FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W48051169> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W48051169 startingPage "10" @default.
• W48051169 abstract "Reading educators (Cheek & Cheek, 1983; Roe, Stoodt, & Burns, 1978) urge secondary teachers to use informal reading inventories (IRIs) in order to diagnose students’ reading problems and to place students in textbooks at appropriate levels to optimize instruction. Advice of this nature is surely well-intended; nevertheless, educators have reservations about the merits of available IRIs. For example, readability levels of IRI passages (Gerke, 1980), passage dependency of questions (Marr & Lyon, 1980; Tuinman, 1971), classification of questions (Shell & Hanna, 1981), scoring criteria (Bormuth, 1969), validity (Cooper, 1952; Powell, 1971), and allowable errors or miscues (Ekwall, 1971; Harris & Sipay, 1980) have been the focus of serious questions by reading researchers. TEXT TYPE AND TEXT STRUCTURE: AN ANALYSIS OF THREE SECONDARY INFORMAL READING INVENTORIES MARY W. OLSON and M. K. GILLIS Southwest Texas State University San Marcos Reading educators (Cheek & Cheek, 1983; Roe, Stoodt, & Burns, 1978) urge secondary teachers to use informal reading inventories (IRIs) in order to diagnose students' reading problems and to place students in textbooks at appropriate levels to optimize instruction. Advice of this nature is surely well-intended; nevertheless, educators have reservations about the merits of available IRIs. For example, readability levels of IRI passages (Gerke, 1980), passage dependency of questions (Marr & Lyon, 1980; Tuinman, 1971), classification of questions (Shell & Hanna, 1981), scoring criteria (Bormuth, 1969), validity (Cooper, 1952; Powell, 1971), and allowable errors or miscues (Ekwall, 1971; Harris & Sipay, 1980) have been the focus of serious questions by reading researchers. A further source of concern is the IRI graded paragraphs. These passages should reflect current research findings on text type, text structure, and comprehension. For example, researchers have investigated readers' difficulties with narrative and expository text types (Berkowitz & Taylor, 1981; Olson, 1985). These studies consistently document narrative texts as easier for readers to understand than expository texts. Expositions represent the predominant text type at the secondary level; therefore, we would expect to find expository passages rather than narrative passages in secondary IRIs. If this is the case, the expository IRI passages would more appropriately assess students' reading ability for placement in secondary textbooks. If this is not the case and the secondary IRIs contained many narrative passages, students would find these passages less difficult. Consequently, teachers might place students at an inappropriately high level for the more difficult expository READING HORIZONS, Fall, 1987 --------------page 71 reading requi red in the secondary schools. Researchers have also identified the organizational structure inherent in well-formed texts (Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Meyer, 1975; Stein, 1979) and the comprehension difficul ties these st ructures pose for readers (Englert & Heibert, 1984; Fitzgerald & Spiegel, 1985; Hansche & Gordon, 1983; Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, 1980). It is the organizational structure that provides a framework to convey the content of the text to the reader. Narrative text structure is described in terms of story grammar categories (Stein, 1979). Narratives that are well-formed include a setting and one or more episodes. Moreover, well-formed narratives are understood better than narratives that are fragmented or require readers to infer missing categories (Baker & Stein, 1981). On the other hand, expository text structure is described in ter ms of organizational, or rhetorical, st ructures that writers use to convey the relationships among ideas in the passage to the readers (Meyer, 1981; Niles, 1965). For example, Meyer (1981) describes five rhetorical st ructures in expository texts: causation, response, comparison, collection, and description. More organized structures, such as causation and comparison, appear to facilitate the understanding of content while content presented as a collection or description is more difficult to remember (Meyer & Freedle, 1984). We would suggest, therefore, that the organizational structure among the ideas presented in both narrative and expository passages is crucial to fair and accurate appraisal of students' reading abilities. For instance, if secondary IRIs contain narratives, then the narratives should be wellformed so that poor performance by students is not a function of passage structure. Conversely, if the text type is expository, it too should be clearly structured. Expository passages with a discernable rhetorical st ructure would be more likely to yield accurate information about the student. Furthermore, the particular rhetorical structures of the IRI passages would be of interest to teachers because some structures seem easier to comprehend than others. Despite the current interest in text type and text st ructure, secondary IRIs have not been analyzed for the text type of the passages. Neither has it been determined READING HORIZONS, Fall, 1987 --------------page 72 if narrative passages are well-formed or if expository passages have identifiable rhetorical structures. