & Vacca, 2008). While story grammars have been the major focus of research on narrative text structure, research focusing on expository text structure has encompassed a much broader array of organizational patterns. Prevalent types of expository text structure include description, sequence, comparison and contrast, cause and effect, and problem and solution (Vacca & Vacca, 2008). Each category of expository text structure exhibits a specific organizational pattern that reflects various

Expository Text Structure 4 types of relations between critical textual information; moreover, each type of expository text pattern employs specific signal words that are unique to each type (e.g., next, first, last, and additionally are signal words used in the sequence pattern). According to Kintsch and Yarborough (1991), research suggests that learners perform significantly better on measures of global comprehension or macroprocesses (e.g., main ideas or topics) rather than on local comprehension or microprocesses (e.g., facts) when reading well-structured expository text. Zabrucky and Ratner’s (1992) research findings suggest that expository text and narrative text differentially effect readers, with expository text definitely more difficult than narrative text regarding both comprehension, as measured via recall, and comprehension monitoring. Their study revealed that text type impacted both good and poor readers’ recall and comprehension monitoring. Inconsistent passages prompted significantly more look-backs for narrative than expository passages, implying that narrative passages’ inconsistencies were more transparent than expository passages’ inconsistencies. Expository passages also proved to be more difficult than narrative passages for students when verbally reporting on passage consistency. Students’ expository passages were reread more frequently than narrative passages when reading passages without inconsistencies, indicating that expository passages were more problematic than narrative type. Despite the high positive correlation between reading comprehension and wellorganized text structure, text structure alone may be inadequate to promote reading comprehension because an additional pivotal dimension is essential: awareness of, or sensitivity to, text structure. According to Weaver & Kintsch (1991), the performance results of learners who read appropriately structured, lucidly cued text and who were

Expository Text Structure 5 assessed through measures of global comprehension (e.g., main ideas) indicated that learners acquainted with text structure significantly outperformed those who lacked familiarity regarding text structure. Pearson and Fielding (1991) corroborated the aforementioned study’s findings by observing two systematic findings: First, students familiar with text structure recalled more appropriate information than students who were unfamiliar with text structure. Second, in recalling text, significantly more good readers than poor readers follow the author’s text structure. Research further suggests that students differ not only in being aware of text structure but also in being aware of different text structures. For example, Graesser, Golding, and Long (1991) found evidence that students are far more aware of narrative than expository text structure. On the other hand, Zabrucky & Ratner (1992) found that narrative text structure is both easier to recall and comprehend than is expository text structure. In addition, Englert and Thomas (1987) showed that students’ awareness of text structure even differs in terms of the different types of expository text structure. More specifically, they found that among four different categories of expository text structure that students were significantly more familiar with sequence text structure than with enumeration or description text structure; they also found that both enumeration and sequence text structurewere easier than comparison and contrast text structure. Finally, they also discovered that awareness of expository text structure appeared to be developmental because older students’ awareness of expository text structure was significantly greater than that of younger students. Having discussed research findings about expository text structure, the next section discusses a matrix that provides information about five dominant types of expository text structure. Five Types of Expository Text Structure Matrix

Expository Text Structure 6

Figure 1 below provides information associated with five popular types of expository text structure commonly employed in materials used for students in K-12 classrooms: description, sequence, comparison and contrast, cause and effect, and problem and solution (Vacca & Vacca, 20). Upon examination, the matrix in Figure 1describes each text structure along three dimensions. First, it describes unique attributes associated with each text structureand also provides an example of where and how it is used. Second, the matrix provides specific examples of signal words associated with each type of text structure. Third, various graphic organizers are suggested as a means of graphically representing or explicating information reflecting each of the text types. It should be noted that only one example was provided for how and where a specific text type could be applied; naturally, other examples as well as other disciplines could have equally applied. In addition, the list of signal words typically associated with each text type and the suggested ways to graphically represent each text type are not meant to be exhaustive. Note, too, how many dimensions are associated with the cause and effect text pattern.

Text Structure Description

Sequence

Figure 1: Five Types of Expository Text Structure Matrix Description Associated Signal Graphic Organizer Words Resembles an outline by For example, for Bubble map, spider map, network providing information instance, such as, tree, semantic word map, semantic (attributes, examples, facts, in addition, looks webbing, modified Frayer model, features) about a topic based like, in back of, to clustering, cubing, Herringbone on criteria such as importance begin with technique, concept of definition or size. Example: A science book may describe an animal cell or a volcano. Implicitly or explicitly indicates the numerical or chronological order in which facts, events, or concepts occur by tracing the evolution

On (date), first, second, last, then, finally, initially, preceding, not long after

Series-of-Events Chain, continuum scale, cycle, timeline, flowchart

Expository Text Structure 7 of the topic or the steps entailed in the sequence.

