Title: Text Structure Strategies for Improving Expository Reading Comprehension

This is a pre-copyedited, author produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in The
Reading Teacher following peer review. The version of record [citation information below]
is available at: https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/trtr.1590

Roehling, J., Hebert, M., Nelson, J. R., & Bohaty, J. (2017). Text Structure Strategies for
Improving Expository Reading Comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 71, 71-82.
doi:10.1002/trtr.1590

Julia V. Roehling
Michael Hebert
J. Ron Nelson
Janet J. Bohaty

University of Nebraska—Lincoln

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.

Department of Education, through award R324B130005 to the University of Nebraska. The

opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Institute or the

U.S. Department of Education.

 1

Teaser Text:

Students have difficulty comprehending expository text. This article presents practical

applications of research-based strategies for using text structures to improve students’ expository

text comprehension.

Pause and Ponder

1. Why is it important for students to learn how to comprehend expository text?

2. What are some reasons why expository text reading is challenging for students?

3. Which of the text structure learning objectives are most appropriate for your students?

4. How might you assess students’ progress towards the learning objectives?

5. Where might you get the necessary reading material for text structure instruction?

Expository (or informational) text is the primary source of reading material used to

present academic content (e.g., science, social studies). As such, it is essential that students are

able to comprehend it. The importance of comprehending expository text is recognized in the

Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts, which states that students as young as

kindergarten should be able to engage with “informational” text in multifaceted ways, such as

identifying the main topic, asking and answering questions about key details, and describing

connections between pieces of information (National Governor’s Association Center for Best

Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).

The problem faced by teachers is that expository reading tends to be more difficult for

students than typical story reading (McCormick & Zutell, 2015). Several characteristics of

expository text may contribute to this difficulty, such as:

 2

• technical vocabulary

• a high density of facts

• unfamiliar content

• cognitively demanding concepts

Another reason that expository text can be challenging is because its structure is different

from the typical story structure familiar to students. Structure refers to the way that information

is organized within a text. Meyer (1975) was the first to describe the different types of expository

text structures. Five text structures that show up the most consistently in the literature are:

description, compare/contrast, sequence, cause/effect, and problem/solution, although the terms

and definitions for these structures have varied across researchers (e.g., compare/contrast has

also been referred to as adversative; Englert & Hiebert, 1984), and are sometimes imprecise.

Therefore, for teachers planning to use the text structures in their instruction, it may be most

useful to use more frequent terms along with child-friendly definitions, such as the ones used by

Bohaty (2015; Table 1).

Table 1
Child-friendly Descriptions of Five Text Structures

Text Structure Description

Simple Description The author’s intent is to tell us about something. They use characteristics or facts to
describe it.

Compare/Contrast The author’s intent is to tell us about two things. The author tells us how they are the
same and different.

Sequence The author’s intent is to tell us the order things happen. There are three types of
Sequence: steps, cycle, and timeline. Regardless of the type, the author is putting
information in an order.

Cause/Effect The author’s intent is to tell us how an event leads to an outcome. The cause always
results in the effect.

Problem/Solution The author’s intent is to tell us how a problem might be solved. The solution may or
may not be used.

Note. The text structure names and definitions were taken directly from Bohaty (2015).
 3

Although the structure of expository text may be one of the characteristics contributing to

its difficulty, it is also a characteristic that students can use to meet the demands of content text.

Knowing the structure of an expository text may provide students with a mental framework for

thinking about it. The purpose of this article is to present practical, evidence-based solutions for

teaching students how to use text structure strategies to improve their expository reading

comprehension.

Interpreting education research and putting it into practice can be challenging and time

consuming. In this article, we do that work for teachers by translating the most effective

practices from the text structure literature into recommendations for teachers. Hebert, Bohaty,

Nelson, and Brown (2016) conducted a meta-analysis on text structure instruction, concluding

that it is an effective way to improve expository reading comprehension. The literature

interpreted in this article comes from this meta-analysis. We hope our article helps to narrow the

research-to-practice gap. The recommendations are organized into four sections:

1. Learning Objectives

2. Instructional Strategies

3. Assessments

4. Reading Materials

These recommendations are offered as springboards for teachers to begin thinking about

how to implement some effective text structure strategies into their classroom instruction so that

students are better able to comprehend expository text.

