LWW/TLD TLD3004-02 October 28, 2010 0:31 Char Count= 0

Top Lang Disorders

Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 339349
Copyright  c 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Learning From Expository Texts

Classroom-Based Strategies for
Promoting Comprehension and
Content Knowledge in the
Elementary Grades
Kendra M. Hall-Kenyon, PhD; Sharon Black, MS
One of the primary purposes of expository text in education is to teach new content. Because
elementary grade children are accustomed to applying their literacy skills to reading and writing
narratives, they must be taught new skills if they are to access expository content effectively. These
skills and practices can be challenging because expository texts require students to handle unfamil-
iar structural factors (e.g., structural patterns, text features, text signals) in conjunction with new
and often challenging content. Children with language impairments or risks often have particular
difficulties with these skills. This review article explores some of the challenges associated with
expository texts and suggests instructional strategies that may help teachers and speechlanguage
pathologists (SLPs) focus on the relationship and interaction between text content and structure
to support childrens comprehension and content knowledge. Key words: content knowledge,
expository text, expository comprehension, instructional strategies, text structure

A S children progress from learning to read

to reading to learn (Chall, Jacobs, &
Baldwin, 1990), they are expected to learn
new content from expository texts on a wide
variety of subjects, often with little or no sup-
port. Many educators assume that reading is
reading and that the skills that brought stu-
dents through picture books and simple nar-
ratives will continue to serve their needs.
Many children who have had little or no dif-
ficulty reading narrative texts struggle when
faced with expository materials (Duke &
Kays, 1998). Expository texts present sev-
eral new challenges. First, narrative texts
generally follow one typical story structure.
Whether or not students have an explicit
Author Affiliations: Department of Teacher
Education, (Dr. Hall-Kenyon), and David O. McKay
School of Education, (Ms. Black), Brigham Young
University Provo, Utah.
Corresponding Author: Kendra M. Hall-Kenyon, PhD,
Early Childhood Education, Department of Teacher
Education, Brigham Young University, 206M MCKB
Provo, UT 84602 (kendra hall@byu.edu).
knowledge of story structure and can la-
bel the parts (e.g., character, setting, prob-
lem, solution, outcome), they are used to
it, and even very young children know
what to anticipate (Pappas, 1993). In con-
trast, expository texts are organized in many
different ways, ranging from a simple list
to a complex causation structure (Carnine,
Silbert, & Kameenui, 1990; Gajria, Jitendra,
Sood & Sacks, 2007). Second, expository texts
require unique information-gathering skills
that create challenges beyond those encoun-
tered in narrative texts (Duke & Kays, 1998).
Children must learn where and how to find
meaning, along with how to make it useful.
Third, much of the students exposure to ex-
pository texts occurs during content area in-
struction, where the focus is often on facts
and content, not necessarily on the literacy
processes necessary to obtain them. Rather,
much of the direct literacy instruction chil-
dren receive is during lessons focused on nar-
rative texts and does not include language
and literacy skills related to expository texts
(Dreher & Dromsky, 2000).
339

Copyright 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/TLD TLD3004-02 October 28, 2010 0:31 Char Count= 0
340 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/OCTOBERDECEMBER 2010
When dealing with expository texts, chil-
dren have to obtain domain knowledge at
the same time they gain a working knowl-
edge of organizational aspects of the text and
text-processing strategies (Garner, 1987). Ad-
ditionally, they must acquire the language pro-
cessing abilities required by expository top-
ics and presentation (Scott & Balthazar, 2010,
this issue). In addition to wading through
new, often difficult, content, the reader of
expository text must have a complex set of
skills for dealing with it (Ogle & Blachowicz,
2002). While children of all ability levels may
struggle with some of the unique features of
expository texts, children with language dis-
abilities and differences often face additional
challenges due to the complexity of the
cognitivelinguistic tasks that are involved
(Gajria et al., 2007). Ultimately, teachers and
SLPs need to work together to address these
difficulties and explicitly teach children with
and without disabilities the strategies they
need to comprehend a wide variety of texts
(Duke & Pearson, 2002; Palmer & Stewart,
2005).
