本研究旨在探討 「因果結構教學」對國小二年級學童在說明文閱讀理解表徵的增進效果。研究方法採準實驗研究法之不等組前後測實驗設計，以桃園市某國小之二年級學生為研究對象，其中實驗組一班共25位學生，接受十週的因果結構說明文教學，由實驗者運用彈性課時間，每週兩次教導學生運用文體結構策略(線索詞、因果句分析、圖形組織、通用問句)進行說明文閱讀；另有控制組一班共26位學生，由原班教師以同樣時間進行自由閱讀、討論或書寫閱讀心得學習單。在實驗程序上，兩組學生都接受「中文年級認字量表」及「自編閱讀理解測驗」為前測，接著在實驗教學後兩組學生都接受「自編閱讀理解測驗」的立即後測與延宕後測。
資料分析皆以混合線性模型(linear mixed model, LMM)檢視在實驗組與控制組是否有組別差異、 實驗組是否有教學效果、閱讀能力、因果結構說明文教學、閱讀理解表現是否有交互作用存在?
研究結果顯示 :
一、因果結構說明文教學能增進國小二年學童之結果理解表徵。
二、閱讀能力與因果結構說明文教學在國小二年級學童整體閱讀理解表現無交
互作用情形。
三、因果結構說明文教學能提升國小二年級學童因果策略題的表現。
最後，根據本研究的研究結果及結論，提出教學及未來研究的建議。

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the causal structure instruction for second graders on reading comprehension of expository texts. An experiment designed with pre-test and post-test non-equivalent control group is conducted in this study. Two intact classes were recruited from second grade in an elementary school of Taoyuan City. Among them, twenty-five students are designed as the experiment group which was administered the causal structure instruction emphasizing clue words, generic questions, graphic organizers and close analysis strategies by the researcher for ten weeks, two periods a week in Alternative Learning Periods. There were twenty-three students in the control group in which regular reading teaching such as offering students book reports worksheets in their book disscution or free voluntary reading time without text structure training embedded were conducted. Students in the experiment group and the control group were all administered pre-test which consiisted of“Chinese Character Recognition Test” and “Reading Comprehension Test”. Ten weeks later, students in two groups all take “Reading Comprehension Test” created by researcher in the immediate post-test and delayed posttest.
Linear mixed model (LMM) were used to analyze the data in order to estimated group differences, experimental effects, and interaction effect of reading ability, causal structure instruction, and reading comprehension.
The major findings of this study were as the following:
1.The causal structure instruction facilitated the second graders’ reading comprehension.
2.The interaction of reading ability, causal structul instruction, and reading comprehension is not significant.
3.The causal structure instruction could elevate second graders’ performance on causal strategy questions.
Based on the conclusion, suggestions to teachers and future research were proposed in this thesis.

中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………i
英文摘要……………………………………………………………………………ii
致謝辭………………………………………………………………………………iii
目次……………………………………………………………………………………iv
表次……………………………………………………………………………………vii
圖次……………………………………………………………………………………viii
第一章 緒論……………………………………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究背景與動機 ………………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題………………………………………………………………5
第三節 名詞釋義……………………………………………………………………………………5
第四節 研究限制……………………………………………………………………………………6
第二章 文獻探討……………………………………………………………………………………7
第一節 閱讀理解……………………………………………………………………………………7
第二節 說明文之文體結構…………………………………………………………………14
第三節 說明文之文體結構教學…………………………………………………………26
第三章 研究方法……………………………………………………………………………………33
第一節 研究設計……………………………………………………………………………………33
第二節 研究對象……………………………………………………………………………………34
第三節 研究教材與教學活動設計……………………………………………………35
第四節 研究工具……………………………………………………………………………………37