Learning Objectives

As with all instructional units, planning for text structure instruction should begin with

clear learning objectives that outline the skills teachers want their students to demonstrate by the
 4

end of instruction. In reviewing descriptions of text structure activities and assessments within

the extant literature, we determined there are four frequently recurring learning objectives:

1. Students will be able to identify the structure of an expository text.

2. Students will be able to select and organize the most important information in an

expository text.

3. Students will be able to summarize an expository text.

4. Students will be able to write their own expository text.

Take Action!

The following is a framework for thinking about text structure instruction:

1. Decide what the specific learning objectives will be for the text structure unit.

2. Plan out the instructional strategies that will help students meet the objectives.

3. Develop a plan for assessing students’ progress towards the objectives.

4. Prepare the expository reading materials to be used for instructing and assessing students.

Instructional Strategies

After teachers decide on the learning objectives for their text structure unit, their next

step is to plan specific instructional strategies to help students achieve them. To that end, we

describe effective strategies related to each of the objectives listed above.

Identification Strategies

Learning to recognize the structure of expository text may help students focus on the

important information in a particular passage, and serve as a foundation for attaining the other

text structure objectives. There are two possible goals of identification strategies: 1) to recognize

a single text structure or 2) to discriminate among several possible text structures. The choice a
 5

teacher makes may depend on whether teachers choose to teach a single text structure or multiple

text structures at a time. There are several strategies teachers can use to help students identify the

text structure of the passages they read.

Introducing the concept of structures without reading materials. It may be useful to

introduce students to the concept of text structures outside of written text using group discussions

to activate prior knowledge. Examples of discussion starters for each text structure include:

• Simple Description: Describe how this classroom looks to somebody who has never

visited.

• Compare/Contrast: Note the similarities and differences between an apple and an orange

(e.g., Alvermann, 1981; Coleman, 1983).

• Sequence: Explain how to tie your shoelaces.

• Cause/Effect: What might happen if you are late for school?

• Problem/Solution: What are some problems that occur in school and some solutions?

(McDermott, 1990).

Students should be the ones who actively generate the ideas. After the group discussion,

teachers should provide the text structure definitions and then transition into pointing out

examples of text structures in expository text.

Teaching signal words. Another strategy is to have students look for signal words in

expository text (e.g., Wijekumar, Meyer, & Lei, 2012). As the label suggests, signal words are

words that signal the text structure to the reader. Other terms for “signal words” include clue

words, cue words, or key words. To help keep track of the signal words in a passage, students can

highlight or underline them as they read (e.g., Hoffman, 2010). Table 2 provides examples of

signal words for each text structure.

 6

Signal words can be very effective for helping students identify the structure of

expository text. However, we find it necessary to offer a few words of caution. First, signal

words can be misleading. There are times when a signal word may appear in a passage and not

reflect its overall structure. Second, students may end up paying more attention to the signal

words than they do to the actual content of the passage.

It should not be forgotten that the purpose of teaching signal words is to help students

identify the structure of a text, which then provides a framework for understanding the content

within it. Using signal words to identify the structure of a text is a strategy, not an end goal.

Therefore, it is best if this strategy is paired with additional instruction.