Elementary teachers and SLPs can collab-
orate in a number of ways to support chil-
drens comprehension of expository texts. For
example, an SLP can work with the class-
room teacher and provide supplemental small
group instruction that focuses on inference as
well as overall comprehension (Silliman, Bahr,
Beasman, & Wilkinson, 2000). These are ar-
eas that can be particularly crucial as students
learn to sort through and reason with factual
content. In addition to more traditional small
group instruction, teachers and SLPs can en-
gage in coteaching or team teaching in the
regular classroom as a component of response
to intervention activities or other program-
ming. Ehren (2000) recommended copresent-
ing lessons in expository content areas such
as social studies, with the SLP guiding the stu-
dents with language disorders in using the
strategies they have practiced during therapy
sessions in the context of content area instruc-
tion. Finally, teachers and SLPs can engage
in a consultative relationship (Hadden & Pi-
anta, 2006) in which SLPs can help teachers
Copyright 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
with adaptations to specific lessons, assign-
ments, and tests, as well as extension activities
that provide students with additional practice
(Ehren, 2000).
In this article we summarize some of the
challenges associated with expository texts
on the basis of an informal review of the
literature and suggest instructional strategies
to help teachers and SLPs meet these chal-
lenges as they work together to support chil-
drens comprehension and content knowl-
edge. Challenges and instructional strategies
are considered in three areas: (1) understand-
ing text structure and its relation to content,
(2) dealing with language and linguistic con-
ventions of expository texts, and (3) utilizing
text features for navigating and locating infor-
mation in expository texts.
TEXT STRUCTURE
Children as young as second grade show
some awareness of expository text structure
(Hall, Sabey, & McClellan, 2005; Williams et
al., 2005; Williams, Stafford, Lauer, Hall, &
Pollini, 2009). As children become older, it
becomes critical that they develop strategies
for identifying expository structures and us-
ing them as guides for text comprehension
(Gajria et al., 2007).
Awareness of text structures
When gaining text structure awareness,
children first need to understand concepts
like compare and contrast, cause and effect,
and problem and solution as a foundation
for learning to identify the related macrostruc-
ture of a text (Hall et al., 2005; Williams et al.,
2005). Five general internal text structures are
commonly found in expository text: descrip-
tion, sequence, comparecontrast, cause
effect, and problemsolution (Cook & Mayer,
1988; Englert & Hiebert, 1984; Meyer &
Freedle, 1984; Meyer & Poon, 2001). Each
structure is associated with specific words
that act as clues or signals that help the
reader to identify or label texts (Meyer
& Poon). A readers awareness of these
LWW/TLD TLD3004-02 October 28, 2010 0:31 Char Count= 0
structures can help in mapping, anticipating,
locating, and processing the content of ex-
pository texts. Thus teachers and SLPs should
explicitly teach these structures and provide
students with numerous examples of them
(McGee & Richgels, 1985).
Some educators question the value of ex-
plicitly teaching text structures because many
of the informational texts that children en-
counter are not well structured; rather they
are a mix of structures, or they overempha-
size description, which is the vaguest and of-
ten the most difficult pattern for children to
discern. Our experience suggests that many
students need explicit instruction with each
of the regular text structures before they
are equipped to handle a messy text that
does not follow one structure throughout or
makes even a coherent structure difficult to
discern.
One strategy for dealing with poorly struc-
tured texts is to impose a structure on a par-
ticular portion of content to help students
understand the relationship of ideas; result-
ing in deeper content knowledge (Hall, Smith,
& Losser, 2007). For example, the overall
structure of the childrens book Mountains,
by Seymour Simon (1994) could be classi-
fied as a description, although there are sec-
tions that represent a variety of structures. In
this text, several different types of mountains
are described (e.g., fault-block, volcanic, and
folded). Teachers and SLPs can help students
use the information about the different types
of mountains to create a matrix that illustrates
the similarities and differences (e.g., how are
they formed, where are they located, what do
they look likeSmith, Draper & Hall, 2005)
rather than just describing each of the differ-
ent types of mountains separately.
Interaction of structure and content
Comprehension of expository texts re-
quires readers to handle both topical and
structural factors simultaneously (Flood, Lapp
& Farnan, 1986). Williams (1984) showed that
rejecting or accepting relevant information as
it relates to the overall organization of text
is fundamental to comprehending expository
Copyright 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Learning From Expository Texts 341
texts (see also Williams, Taylor, & deCani,
1984). Students also need to evaluate rele-
vant information continuously and to reject
less important material so they can under-
stand how ideas come together in a structured
pattern and how information fits within main
ideas.
Teachers and SLPs may be able to best
support students learning by providing them
with skills for processing content knowledge
in connection with explicit text structure. Sys-
tematic instruction that considers the unique
features of informational texts (e.g., text struc-
ture, text features, text signals) in conjunc-
tion with content (e.g., concepts and vocab-
ulary) may help students increase their abil-
ity to comprehend expository texts, providing
a better model for instruction in the content
areas.