第五節 研究程序……………………………………………………………………………………41
第六節 資料處理與分析………………………………………………………………………41
第四章 研究結果與討論………………………………………………………………………45
第一節 教學介入對學生因果閱讀理解表徵之影響情形……………45
第二節 教學介入對因果策略題之影響情形…………………………………53
第三節 研究結果分析與討論……………………………………………………………56
第五章 結論與建議………………………………………………………………………………64
第一節 結論……………………………………………………………………………………………64
第二節 建議……………………………………………………………………………………………65
參考文獻 …………………………………………………………………………………………………68
中文文獻 …………………………………………………………………………………………………68
西文文獻 …………………………………………………………………………………………………69
附錄一 實驗教材結構、字頻、出處摘要表……………………………………77
附錄二 因果式說明文文體結構教學活動設計………………………………79
附錄三 自編閱讀理解測驗文章結構、字頻、出處摘要表…………84
附錄四 自編閱讀理解測驗(甲式)……………………………………………………86
附錄五 自編閱讀理解測驗(乙式)……………………………………………………90
附錄六 自編閱讀理解測驗(丙式)……………………………………………………95
附錄七 單因單果文章之時間與組別單純主要效果的b、SE與z值表………100
附錄八 圈出結果題之時間與組別單純主要效果的b、SE與z值表…………101
附錄九 因果句分析題之時間與組別單純主要效果的b、SE與z值表………102
附錄十 非因果理解題之時間與組別單純主要效果的b、SE與z值表………103
附錄十一 因果問句題之時間與組別單純主要效果的b、SE與z值表………104
附錄十二 句子組合題之時間與組別單純主要效果的b、SE與z值表………105
附錄十三 因果結構說明文教材………………………………………………………106

中文文獻
王瓊珠 (1991)。國小六年級閱讀障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀認知能力之比較研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
王瓊珠、洪儷瑜、張郁雯、陳秀芬 (2008)。一到九年級學生國字識字量發展。教育心理學報，39(4)，555-568。
伍麗梅 (2008) 。說明文的因果推理與閱讀表徴的研究。華南師範大學心理學院博士論文，未出版，廣州。
伍麗梅、莫雷 (2012)。說明文閱讀中因果序列的表徴。心理學報，44(001)，63-75。
吳文忠、謝名起 (譯) (2004)。(原作者 : Brophy, T. L. & Good, J. E.)。課堂研究（二版）。台北市：五南。(原著出版年 : 2000 )
吳英長 (1986)。兒童故事基架的分析。台東師專學報，14，195-213。
李俊仁、柯華葳 (2007)。以認知因素區辨不同閱讀能力組的效能分析。特殊教育研究學刊，32(1)，1-14。
李秋美 (2011)。明示閱讀策略教學對 EFL 學生閱讀焦慮與理解的影響。高雄師範大學心理學系碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
沈欣怡 (2007)。「推論性問題引導課程」對國小四年級學童推論理解與閱讀理解能力之影響。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
林玟慧 (1995)。閱讀理解策略對國中閱讀障礙學生閱讀效果之研究。 特殊教育研究學刊，12，235-259。
林蕙君 (1995)。 閱讀能力、說明文結構對國小高年級學生的閱讀理解及閱讀策略使用之影響研究。新竹師院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
柯華葳 (1999)。閱讀理解困難篩選測驗。台北：行政院國家科學委員會暨特殊教育工作小組印行。
柯華葳、詹益綾 (2006)。國民小學(二至六年級)閱讀理解篩選測驗。台北市 : 國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
徐菁彣 (2011)。 說明文體結構教學對國小二年級學童閱讀理解能力的影響。國立台南大學教育學系課程與教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
連啟舜 (2001)。 國內閱讀理解教學研究成效之統合分析研究。國立台灣師範大學心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
陳沛嵐 (2001)。文章中的因果架構對國小四、六年級學生閱讀表徵之影響。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。
陳明蕾 (2003)。文章的因果架構對不同年齡成人讀者理解表徵影響之研究。國立中正大學成人及繼續教育研究所博士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。
陳秋芬 (2003)。科學性文章中的時間序列對國小五年級學生閱讀理解的影響。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。
陳建立 (2010)。國中生物教科書因果類複句分析與學生閱讀理解之研究。國立臺灣師範大學生物學系在職進修碩士班碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
陳海泓（2011）。說明文體的閱讀理解教學。教師天地，172，28-36。
陳惠瑜 (2008)。圖形組體運用於國小三年級低成就學生國語大意摘取教學之行動研究。國立臺北教育大學語文與創作學系語文教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
劉英茂 (1999)。中英文句中思想結構之比較研究。中華心理學刊，41(2)，131-165。
劉載興 (2006)。文本調整技術對閱讀困難國小學生閱讀理解之影響。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育系教學碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
蔡銘津 (1997)。學童閱讀能力的測驗與評量。特殊教育季刊，65，23-28。
羅雅芬 (譯) (2003)。( 原作者 : Usha Goswami) 。兒童認知。台北市 : 心理。(原著出版
年 : 1998)
蘇宜芬 (2004)。閱讀理解的影響因素及其在教學上的意義。教師天地，129，21-28。
西文文獻
Adams, L. F. (1989). Teaching text structure strategy: The acquisition and effectiveness of a
strategy to increase textbook comprehension (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Denver, OHIO.