Table 2
Examples of Signal Words for each Text Structure

Text Structure Signal Words

Simple Description Looks like, sounds like, [shape, size, color, number], for example, for instance,
specifically, such as, in particular

Compare/Contrast Compare: Same as, similar(ly), both, have in common, likewise, alike
Contrast: different, in comparison, in contrast, however, but, on the other hand

Sequence First, second, third…, initially, preceding, before, next, then, finally, now, following, after

Cause/Effect Because, as a result, outcome, so, thus, consequently, leads to, is caused by, if… then,
produces, therefore

Problem/Solution the problem/issue/difficulty is, solution, solve, one answer is, a reason for the problem

Discrimination training. Discrimination training involves studying more than one text

structure at a time. For example, when teaching 4th and 5th grade struggling readers, Bohaty

(2015) introduced both the simple description and compare/contrast text structures in the same

lesson. Students then read passages and determined which text structure was being used. This

required students to think about the content of the passage and the intent of the author. By
 7

introducing different text structures in close proximity, teachers can highlight the elements that

distinguish each text structure from the others, which may help students to discriminate among

them (Bohaty, 2015).

Selection and Organization Strategies

Students’ ability to select and organize the most important information in a text may keep

them from becoming bogged down by less important details. Being able to identify the structure

of a text is a helpful precursor to this objective, because students learn that the important

information is based on the text’s structural elements (e.g., the “problem” and “solution” in a

problem/solution passage, or the “similarities” and “differences” in a compare/contrast passage).

We first present strategies for selecting and then for organizing information from passages.

Asking guiding questions. To help facilitate the selection of important information from

passages, students can learn to ask themselves guiding questions. The questions should help

students focus on the structure-related elements. For example, 2nd graders were taught to focus

on the “cause” of a cause/effect paragraph by asking themselves, “What is the cause?”

(Williams, Nubla-Kung, Pollini, Stafford, Garcia, & Snyder, 2007) or “What happened?”

(Williams, Pollini, Snyder, Garcia, Ordynans, & Atkins, 2013). Similarly, to focus on the

“effect” they were taught to ask themselves, “What is the effect?” (Williams et al., 2007) or

“Why?” (Williams et al., 2013).

Students can use the guiding question technique with other text structures as well. Some

appropriate questions when reading a compare/contrast passage might be, “What two things is

this paragraph about?” “How are they the same?” “How are they different?” (Williams, Stafford,

Lauer, Hall, & Pollini, 2009). See Table 3 for more examples of guiding questions for each text

structure.
 8

Table 3
Examples of Guiding Questions for Each Text Structure

Text Structure Guided Questions

Simple Description What is the author describing? What are the details used to describe it?

Compare/Contrast What objects are concepts are being compared? What categories are you comparing?
How are they the same? How are they different? What features are being compared?

Sequence What is the first thing that happened? What is the next step? What happened last?

Cause/Effect What are the cause(s) and related effect(s)? What happened? Why?

Problem/Solution What are/were the difficulties or questions? What were the attempts or possible actions
to solve them? How was it or might it be solved? What are/were the consequences of
the options. What was the result of actions?

Using signal words (again). Another way to help students select the key information in

text is to have them pay attention to the signal words. Williams et al. (2013) used signal words to

teach 2nd grade students select structure-related information from cause/effect passages. Students

analyzed a target paragraph by first circling the cause word (e.g., because) and effect words (e.g.,

therefore) in blue or green, respectively. For sentences containing a cause word, students learned

that the “cause” came after the signal word and the “effect” came before it. The reverse was true

for sentences with effect words.

Using graphic organizers. Graphic organizers can also aid in the selection of important

information, while also illustrating how information can be organized in a meaningful way, by

providing spaces to record the structure-related information from the passage (see Figure 1).

Teachers can supply empty graphic organizers for students to fill-in or teach students to create

their own.

For simple description passages, teachers may consider using graphic organizers called

topical nets (e.g., Newman, 2007; Russell, 2005; Whittaker, 1992; Scott, 2011). Topical nets

consist of a center circle (or other shape) with additional circles branching out from the middle.
 9

Students write the main topic in the center circle and write the characteristics and facts in the

outside circles.

Students can organize passages with a compare/contrast text structure into matrices (e.g.,

Hall, Sabey, & McClellan, 2005; Williams et al., 2009; Whittaker, 1992; Williams, Hall, Lauer,

Stafford, DeSisto, & deCani, 2005). A matrix has the topics listed across the top and the

categories on which the topics are being compared/contrasted listed down the left side.