Use of hierarchical structure
to predict content
Differentiating between major and minor
topics and finding the differences between
topics and supportive details are essential
skills for comprehension (Meyer, Brant, &
Bluth, 1980). Students who have limited expe-
rience with expository texts may struggle to
predict or anticipate content based on topic
sentences, overviews, or headings that allude
to the main idea. To support students, teach-
ers and SLPs can give the students a topic or
topic sentence and ask them to practice pre-
dicting what kinds of things are likely to be in-
cluded in the text (Englert & Thomas, 1987).
For example, following the comparison of the
mountains, Simon (1994) begins a new page
paragraph, As soon as mountains rise, they
begin to be worn down steadily and slowly by
the forces of erosion: wind, rain, moving wa-
ter, and ice, as well as temperature and chem-
ical changes (n.p.). After reading this topic
sentence from the board or from chart pa-
per, the teacher might ask the students to pre-
dict the kind of information they think will be
in the paragraph. The paragraph indeed con-
tains information about the physical and
chemical forces that wear down mountains.
The following pages describe other forces
LWW/TLD TLD3004-02 October 28, 2010 0:31 Char Count= 0
342 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/OCTOBERDECEMBER 2010
that slowly wear down mountains. Words
and phrases including as well as, also, and
sometimes help students follow the relation-
ship of the information. After the skill has
been introduced in whole class instruction,
SLPs can work with small groups on repeated
examples to provide supplemental instruc-
tion using similarly simple and obvious exam-
ples until students can find the connections
independently.
The process also can be altered to approach
the relationship from different directions. The
instructor can read the entire paragraph with
the students (in a form that they can follow vi-
sually) and guide them in discerning what the
topic sentence is and which information sup-
ports it. Or the teacher may give the students
a list of facts, such as ways that mountains af-
fect weather, and ask them to create a topic
sentence.
Use of a graphic organizer to visualize
structure
As students become aware of text struc-
tures and are able to identify them, graphic
organizers can be used to help them com-
prehend and recall texts (McGee & Richgels,
1985; Slater, 1985). Graphic organizers de-
pict textual relationships (Moore & Readence,
1984) and provide readers with a way to map
outthe text in a meaningful way so that think-
ing becomes external (Calfee & Patrick, 1995;
Graves, Juel, & Graves, 2001). Thus the use
of graphic organizers can help students deal
with both the topical and structural aspects
of text as they visually represent the relation-
ship among the ideas or content of the text.
Although children with disabilities may have
initial difficulties in constructing graphic or-
ganizers, studies have shown that significant
improvements have resulted from their use
(Gajria et al., 2007).
Using text-specific organizers
Many organizers are applicable to specific
text structures. For example, a topical net
(or web) is ideal for description. It places
the main idea in the middle of the web as
Copyright 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the center, branches groupings of informa-
tion off from that center and branches fur-
ther into supporting points (Graves et al.,
2001). Although the web is perhaps the most
commonly used graphic organizer in elemen-
tary school, it is generally not helpful with
other structures. A web does not demonstrate
comparison relationships, but a matrix does,
organizing attributes along two or more di-
mensions (Calfee & Chambliss, 1989), with
columns to represent the concepts and rows
to portray comparisons along the dimensions
(Robinson & Kiewra, 1995). Similarly, each
structure has a graphic organizer that best ex-
emplifies its organization.
Using a tree diagram for any structure
If some children have difficulty connecting
each structure to a specific organizer, a gen-
eral branching structure (tree diagram) may
be created, supplemented with headings, ex-
planations, or connections such as arrows.
The general tree diagram can be quickly and
easily generated, and children can quickly be-
come familiar with it and apply it to any
text.
The teacher or SLP also can support stu-
dents in comprehending via a tree diagram
by inserting mini treesat appropriate places
in the margins of texts and providing the
overall tree diagram on a separate sheet of
paper. During the discussion, the instruc-
tor/interventionist should refer periodically to
and fill out the graphic representation to ori-
ent the student to the overall text organiza-
tion and to fit specific pieces of information
into the structure. Talking children through
the diagram may maximize the benefit of the
graphic representation (Stahl & Vancil, 1986).
The teacher or SLP first should model the pro-
cess of creating a graphic organizer from a
previously read text (modeling it repeatedly
for small groups or individuals needing it).