Anderson, R. C. (1978). Schema-directed processes in language comprehension. In A. Lesgold, J. Pellegrino, S. Fokkema, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Cognitive psychology and instruction. New York: Plenum
Anderson, R. C., Pichert, J. W., & Shirey, L. L. (1983). Effects of the reader's schema at different points in time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 271.
Applebee, N. (1978). The child's concept of story: Ages two to seventeen. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly,22, 331-346.
Baillet, S. D., & Keenan, J. M. (1986). The role of encoding and retrieval processes in the recall of text. Discourse Processes, 9(3), 247-268.
Britton, B. K., & Gülgöz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 329.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2008). Children's comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Caron, J., Micko, H. C., & Thüring, M. (1988). Conjunctions and the recall of composite sentences. Journal of memory and language, 27(3), 309-323.
Chambliss, M. J. (1994). Evaluating the quality of textbooks for diverse learners. Remedial and Special Education, 15(6), 348-362.
Chambliss, M. J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of
lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 778-807.
Cheuvront, M. L. (2002). Analysis of sensitivity and comprehension difficulty among expository
text structures. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston University, Boston.
Ciardiello, A. V. (2002). Helping adolescents understand cause/effect text structure in social
studies. The Social Studies, 93(1), 31-36.
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 448-456.
Coté, N., Goldman, S. R.,& Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text:
Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25(1), 1-53.
Dickson, S. V., Simmons, D. C.,& Kameenui, E. J.(1998). Text organization: Research bases. What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics, 239-277.
Duke, N.K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading
Research Quarterly, 35, 202-224.
Duke, N. K., & Bennett-Armistead, V. S. (2003). Reading & writing informational text in the
primary grades: Research-based practices, New York: Scholastic.
Endres, C. R.(2015, February, 18)。Re: Generic Questions Stems. [Online Forum comment]. Retrieved from http://www.wright.edu/~carole.endres/
Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Farnan, N. (1986). A reading-writing procedure that teaches expository
paragraph structure. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 556-562.
Galda, L., & Beach, R. (2001). Response to literature as a cultural activity. Reading Research
Quarterly, 36(1), 64-73.
Garner, R., & Gillingham, M. (1987). Students' knowledge of text structure. Journal of Literacy
Research, 19(3), 247-259.
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.
Ghaith, G. M., & Harkouss, S. A. (2003). Role of text structure awareness in the recall of
expository discourse. Foreign Language Annals, 36(1), 86-96.
Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory
of causal learning in children: causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological review, 111(1), 3-
32 .
Graesser, A. C., Gordon, S. E., & Brainerd, L. E. (1992). QUEST: A model of question
answering. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 23(6), 733-745.
Graesser, A. C., León, J. A., & Otero, J. (2002). Introduction to the psychology of science text
comprehension. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science
text comprehension (pp. 1-15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In A. P. Sweet, & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York: Guilford Press.
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(3),
211-234.
Hare, V. C., Rabinowitz, M., & Schieble, K. M. (1989). Text effects on main idea comprehension.
Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 72-88.