Organizing the information in this manner makes the similarities and differences more apparent.

An effective option for organizing sequence passages is to use linear strings (e.g.,

Newman, 2007; Russel, 2005; Reese, 1988; Scott, 2011). Linear strings are made up of a series

of boxes that are connected in the middle with lines or arrows. Starting in the first box, students

write down each event from the sequence with each box containing a different event. The arrows

indicate the direction of the sequence.

Graphic organizers for cause/effect text structures should highlight the relationship

between the cause(s) and the effect(s). One way to do this is to have two side-by-side text boxes

with the causes written in the left box and the effects written in the right (e.g., Gentry, 2006;

Gould, 1987; Williams et al., 2013). Arrows can be drawn to specify the direction of the

relationships.

We recommend that students use a similar graphic organizer for problem/solution

passages. In this case, the problems would go in the left box and the solutions would go in the

right. Of course, teachers can make variations to this basic structure, such as adding boxes for

information about why the problem happened (McDermott, 1990), attempts to solve the problem,

or possible solutions.
 10

Using note frames. As an alternative to taking notes in graphic organizers, students can

use note frames. Figure 2 provides an example of a note frame for a compare/contrast passage

about plant and animal cells. Note frames are helpful because they provide students with a

simple framework for recording structure-related information from texts onto typical lined paper.

Students should practice recording information into teacher-created note frames before learning

how to create their own frames (Bohaty, Hebert, Nelson, & Roehling, 2016).

Summarizing Strategies

Like graphic organizers or note frames, summaries should include the structure-related

information from a text. Consequently, if students have already completed a graphic organizer

for a passage, they can use it to help write their summary (e.g., Hall et al., 2005; Newman, 2007;

Scott, 2011; Williams et al., 2009). With the important information already picked out, it then

becomes a simpler task of teaching students to rewrite their notes into a paragraph and add a

topic sentence.

If students need more support learning to write summaries, they can use paragraph frames

(e.g., Hall et al., 2005; Williams et al., 2005; Williams et al., 2009). Paragraph frames have a

cloze format that prompt students to include certain information in their summaries (see Table

4). This strategy is most helpful when students are first learning to write summaries. As students

become more practiced with this task, teachers should attempt to fade away the frames (Hall et

al., 2005)

Table 4

Example of Paragraph Summary Frame for a Compare/Contrast Passage

This paragraph is about _____ and _____. In some ways they are the same. ____________. In some ways

they are different. ____________.

 11

Note. Taken from Williams et al. (2005)

Writing Strategies

Teachers can adapt many of the previously identified reading strategies as writing

strategies to help students create their own expository passages (e.g., Hammann & Stevens,

2003; Hickerson, 1986; Raphael, Englert, & Kirschner, 1986). Using these strategies may

strengthen their understanding of text structures for reading, as writing has been shown to

improve reading comprehension (Graham & Hebert, 2011). Before teaching the specific

strategies, it may be helpful to show students examples of well-written expository passages (e.g.,

Raphael et al., 1986), as the study of models (or mentor texts) is an effective tool for writing

instruction (Graham & Perrin, 2007). We present a few example strategies below in abbreviated

form because they have been presented previously as reading strategies.

Writing with guiding questions. One writing strategy is to provide students with

worksheets that contain guiding questions (Raphael et al., 1986). The purpose of guiding

questions is to remind students of the structure-related information that should be included in

their text. For example, if students are writing a cause/effect paragraph, some guiding questions

might be, “What happened?” and “Why?” (refer back to Table 3 for more examples).

Responding to structure-related questions can help students plan their writing. Teachers

can then model how to turn the responses to questions into statements, and then how to structure

the statements into a cohesive passage. Students should be given guided practice opportunities to

scaffold their understanding.