Then students should fill in missing informa-
tion from predeveloped tree diagrams (cloze
procedure), create their own tree diagrams,
or generate a text or oral explanation from a
graphic representation (Sweet & Snow, 2003).
LWW/TLD TLD3004-02 October 28, 2010 0:31 Char Count= 0
Having students compose or speak
from an organizer
Composing or speaking from an organizer
such as a Venn diagram or tree diagram is sim-
ilar to composing from an outline but with
relationships that may be easier to visualize.
Piccolo (1987, p. 841) suggested the follow-
ing sequence:
Define and label the structure
(teacher/SLP)
Examine model paragraphs and graphic
organizers (student and teacher/SLP)
Model composition of an original para-
graph that follows a graphic organizer
(teacher/SLP)
Compose an original organizer and para-
graph (student)
Read expository texts to find patterns
(student)
Although students with language disabil-
ities may initially have difficulty creating
graphic organizers, repeated practice with
scaffolding from an SLP may help them de-
velop this important visualization skill. As
students become more skilled in identifying
text structures and mapping information in
graphic organizers, they may also benefit from
exploring the creation of well-structured texts
that effectively communicate their content
knowledge (Hall et al., 2007).
LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC
CONVENTIONS
Just as the organizational structures of ex-
pository texts are different from those of
narrative texts, the language in which they
are written, along with linguistic challenges
and conventions, are different. Children often
need additional support when dealing with
the language of expository writing.
New content words
The vocabulary of informational texts can
be much more demanding than word use in
narrative texts. As they prepare for teaching
expository texts, SLPs can consult with teach-
Copyright 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Learning From Expository Texts 343
ers about the specific vocabulary associated
with the target curricular area and each spe-
cialty topic within that area (Kerrin, 1996).
In this way, teachers and SLPs can collabo-
ratively determine possible support and les-
son adaptations that will make lesson content
more accessible for students with language
disabilities.
Classifying and selecting words
When teaching vocabulary to support com-
prehension, teachers and SLPs must first de-
cide which words to teach, which to merely
introduce, and which to let pass bymerely
reading the phrase or clause furnished by the
authorfor the sake of allowing the reader
to follow the general flow. Beck, McKeown,
and Kucan (2002) have suggested that words
can be viewed as 3 tiers. Tier 1 words are
those that children likely learn during their
daily living and interactions with language;
these do not need to be taught. Tier 2 words,
those that are likely to be unfamiliar to stu-
dents but would be useful for them to know
in order to use language and interpret infor-
mation successfully, should be the focus of
most vocabulary instruction. Tier 3 words,
which are the specific, technical words, may
be introduced as necessary for comprehen-
sion but do not need to be central to vocab-
ulary instruction. To prepare for vocabulary
instruction, teachers must be able to identify
Tier 2 and 3 words and then plan instruction
accordingly.
Using the tier model to select vocabulary
is particularly important when dealing with
expository texts because of the unique dif-
ficulties associated with content area vocab-
ulary. For example, the childrens exposi-
tory text Caves (Kramer, 1995) includes the
Tier 2 words erupt, expedition, ledge, and
cavern. In Caves, Tier 3 words might in-
clude spelunker, limestone, stalagmite, and
speleothems. By placing appropriate empha-
sis on learning Tier 2 words, teachers and
SLPs can help build childrens vocabulary and
conceptual knowledge in meaningful ways
as these words are defined, discussed, and
LWW/TLD TLD3004-02 October 28, 2010 0:31 Char Count= 0
344 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/OCTOBERDECEMBER 2010
explicitly taught in connection with other
words related to the specific content area.
SLPs will likely need to reinforce and practice
the new words during follow-up small group
and individual instruction.
Providing adequate and interesting
experiences
Beck et al. (2002) recommended that vo-
cabulary instruction should be frequent,
rich, and extended.They noted that students
must encounter a word 810 times in mean-
ingful contexts in order to be able to use
it effectively. For example, interaction with
some of the cave words could be provided
by discussing pictures or video representa-
tions of various types of caves and cave for-
mations; also students who have visited caves
and caverns could share their own experi-
ences and impressions. Students could draw
various types of formations; if the study is to
go beyond the one text, the class could con-
struct a cave mural to be displayed in the class-
room or the hall. As students interact dur-
ing their drawing, the need to use the words
will arise naturally. Beck et al. also recom-
mended that instruction should include asso-
ciations and relationships between words, in-
cluding synonyms, antonyms, related words,
and, when appropriate, alternate meanings
and relevant derivations. Because studies have
shown that students with language impair-
ments tend to have difficulty with semantic
relationships (Sheng & McGregor, 2010), SLPs
could create for their small groups some op-
portunities for supportive, scaffolded prac-
tice with these vocabulary aspects, and pre-
pare the students to use the words in text
discussions.