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to evaluate three secondary IRIs: the Advanced Reading Inventory (Johns, 1981), Content Inventories (McWilliams & Rakes, ] 979), and the Informal Reading Assessment (Burns & Roe, 1985) In terms of text type and text st ructure. Specifically, we wanted to know (1) if the passages in each secondary inventory were expository or narrative; (2) if the passage was a narrative, was it. a well-formed narrative? (3) If the passage was an expOSItIon, would the rhetorical st ructure be classified as description, causation/contrast, problem/solution, sequence, or definition/example? (4) Were there any passages with no discernable structure?" @default.
• W48051169 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W48051169 creator A5002983060 @default.
• W48051169 creator A5065405080 @default.
• W48051169 date "1987-01-01" @default.
• W48051169 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W48051169 title "Text Type and Text Structure: An Analysis of Three Secondary Informal Reading Inventories." @default.
• W48051169 cites W1217827007 @default.
• W48051169 cites W127321157 @default.
• W48051169 cites W175446809 @default.
• W48051169 cites W1989314580 @default.
• W48051169 cites W2045178568 @default.
• W48051169 cites W2100068662 @default.
• W48051169 cites W2128463176 @default.
• W48051169 cites W2784718819 @default.
• W48051169 cites W3202357972 @default.
• W48051169 cites W341640833 @default.
• W48051169 cites W640894167 @default.
• W48051169 cites W87938796 @default.
• W48051169 cites W987000885 @default.
• W48051169 cites W2161533418 @default.
• W48051169 hasPublicationYear "1987" @default.
• W48051169 type Work @default.
• W48051169 sameAs 48051169 @default.
• W48051169 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W48051169 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W48051169 hasAuthorship W48051169A5002983060 @default.
• W48051169 hasAuthorship W48051169A5065405080 @default.
• W48051169 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W48051169 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W48051169 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W48051169 hasConcept C2778143727 @default.
• W48051169 hasConcept C2778780117 @default.
• W48051169 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W48051169 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W48051169 hasConcept C8077954 @default.
• W48051169 hasConceptScore W48051169C138885662 @default.
• W48051169 hasConceptScore W48051169C145420912 @default.
• W48051169 hasConceptScore W48051169C15744967 @default.
• W48051169 hasConceptScore W48051169C2778143727 @default.
• W48051169 hasConceptScore W48051169C2778780117 @default.
• W48051169 hasConceptScore W48051169C41895202 @default.
• W48051169 hasConceptScore W48051169C554936623 @default.
• W48051169 hasConceptScore W48051169C8077954 @default.
• W48051169 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W48051169 hasLocation W480511691 @default.
• W48051169 hasOpenAccess W48051169 @default.
• W48051169 hasPrimaryLocation W480511691 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W1514237147 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W1544253840 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W155605787 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W1604453996 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W183285916 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W1977951160 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W2185647511 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W220464738 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W2299587652 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W2520716264 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W26144935 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W2727096818 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W2801736618 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W2892073029 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W2958983820 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W2991866790 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W3019613895 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W3081792932 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W594872125 @default.
• W48051169 hasRelatedWork W2747671819 @default.
• W48051169 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W48051169 isParatext "false" @default.
• W48051169 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W48051169 magId "48051169" @default.
• W48051169 workType "article" @default.