Writing with graphic organizers. The same graphic organizers that students use to take

notes about reading materials can also help them organize their own writing (see Figure 1;

Hammann & Stevens, 2003; Raphael et al., 1986). As an example, if students are supposed to
 12

write a paragraph with a sequence structure, they could first organize their thoughts into a linear

string. Filling in graphic organizers provides students with a framework for thinking about the

information they need to include in their text.

To increase students’ understanding and flexible use of text structures, teachers can also

use graphic organizers to have students reorganize expository texts into different structures. For

instance, Hammons and Stevens (2003) taught students how to reorganize two simple description

paragraphs into a compare/contrast passage. To help with this transformation, students first put

the information from the simple description paragraphs into a compare/contrast planner (or

organizer). A major difficulty with asking students to write expository text is that they may not

have sufficient content knowledge to do so adequately. Using pre-existing text bypasses this

problem.

Assessments

After planning and implementing text structure instruction, teachers need to know

whether it was effective. More specifically, they need to determine whether students have met

the learning objectives and also whether their expository reading comprehension has improved as

a result of it. Assessments are a tool for gaining this knowledge.

Assessing Student Progress towards Learning Objectives

For each of the learning objectives in their text structure unit, teachers should have a plan

for assessing whether students have reached it. In this way, teachers are figuring out whether

students have learned the different skills intended to improve their expository reading

comprehension.

Assessing identification skills. Teachers may simply want to assess whether students are

able to identify the structure of text. For example, Williams and colleagues (2009) wanted to
 13

determine whether 2nd graders could correctly identify compare/contrast passages. To administer

the assessment, an interviewer read a paragraph to the student and asked, “Does this paragraph

tell a story about animals, compare and contrast animals, or tell about an animal’s problems?”

(pg. 19). Students earned one point for correctly identifying the structure.

Of course, teachers can make the assessment more challenging for older students. As

another example, Bohaty (2015) assessed fourth and fifth graders’ identification skills with a 15-

item measure. Each item consisted of a short passage followed by five multiple-choice options

(i.e., simple description, compare/contrast, sequence, cause/effect, or problem/solution). Students

first read the passage and then decided which of the five text structures it best represented.

Assessing skills for selecting and organizing information. Teachers can develop

rubrics to assess whether students can successfully select and organize the important information

in a passage (e.g., Newman, 2007; Scott, 2011). The rubric should have two main considerations:

1) Are the students including the relevant information? and 2) Is information organized

according to the appropriate text structure elements? However, there are a variety of ways that

these two considerations could be integrated into the rubric. A graphic organizer rubric adapted

from Scott (2011) shows one example of how this could be done (see Table 5).

Table 5
Example of Graphic Organizer Scoring Rubric

Score Explanation of Score

5 A graphic organizer using the appropriate text structure that displays the topic plus all the
text’s subtopics with related details.

4 A graphic organizer using the appropriate rhetorical pattern that includes the topic (may not
be clearly stated) plus all the text’s subtopics with some related details.

3 A presentation of information which does not use the appropriate rhetorical pattern but
demonstrates some awareness of text organization including some subtopics and some
related details.

2 List of details
 14

1 Incorrect content and/or little or nothing related to text; copying

0 No response

Note. Adapted from Scott (2010).

Assessing summarizing skills. We also recommend developing rubrics to assess

students’ ability to summarize expository text (e.g., Newman, 2007; Scott, 2011; Ulper &

Akkok, 2010). A good summary might include a topic sentence and key details based on the

structure of the original text, while also leaving out unessential parts. However, teachers may

vary in their definition of a good summary, and their rubrics should vary accordingly. Table 6

provides an example of a rubric for summary writing adapted from Ulper & Akkok (2010).

Table 6
Example of Summary Scoring Rubric
None Inadequate Acceptable Adequate
Summarizing Rules
0 1 2 3

Summary included a reconstructed title.

Summary included the thesis of the source text.