Hyerle, D. (1996). Thinking Maps: Seeing Is Understanding. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 85-
89.
Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2002). Perspective effects on online text processing.
Discourse Processes, 33(2), 159-173.
Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2003). How prior knowledge, WMC, and relevance
of information affect eye fixations in expository text. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 447.
Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyona, J. (2005). Perspective effects on expository text comprehension:
Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking, and recall. Discourse Processes, 40(3),
239-257.
Kintsch, W., & Yarbrough, J. C. (1982). Role of rhetorical structure in text comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(6), 828-834.
Kletzien, S. B., & Dreher, M. J. (2004). Informational Text in K-3 Classrooms. Helping Children
Read and Write. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., van Den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels,
J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on more-and less-skilled readers' comprehension of
easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 525-556.
Loman, N. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of
expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 402-412.
Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Inman, W. E. (1993). Effects of signaling topic structure on text
recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 281-290.
Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and
recall. Cognitive psychology, 9(1), 111-151.
Marinak, B. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2008). Elementary Informational Text Instruction: A Research
Review. International Journal of Learning, 15(9), 75-83.
McConaughy, S. H. (1985). Good and poor readers' comprehension of story structure across
different input and output modalities. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 219-232.
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., Lehman, S., & Poliquin, A. (2007). The effect of causal diagrams
on text learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 367-388.
McDaniel, M. A. (1984). The role of elaborative and schema processes in story memory. Memory & Cognition, 12(1), 46-51.
McDaniel, M. A., & Kerwin, M. L. E. (1987). Long‐term prose retention: Is an organizational
schema sufficient? Discourse Processes, 10(3), 237-252.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of
prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1),
79-93.
McNamara, T., Miller, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1991). Mental models and reading
comprehension. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & T. D. Pearson, (Eds.), Handbook of
Reading Research. Vol 2. (pp. 490-511), NY: Longman.
Meyer, B. J. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory . Amsterdam: North-
Holland.
Meyer, B. J. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In BK. Britton ; J.B.
Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text— A theoretical and practical handbook for
analyzing expository text, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meyer, B. J. (1987). Following the author’s top-level organization: An important skill for reading
comprehension. Understanding readers' understanding (pp. 59–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meyer, B. J. (1999). Importance of text structure in everyday reading. In A. Ram & K. Moorman
(Eds.), Understanding language understanding: Computational models of reading (pp. 227–252). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meyer, B. J., 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, 72-103.
Meyer, B. J., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall
of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 141-159.
Meyer, B. J., & Rice, G. E. (1982). The interaction of reader strategies and the organization of
text. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 2(1-3), 155-192.
Meyer, B. J., & Rice, G. E. (1984). The structure of text. Handbook of reading research, 1, 319-
351.
Millis, K. K., Golding, J. M., & Barker, G. (1995). Causal connectives increase inference
generation. Discourse Processes, 20(1), 29-49.
Millis, K. K., & Graesser, A. C. (1994). The time-course of constructing knowledge-based
inferences for scientific texts. Journal of memory and language, 33(5), 583-599.
Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension.
Journal of memory and language, 33(1), 128-147.
Millis, K. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1999). The co-influence of grammatical markers and
comprehender goals on the memory for short discourse. Journal of memory and language,
41(2), 183-198.
Muentener, P., & Carey, S. (2010). Infants’ causal representations of state change events.
Cognitive psychology, 61(2), 63-86.
Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra-word-problem
comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and
Instruction, 9(4), 329-389.
Noordman, L. G., & Vonk, W. (1998). Memory‐based processing in understanding causal
information. Discourse Processes, 26(2-3), 191-212.
Noordman, L. G., Vonk, W., & Kempff, H. J. (1992). Causal inferences during the reading of
expository texts. Journal of memory and language, 31(5), 573-590.
Padua, J. F. M. (2011). Text Structure: Cause and Effect. Honoluu, HI : Pacific Resources for
Education and Learning.
Panel, N. R., Health, N. I. o. C., & Development, H. (2000). Report of the national reading panel:
Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature
on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups: National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
Pappas, C. C. (1991). Young children's strategies in learning the “book language” of information
books. Discourse Processes, 14(2), 203-225.