Beck et al. (2002) also advised that students
should be given opportunities to make ex-
tended application of the words in multiple
settings both in and outside of the classroom.
SLPs could consult with classroom teachers as
they plan follow-up extension activities that
provide opportunities for students to apply
their new vocabulary knowledge in interest-
ing and imaginative ways.
Copyright 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Structure and connection words
Most educators would agree that the
type of clear, consistent text structure that
makes text easily comprehensible is not often
found in expository trade books or textbooks
(Chambliss & Calfee, 1989). In identifying the
organization of a text in order to comprehend
it, the reader must be able to use many differ-
ent strategies, including organizational sig-
nals, which are the information or words and
phrases in the text that do not add new con-
tent, but emphasize content topics and high-
light text organization or structure (Lorch &
Lorch, 1995; Meyer, 1975).
Using structural clue words
Students need to learn to use clue words
to help them identify and highlight the struc-
ture of a text. Words such as same, alike,
different, or but in a text identify the structure
as compare/contrast. Similarly, words such as
first, second, then, or finally indicate that the
text is organized as a sequence. Teachers and
SLPs also can help students learn to indicate
text structure by using clue words in their
own writing as they make attempts to com-
municate about their content learning (Vuke-
lich, Evans, & Albertson, 2003). For example,
a third-grade teacher might have groups of 10
students collaboratively write a report on a se-
lected animal. The children are given differ-
ent informational texts and asked to read to
answer three questions the group has agreed
to ask. When the students try to dictate their
report, a hodgepodge generally results, and
the teacher leads the children in grouping the
facts (into a structure) and in polishing the
style. During this process, clue words are de-
liberately integrated to make the relationships
among the groupings clear and to relate the
facts within the groups so that they will read
smoothly rather than being disconnected.
Highlighting and connecting sentences
Reading text aloud can help student be-
come aware of the rhythm and flow of
language. Subsequently, examining text on
chart paper, transparencies, or computer
LWW/TLD TLD3004-02 October 28, 2010 0:31 Char Count= 0
projection enables instructor and students to
see how the effects are created.
When reading aloud, the teacher or SLP
can use verbal techniques in helping chil-
dren process and recognize expository lan-
guage devices. For example, the oral reader
can expressively emphasize connectors and
function words and phrases Some caves are
small, and others are big. Some are huge.
(Gibbons, 1993, n.p.). Similarly, words such as
begin, then, keeps, many years go by, and fi-
nally can be stressed to demonstrate how the
reader is guided through a sequence and help
the children understand how the relationship
among the ideas is communicated in the text.
A teacher or SLP also may choose to sub-
stitute a simpler cohesive device for a more
complex one: for example, by using reitera-
tion instead of lexical substitution or pronom-
inalization. Instructors may reinstate subjects
or make other substitutions for pronouns:
Drops fall to the floor of the cave. . . . These
drops [substituted for they] build stone ici-
cles (Gibbons, 1993, n.p.).
NAVIGATING AND GATHERING
INFORMATION
Students need to understand how to relate
organization and vocabulary to understand
content. Interactive with teaching these skills,
teachers and SLPs need to help children use
text features that help them discern and un-
derstand these factors and text tools to easily
locate the information they need.
External text structures: formats
and visuals
Expository texts usually include external
text structuresways in which the informa-
tion is formatted on a page that can guide read-
ers in accessing and processing it (e.g., head-
ings, subheadings, graphics, bolded words)
(see Gunning, 2000). If these formats, some-
times referred to as text features, are unfa-
miliar, they can be distracting and, in these
instances, may even decrease comprehen-
sion. For example, if children skip over cap-
Copyright 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Learning From Expository Texts 345
tions, text boxes, or graphicsassuming that
things that are not in the main text are not
importantthey may miss meaningful infor-
mation. Or if they do not realize that they
can use headings and subheadings to activate
prior knowledge or anticipate what the next
paragraph or section will be about, reading
will be more tedious, and comprehension and
retention may be reduced.
Explicitly teaching children to use text fea-
tures to their advantage has been shown to im-
prove their comprehension (Lorch & Lorch,
1995; Lorch, Lorch, & Inman, 1993; Meyer et
al., 1980; Meyer & Poon, 2001; Millis & Just,
1994). Thus teachers and SLPs need to show
children how to use some of the characteris-
tic features of informational texts to facilitate
comprehension and expand content learning.