Summary included supporting idea(s) of the
source text.
Summary was the reconstructed form of the
source text by original sentences.
All necessary text was chosen and placed in
summary.
There was no trivia and redundancy in the
summary.
Summary was satisfying/long enough to
represent the source text.
Note. Adapted from Ulper & Akkok (2010).

Assessing writing skills. When evaluating whether students can write expository text

with appropriate text structures, teachers can use techniques similar to those that students used to

revise their writing. That is, they can use rubrics that contain questions that the text should
 15

answer based on its intended structure. The rubric could also take into account whether students

included signal words to improve the clarity of their writing. Because the purpose of the writing

objective is for students to gain a deeper understanding of text structures, we advise placing less

emphasis on spelling and grammar.

Assessing Expository Reading Comprehension

The assessments we have mentioned so far are meant to check whether students have met

the learning objectives for the text structure unit. If students have met the learning objectives, it

means they have demonstrated the ability to use text structure strategies that are intended to

improve their expository reading comprehension. However, teachers still need to monitor

whether using text structure strategies actually helps students better comprehend expository text,

which is the ultimate goal of text structure instruction.

Reading Materials

The instructional strategies and assessments that we have described require multiple

expository passages for each text structure that is taught. Teachers could write their own

passages (e.g., Williams et al., 2005), or extract passages directly from expository reading

material (e.g., Duffy, 1985; Bartlett, 1978). However, extracted passages do not always have an

obvious text structure. Armbruster (1984) referred to these as “inconsiderate” text. If they so

choose, teachers can modify “inconsiderate” text (e.g., Bakken et al., 1997). Modifying may

involve rewriting the text to make the structure more distinct or selecting portions of the text that

already have a distinct structure.

Our recommendation is that teachers start out using modified passages that provide a

strong model for how text should be structured. We believe that starting with well-structured

passages may make it easier for students to learn the text structure strategies. Once students feel
 16

comfortable using the strategies with well-structured passages, teachers can begin to incorporate

more authentic passages that may have ambiguous text structures. At this time, teachers can

begin to teach students to use these strategies with multiple passages within the same text source.

The benefit of incorporating authentic text into instruction is that students may able to generalize

the text structure strategies more easily to everyday reading materials they encounter in school

and beyond.

Conclusion

Knowing how to read and comprehend expository text is an essential skill in today’s

society. Educators should not assume that students will automatically learn this skill over time.

Rather, educators need an explicit, research-based method for teaching expository reading. In

this article, we have presented one such method: text structure instruction.

Text structure instruction is versatile; there is not one set way that it should be

implemented. It is this versatility that makes it an advantageous instructional method. Teachers

can adapt text structure instruction to make it appropriate to the skills and needs of their students.

To conclude, tables 7 and 8 provide examples of how teachers of two different grade levels

might combine some of the strategies we presented in this article to develop a cohesive unit on

text structure instruction that meets the needs of their students.

Table 7
Example of Text Structure Unit Plan for Second Grade
Objectives 1. Students will be able to identify sequence passages.
2. Students will be able to select and organize the most important information in simple
description and sequence passages.

Instruction To meet the objectives, the teacher developed a cohesive sequence of text structure activities.

To meet objective 1:
1. Introduce the concept of sequence text structures with a group discussion (e.g., how
to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich).
2. Introduce signal words
 17

3. Model discriminating between passages with and without a sequence text structure.
4. Have students practice identifying sequence passages, with support and
independently.
To meet objective 2:
1. Model organizing sequence passages into linear strings by asking questions about the
text (e.g., What happens first?)
2. Have students practice organizing sequence passages into linear strings, with support
and independently.

Assessment The teacher developed a plan to assess whether students had met the objectives.
To assess the 1st objective:
1. Read aloud ten passages as students followed along with their own copies.
2. Have students write “yes” if they thought it was a sequence passage and “no” if they
do not.
3. Have students explain their decisions using evidence.

To assess the 2nd objective:

4. Students read two sequence passages and organize them into linear strings.
5. Check the linear strings to see if each box contains one of the main events without
extraneous details.