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research
and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School Journal, Journal, 88(2),
151-165.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344.
Pearson, P. D., & Hamm, D. N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of
practices---Past, present, and future. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading
comprehension and assessment. (pp. 13-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69(4), 309-315.
Pollini, S. (2009). Second graders' sensitivity to text structure as a function of writing prompts and
content familiarity: Columbia University, New York..
Ray, M. N., & Meyer, B. J. F. (2011). Individual differences in children’s knowledge of
expository text structures: A review. International Electronic Journal of Elementary
Education (Special Issue on Reading Comprehension), 4(1), 67-82.
Reutzel, D., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C. (2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching
reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(3), 276-305.
Richgels, D. J., McGee, L. M., Lomax, R. G., & Sheard, C. (1987). Awareness of four text
structures: Effects on recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(2), 177-196.
Saxe, R., Tzelnic, T., & Carey, S. (2007). Knowing who dunnit: Infants identify the causal agent
in an unseen causal interaction. Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 149-158.
Scott, C. M. (1988). A perspective on the evaluation of school children's narratives. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 19(1), 67-82.
Singer, M., Halldorson, M., Lear, J. C., & Andrusiak, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging
inferences in discourse understanding. Journal of memory and language, 31(4), 507-524.
Singer, M., Harkness, D., & Stewart, S. T. (1997). Constructing inferences in expository text
comprehension. Discourse Processes, 24(2-3), 199-228.
Singer, M., & O'Connell, G. (2003). Robust inference processes in expository text comprehension.
European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 607-631.
Snyder, A. E. (2012). The Effects of Graphic Organizers and Content Familiarity on Second
Graders’ Comprehension of Cause/Effect Text. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Columbia University, New York.
Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Rethinking Reading Comprehension : Solving Problems in
the Teaching of Literacy. New York: Guilford Publications
Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade
students' comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19,
134-146.
Taylor, B. M., & Samuels, S. J. (1983). Children’s use of text structure in the recall of expository
material. American Educational Research Journal, 20(4), 517-528.
Trabasso, T., & Van Den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative
events. Journal of memory and language, 24(5), 612-630.
van den Broek, P. (1994). Comprehension and memory of narrative texts: Inferences and
coherence. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. (pp. 539–588). New
York: Academic Press
van den Broek, P., & Kremer, K. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend
during reading. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for
meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades. (pp. 1-31). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
van Den Broek, P., Virtue, S., Everson, M. G., Tzeng, Y., & Sung, Y.-c. (2002). Comprehension
and memory of science texts: Inferential processes and the construction of a mental
representation. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science
text comprehension (pp. 131-154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York:
Academic Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development
of children, 23(3), 34-41.
Weaver III, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal,
& P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research., (Vol. 2, pp. 230-244). White Plains,
NY: Longman.
Wiley, J., & Myers, J. L. (2003). Availability and accessibility of information and causal
inferences from scientific text. Discourse Processes, 36(2), 109-129.
Williams, 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.
Williams, J. P. (2003). Teaching text structure to improve reading comprehension. . In H. L.
Swan- son, K. R H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning
disabilities. , (pp. 293-305). New York, NY : Guilford Press
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, 12(3), 129-
144.
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(4), 538-550.
Williams, J. P., Nubla-Kung, A. M., Pollini, S., Stafford, K. B., Garcia, A., & Snyder, A. E.
(2007). Teaching cause—effect text structure through social studies content to at-risk second
graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 111-120.
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.
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.
Williams, J. P., Taylor, M. B., & de Cani, J. S. (1984). Constructing macrostructure for expository
text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1065-1075.
Yussen, S., Huang, S.-T., Mathews, S., & Evans, R. (1988). The robustness and temporal course
of the story schema's influence on recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 173-179.
Zabrucky, K., & Ratner, H. H. (1992). Effects of passage type on comprehension monitoring and
recall in good and poor readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 24(3), 373-391.