Young readers often miss picture captions or
ignore text boxes that are not in the flow of
their traditional left to right, top to bottom
reading. Sometimes they are confused about
the sequence in which they should read text
boxes and other ancillary text. Teachers and
SLPs can teach children to use these aids both
in previewing and while reading an exposi-
tory text (Gunning, 2000). Such matters may
be presented to the full class in large group
format, with SLPs providing alternative or sup-
plemental small group instruction and prac-
tice for students who are less proficient. In-
structors can teach children to navigate their
way through the unique features of informa-
tional texts by (a) explaining the purpose of
the features (e.g., bold words, captions, text
boxes), (b) teaching children to understand
why headings/subheadings are created and
how to use them, and (c) providing children
with the necessary skills to read graphics and
other texts that are presented in a nontradi-
tional format.
Text Boxes and Sidebars
Text boxes and other visual asides are be-
coming more common in childrens books,
as readers of all ages become accustomed to
such features on websites. Gunning (2000)
suggested that teachers model use of these
aids by using think-aloud: for example, by
LWW/TLD TLD3004-02 October 28, 2010 0:31 Char Count= 0
346 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/OCTOBERDECEMBER 2010
saying, I dont get this. Ill take a look at this
[text box] (p. 309).
Bolding
Some authors use bolding to make impor-
tant words stand out. Children need to real-
ize that if certain words are important enough
that the author bolded them, they are impor-
tant enough that readers should pay careful
attention to them. Bolding is an intensifier. It
is often used to indicate titles and subtitles,
and it can be used to intensify other signifi-
cant words or phrases as well.
Conducting a bold word search before
reading an expository text is like using a pic-
ture walk for a narrative. The teacher or SLP
might ask children to turn through the pages
of the book (or section of the book) and
identify all of the bold words, with the in-
structor compiling a list. In addition to high-
lighting key vocabulary words, this process
can assist children in activating prior knowl-
edge and anticipating the main concepts
ahead. Once the list is complete, the students
discuss the words, and the teacher provides
opportunities for them to make connections
and notice meaningful relationships among
the words.
Headings and subheadings
If the headings and subheadings of an
informational text have been carefully con-
structed, they provide an outline of the text
or unit of text (such as a chapter). By scan-
ning them, students should be able to dis-
cern the structure, develop expectations for
the kind of information that will be included
in each section, and note how the support-
ing information lines up behind each major
idea. A teacher can scaffold comprehension,
by preparing a simple study guide that lists
headings and subheadings and leaves space
beneath each for students to make a note of
what is in the section (Graves et al., 2001).
Graphics
Teachers and SLPs can explicitly teach chil-
dren to read the graphics found in informa-
Copyright 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
tional texts. Children are naturally drawn to
graphics, but they need to be taught how to
use them (Graves et al., 2001) to provide ad-
ditional information to supplement and ex-
tend what they read in the written text. For
example, the second text page of Hurricane
Katrina (Ouellette, 2008) includes a simple
two-column table showing the wind speeds
of hurricanes of Categories 15. This is placed
opposite an excerpt from a news story about
Katrina at the Category 3 stage. Because the
text later takes readers through Katrina at Cat-
egory 5, this graphic helps readers to predict
how the storm is going to grow, and it is easy
to come back to if students want to refer to it
again later.
Diagrams and flow charts can help stu-
dents understand information and relation-
ships that are difficult to visualize. For exam-
ple in Weather, by Seymour Simon (1993),
there is an explanation of why the earth is
not evenly warmed by the sun. The relation-
ship of the equator and the poles is explained
briefly, and a diagram is shown with arrows
illustrating the direction from which the suns
rays strike these areas of the earth. Differences
in impact are made both clear and easy to
remember.
Maps are helpful as well, particularly where
perspective is concerned. For example, on
page 14 of Caves author Stephen Kramer has
included a map of the world showing the lime-
stone regions, in which limestone caves are
likely to be located. For children who might
have heard only about American caves and
caverns, the prevalence of caves in Europe,
Asia, and Africa changes that perspective con-
siderably. Children need to be taught where
to find the legend accompanying a map and
how to use the information in it (Graves et al.,
2001).
Such graphics as a table or matrix can com-
municate a great deal of information in a
small amount of space. For example, a sim-
ple matrix can provide information about five
different animals: what they are hunted for
and how that material is used. If written
in paragraph form, this information would
LWW/TLD TLD3004-02 October 28, 2010 0:31 Char Count= 0
require at least 23 paragraphs. Children
should be taught how to read a variety of com-
mon graphics (e.g., matrix, map, bar graph,
and captions) and how to create their own
graphics for reports or other informational
writing.