Reading Passages were adapted from trade books to provide a clear example of a single text structure.
Material

Table 8
Example of Text Structure Unit Plan for Fifth Grade
Objectives 1. Students will be able to select and organize the most important information from
cause/effect and problem/solution passages.
2. Students will be able to write their own problem/solution passage.

Instruction The teacher developed a plan to assess whether students had met the objectives.

To meet objective 1:
1. Model organizing cause/effect and problem/solution passages into graphic organizers
by using signal words to select the structure-related information.
2. Have students practice organizing cause/effect and problem/solution passages into
graphic organizers, with support and independently.
To meet objective 2:
1. Model filling out a problem/solution graphic organizer using a topic relevant to
students’ lives (e.g., not enough allowance money).
2. Model writing a passage using the information in the graphic organizer, making sure
to add signal words for clarity.
3. Think of a new problem. With input from the class, create a new graphic organizer
and then write a passage based on the information within it.
4. Provide students with example problems to write about. Have them practice creating
graphic organizers and then writing a passage from the information within it.

Assessment Teachers used assessments to check whether students had met the objectives.
To assess the first objective:
1. Have students read three cause/effect and three problem/solution passages and put
 18

ideas into graphic organizers.

2. Check the graphic organizers to make sure they include the appropriate structure-
related information without extraneous details.
To assess the 2nd objective:
1. Provide students with a few examples of problems to write about.
2. Have students select a topic, identify resources and read information on their topic.
3. Have students create a graphic organizer and then write a passage from it.
4. Use a rubric to score the writing for communicative clarity.

Reading Passages were taken directly from textbooks to make it easier for students to adapt the
Material strategies to future expository text.

More to Explore
ITSS: Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy- https://itss.psu.edu/itss/
• Learn about a web-based intelligent tutoring system that teaches students to use the text
structure strategy.
• Developed by Dr. Wijekumar, professor of Teaching, Learning, and Culture at Texas
A&M.
A Structure Strategy: Problem and Solution- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkPKtZlxrjI
• Watch a You-Tube video from Dr. Wijekumar that describes how problem/solution and
cause/effect text structures often appear within the same expository passage.
Navigation: E-Reading Worksheets- http://www.ereadingworksheets.com/text-structure/
• Access materials specifically designed to give students practice identifying the text
structure of expository passages and then putting the information into graphic organizers.

Looking for additional expository reading material for your students? Check out the following
free sites:
• Newsela- https://newsela.com
• Smithsonian: TweenTribune- http://microsite.smithsonianmag.com/tweentribune/
 19

References

Alvermann, D. E. (1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organizers on descriptive text.

Journal of Educational Research, 75, 45-48.

Armbruster, B. B. (1984). The problem of “inconsiderate text.” In G. Duffy, L. Roehler, & J.

Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 202-217).

New York: Longman Inc.

Bakken, J. P., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of

expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of

strategies. Journal of Special Education, 31, 300-324.

Bartlett, B. J. (1978). Top-level structure as an organizational strategy for recall of classroom

text. Unpublished Dissertation. Arizona State University.

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). Available

from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3689619)

Bohaty, J. Hebert, M., Nelson, J.R., & Roehling, J. (2016, April). Taking notes on expository

text using text structures: A strategy for struggling readers. A paper presented at the

Council of Exceptional Children Conference. St. Louis, MO.

Coleman, P. A. B. (1983). Effects of graphic organizers, text organization, and reading ability

on the recall of text information. Unpublished Dissertation. The University of Michigan.

Duffy, J. (1985). Effects of instruction in noting and using an author’s pattern of writing on sixth

graders’ understanding and memory of expository text. Unpublished Dissertation.

Temple University.
 20

Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children’s developing awareness of text structures in

expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65-74.

Gentry, L. J. (2006). Comparison of the effects of training in expository text structure through

annotation textmarking and training in vocabulary development on reading

comprehension of students going into fourth grade. Unpublished Dissertation. University

of South Florida.