Comparison/ Contrast

Cause and Effect

Problem and Solution

Example: A science text discusses the steps in the life cycle of a butterfly. A history text explains the events that led to the Great Depression or WWII. Specifies similarities (comparison) and/or differences (contrast) among objects, events, facts, concepts, etc. Demonstrates how facts, events, or ideas (effects) materialize due to other facts, events, or ideas (causes). Example: A science book explains the causes and effects of a tornado. Reveals the evolution of a problem and the solution (s) to the problem. Example: A science chapter discusses the problem of global warming and asks for proposed solutions, or a social studies chapter discusses the problem of slavery in the Old South and asks for proposed solutions to avoid a Civil War.

Similar to, different from, however, in common, although, not only…but also Consequently, therefore, because, as a result, since, if…then, thus, leads to

This led to, because, problem is, if/then, consequently, nevertheless, accordingly

Compare/contrast matrix, double bubble map, Venn diagram, ladder map, flowcharts, semantic feature analysis, analogies Single cause and single effect, single cause and multiple effects, multiple causes and single effect, multiple causes and multiple effects, Herringbone technique, cycle, a string of slightly overlapping circles, central concept with cause and effect explanations Problem/Solution outline, flowchart, IDEAL Problem Solving Framework, task analysis, fuzzy cognitive maps, establishing problematic situations, discussion webs

General Strategies for Identifying Expository Text Structure From a practical standpoint, there are a variety of strategies that the classroom teacher can utilize to enhance students’ abilities to identify and employ expository text structure for both reading and writing (Simonsen, 1996): (1) Initially advise students that expository texts exhibit specific text structures. Inform students that various organizational patterns (e.g., sequence, description, comparison and contrast) are used to compose expository texts (e.g., science,

Expository Text Structure 8 social studies, and math textbooks) and that text structures are what organizational patterns are called. (2) Provide students with explicit classroom instruction when introducing them to signal words and five common types of expository text structure: description, sequence, comparison and contrast, cause and effect, and problem and solution. Inform students under what specific circumstances certain signal words (e.g., first, second, initially) can be used to identify specific text structures (e.g., sequence) while reading various content areas or when composing expository text. (3) Scaffold instruction with sample paragraphs corresponding with the five commontypes of expository text structure and provide students with focusing questions. The teacher could provide students with different clues, supports, and focusing questions while endeavoring to distinguish amongst the five types of text structure typically found in various content texts, such as sample situations of where and when these text structures are usually applied. Also, let students know that the same topic could be written by using one of several types of expository text structure. For example, WWII could use description, sequencing, or cause and effect. Let them also know that at other times, a specific text structure serves as the most powerful way to discuss a topic. For example, if asked to write about the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution, that comparison and contrast would probably be the single most effective way to compose/discuss this topic. (4) Model writing strategies that focus on specific types of text structure. For example, while writing a paragraph depicting a specific text structure, the teacher could describe what s/he is doing.

Expository Text Structure 9 (5) Model a metacognitive strategy: think-alouds. Initially, the teacher models this strategy; then the students are encouraged to demonstrate this strategy while trying to identify text structure, such as identifying the textual clues used in a given text while they attempt to identify text structure. (6) Have students explicate text structures by using graphic organizers while reading and writing. For example, the teacher models the graphical representation or explication of specific paragraphs while one reads or writes expository text. Conclusions The demands of the Information Age, which has ushered in gargantuan quantities and varieties of information, make it imperative that students currently enrolled in K-12 are equipped to effectively handle expository text materials if they are to become viable citizens in today’s highly competitive, global economic markets. Modeling and teaching our students how to perceive the five most common types of expository text structure (description, sequence, comparison and contrast, cause and effect, and problem and solution) while reading, how to employ them while writing, and how to charter or explicate them while reading and writing will enhance their chances of achieving a successful future. Fortunately, teachers have a variety of strategies at their disposal for methodically familiarizing students with expository text structure while reading or writing.

Expository Text Structure 10

References Content literacy: Text structure (n.d.). Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://www.literacymatters.org/content/text/intro.htm

Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 93-105. Graesser, A., Golding, J. M., & Long, D. L. (1991). Narrative representation and comprehension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 171-204). White Plains, NY: Longman. Kintsch, W. & Yarbrough, J.C. (1982). Role of rhetorical structure in text

Expository Text Structure 11 comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 828 834. Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 815-860). White Plains, NY: Longman. Seidenberg, P. L. (1989). Relating text-processing research to reading and writing instruction for learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Focus, 5 (1), 412. Simonsen, S. (1996). Identifying and Teaching Text Structures in Content Area Classrooms. In D. Lapp, J. Flood, & N. Farnan (Eds.), Content Area reading and Learning: Instructional Strategies (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Using text structure (n.d.). Retrieved September 15, 2008, from

www.nea.org/reading/usingtextstructure.html

Words That Signal a Text's Organizational Structure (n.d.). Retrieved September 15, 2008, from www.somers.k12.ny.us/intranet/reading/signalwords.html