Text tools
Text tools can be used by readers to lo-
cate information. They include the table of
contents, glossary, and index. Although they
do not contribute directly to the comprehen-
sion process, such tools help readers deter-
mine whether a book will provide them with
the information they are looking for, give def-
initions of complex words, and function as a
guide for locating information. For example,
in Hurricane Katrina, Ouellette (2008) deals
with advanced concepts and uses some ad-
vanced vocabulary, especially with aspects re-
lated to geography and meteorology. Most of
the words are given simple, contextual defini-
tions in the text. There is a glossary with child-
friendly definitions at the back of the book,
but it does not contribute directly to com-
prehension of the running text. Additionally,
an index includes an extensive listing of top-
ics, persons, places, phenomena etc. that can
help students zero in on something they want
to find out about.
REFERENCES
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing
words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Calfee, R., & Chambliss, M. (1988). Beyond decoding:
Pictures of expository prose. Annals of Dyslexia, 38,
243257.
Calfee, R. C., & Patrick, C. L. (1995). Teach our children
well: Bringing K12 education into the 21st century.
Stanford: Stanford Alumni.
Carnine, D., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. J. (1990). Direct
instruction reading. Columbus: Merrill .
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The read-
ing crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Chambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (1989). Designing science
textbooks to enhance student understanding. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 24(3), 307322.
Copyright 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Learning From Expository Texts 347
CONCLUSION
The primary purposes of expository texts
are communicating information and teaching
concepts (Weaver & Kintsch, 1996). If stu-
dents are to access this information, teachers
and SLPs need to teach specific comprehen-
sion skills for expository materials.
Because these skills can be particularly dif-
ficult for children with language disabilities,
deficits, and delays, SLPs and teachers need
to collaborate in providing appropriate lev-
els of full-group instruction, supplementary
instruction, individualized support, personal-
ized scaffolding, and purposeful practice to al-
low all children in the classroom to learn and
participate. With their common goals and dif-
ferentiated expertise, they can work collabo-
ratively to plan and deliver appropriate high-
quality instruction on the necessary variety of
levels.
This article has considered these challenges
and suggested ways of handling them in el-
ementary classrooms that include students
both with and without language difficulties.
Despite differences in backgrounds, experi-
ences, and competency, students can learn to
comprehend expository texts if teachers and
SLPs will work collaboratively to enable them
to do so.
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers
about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Ed-
ucational Psychology, 80(4), 448456.
Dreher, M. J., & Dromsky, A. (2000, December). Increas-
ing the diversity of young childrens independent
reading. Paper presented at the National Reading Con-
ference, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Duke, N. K., & Kays, J. (1998). Can I say once upon a
time?: Kindergarten children developing knowledge
of information book language. Early Childhood Re-
search Quarterly, 13(2), 295318.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective prac-
tices for developing reading comprehension. In
A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What re-
search has to say about reading instruction (3rd
ed., pp. 205242). Newark: International Reading
Association.
LWW/TLD TLD3004-02 October 28, 2010 0:31 Char Count= 0
348 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/OCTOBERDECEMBER 2010
Ehren, B. J. (2000). Maintaining a therapeutic fo-
cus and sharing responsibility for student success:
Keys to in-classroom speech-language services. Lan-
guage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31,
219229.
Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E.H. (1984). Childrens devel-
oping awareness of text structures in expository ma-
terials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65
74.
Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text
structure in reading and writing: A comparison be-
tween learning disabled and non-learning disabled stu-
dents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 93105.
Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Farnan, N. (1986). A reading-writing
procedure that teaches expository paragraph struc-
ture. Reading Teacher, 39(6), 55662.
Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Im-
proving comprehension of expository text in students
with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 40(3), 210226.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading compre-
hension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gibbons, G. (1993). Caves and caverns. New York:
Harcourt Brace.
Graves, M. F., Juel, C., & Graves, B. B. (2001). Teaching
reading in the 21st century (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Gunning, T. G. (2000). Creating literacy instruction for
all children (3d ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hadden, D. S., & Pianta, R. B. (2006). Clinical consultation
with teachers for improved preschool literacy instruc-
tion. In L.M. Justice (Series Ed.), Emergent and Early
Literacy Series: Clinical approaches to emergent lit-
eracy intervention (pp. 99124). San Diego: Plural
Publishing.