Gould, B. T. (1987). Effects of prior knowledge and text structure instruction on the

comprehension and memory for expository reading of intermediate and junior-high grade

students. Unpublished Dissertation. Boston University.

Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing-to-read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and

writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 710-744.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of

Adolescents in Middle and High School. A Report from Carnegie Corporation of New

York.Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Hall, K. M., Sabey, B. L., & McClellan, M. (2005). Expository text comprehension: Helping

primary-grade teachers use expository texts to full advantage. Reading Psychology, 26,

211-234.

Hamman, L. A., & Stevens, R. J. (2003). Instructional approaches to improving students’ writing

of compare-contrast essays: An experimental study. Journal of Literacy Research, 35,

731-756.

Hickerson, B. L. (1986). Critical thinking, reading and writing: Developing a schema for

expository text through direct instruction in analysis of text structure. Unpublished

Dissertation. North Texas State University.

 21

Hebert, M., Bohaty, J. J., Nelson, J. R., & Brown, J. A. (2016). The effects of text structure

instruction on informational text comprehension: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 108, 609-629.

Hoffman, K. F. (2010). The impact of graphic organizer and metacognitive monitoring

instruction on expository science text comprehension in fifth grade students. Unpublished

Dissertation. North Carolina State University.

McCormick, S. & Zutell, J. (2015). Instructing students who have literacy problems (7th Edition).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

McDermott, M. B. (1990). Teaching top level structure as an aid for reading comprehension of

expository prose for fourth grade pupils. Unpublished Dissertation. Hofstra University.

Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam,

Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School

Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in

history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.

Newman, L. M. (2007). The effects of explicit instruction of expository text structure

incorporating graphic organizers on the comprehension of third-grade students.

Unpublished Dissertation. Eastern Washington University.

Raphael, T. E., Englert, C. S., & Kirschner, B. W. (1986). The impact of text structure

instruction and social context on students’ comprehension and production of expository

text. Research Series No. 177. East Lansing, MI: The Institute for Research on Teaching,

Michigan State University.

 22

Reese, D. J. (1988). Effect of training in expository text structure in reading comprehension.

Unpublished Dissertation. University of South Florida.

Russell, S. L. (2005). Challenging task in appropriate text: Designing discourse communities to

increase the literacy growth of adolescent struggling readers. Unpublished Dissertation.

University of Maryland.

Scott, D. B. (2011). Explicit instruction on rhetorical patterns and student-constructed graphic

organizers: The impact on sixth-grade students’ comprehension of social studies text.

Unpublished Dissertation. University of Maryland.

Slater, W. H., Graves, M. F., & Piché, G. L. (1985). Effects of structural organizers on ninth-

grade students’ comprehension and recall of four patterns of expository text. Reading

Research Quarterly, 20, 189-202.

Ulper, H., & Akkok, E. A. (2010). The effect of using expository text structures as a strategy on

summarization skills. In L. E. Kattington (Ed.), Handbook of Curriculum Development

(pp. 303-328), New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Whittaker, A. K. (1992). Constructing science knowledge from exposition: The effects of text

structure instruction. Unpublished Dissertation. Stanford University.

Wijekumar, K. K., Meyer, B. J. F., & Lei, P. (2012). Large-scale randomized control trial with

4th graders using intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy to improve nonfiction

reading comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 986-

1013.

Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., & Lauer, K. D. (2004). Teaching expository text structure to young

at-risk learners: Building the basics of comprehension instruction. Exceptionality: A

Special Education Journal, 12, 129-144.

 23

Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, K. B., DeSisto, L. A., & deCani, J. S. (2005).

Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 97, (538-550).

Williams, J. P., Pollini, S., Nubla-Kung, A. M., Snyder, A. E., Garcia, A., Ordynans, J. G., &

Atkins, J. G. (2013, July 8). An Intervention to Improve Comprehension of Cause/Effect

Through Expository Text Structure Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology.

Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0033215

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, 1-20.

24