Hall, K. M., Sabey, B. L., & McClellan, M. (2005). Ex-
pository text comprehension: Helping primary -grade
teachers use expository texts to their full advantage.
Reading Psychology, 26(3), 211234.
Hall, K. M., Smith, L. K., & Losser, J. L. (December, 2007).
Cooperative inquiry as professional development:
Learning how to use literacy skills to enhance con-
tent learning Paper presented at the National Reading
Conference, Austin.
Kramer, S. (1995). Caves. Minneapolis: Carolrhoda Books.
Lorch, R. F., Jr., Lorch, E. P., & Inman,W. E. (1993). Effects
of signaling topic structure in text recall. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 281290.
Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Lorch, E. P. (1995). Effects of organiza-
tional signals of text-processing strategies. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 87(4), 537544.
McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. (1985). Teaching exposi-
tory text structure to elementary students. Reading
Teacher, 39, 739748.
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of
top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehen-
sion of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quar-
terly, 16(1), 72103.
Copyright 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Meyer, B. J. (1975). Identification of the structure of prose
and its implications for the study of reading and mem-
ory. Journal of Reading Behavior, 7, 747.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse
type on recall. American Educational Research Jour-
nal, 21, 121143.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of structure
training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Ed-
ucational Psychology, 93, 141159.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1984). The structure of
text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol.
1, pp. 319352). New York: Longman.
Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of
connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of
Memory and Language, 33(1), 128147.
Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (1984). A quanti-
tative and qualitative review of graphic organizer
research. Journal of Educational Research, 78(1),
1117.
Ogle, D., & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2002). Beyond literature
circles: Helping students comprehend informational
texts. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehen-
sion instruction: Research-based best practice (pp.
259274). New York: The Guilford Press.
Ouellette, J. (2008). Hurricane Katrina. Edina: ABDO
Publishing.
Palmer, R. G., & Stewart, R. A. (2005). Models for using
nonfiction in the primary grades. Reading Teacher,
58(5), 426434.
Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative primary? Some inter-
esting insights from kindergartners pretend readings
of stories and information books. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 25(1), 97129.
Piccolo, J.A. (1987). Expository text structure: Teach-
ing and learning strategies. Reading Teacher, 40(9),
3847.
Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument:
Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improv-
ing learning from text. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 87(3), 455467.
Scott, C. M., & Balthazar, C. H. (2010). The grammar of
information: Challenges for older students with lan-
guage impairments. Topics in Language Disorders,
30(4), 288307.
Sheng, L., & McGregor, K. K. (2010, February). Lexical-
semantic organization in children with specific lan-
guage impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 33, 146159.
Silliman, E. R., Bahr, R., Beasman, J., & Wilkinson, L. C.
(2000, July). Scaffolds for learning to read in an inclu-
sion classroom. Language, Speech, and Hearing Ser-
vices in Schools, 31, 265279.
Simon, S. (1993). Weather. New York: Morrow Junior
Books.
Simon, S. (1994). Mountains. New York: Morrow Junior
Books.
Slater, W. H. (1985). Effects of structural organizers on
LWW/TLD TLD3004-02 October 28, 2010 0:31 Char Count= 0
ninth-grade students comprehension and recall of
four patterns of expository text. Reading Research
Quarterly, 20(2), 189202.
Smith, L., Draper, R. J., & Hall, K. (2005, April). Build-
ing scientific literacy using text structures. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the National Science
Teachers Association, Dallas.
Stahl, S. A., & Vancil, S. J. (1986). Discussion is what
makes semantic maps work in vocabulary instruction.
Reading Teacher, 40(1), 6267.
Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Rethinking reading
comprehension. New York: The Guilford Press.
Vukelich, C., Evans, C., & Albertson, B. (2003). Organiz-
ing expository texts: A look at possibilities. In D. M.
Barone, & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Literacy and young
children: Research-based practices (pp. 261288).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Expository text. In
Copyright 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Learning From Expository Texts 349
R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp.
230245). New York: Longman.
Williams, J. P. (1984). Categorization, macrostructure, and
finding the main idea. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 76(5), 87479.
Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, K.
B., DeSisto, L. A., & deCani, J. S. (2005). Exposi-
tory text comprehension in the primary grade class-
room. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4),
538550.
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 Educa-
tional Psychology, 101(1), 120.
Williams, J. P., Taylor, M. B., & de Cani, J. S. (1984). Con-
structing macrostructure for expository text. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 10651075.