Thinking through text comprehension III: The programing of verbal and investigative repertoires.

Abstract

Reading comprehension can be considered a complex human performance involving two integrated repertoires: a verbal repertoire and an investigative (generative) repertoire. The analytical and reasoning skills necessary to demonstrate reading comprehension can be systematically taught by analyzing the verbal and investigative repertoires involved and then arranging instructional contingencies designed to build and extend those repertoires. This paper describes the programing of such contingencies, drawing from the conceptual foundation outlined for reading comprehension (Layng, Sota, & Leon, 2011) and the analysis of the repertoires involved (Sota, Leon, & Layng, 2011).

Segment-Unit Reading Comprehension Training for Japanese Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Learning Disabilities

“…These data were previously presented as a part of a Japaneselanguage dissertation by Mikimasa Omori. Leon et al, 2011). Responses to closed-ended questions are often correlated with prior knowledge, whereas open-ended questions measure the quality of self-explanations (Ozuru et al, 2013).…”

The Evidence is in the Design

“…This foundational, consistent rationale for selecting and sequencing examples was outlined by Markle (1969) and is evident in Gilbert's (1912Gilbert's ( , 1969 mathetics, and Mechner's (1967) content and concept analysis protocols used in programmed instruction. More recent examples can be seen in internet-delivered instruction, such Headsprout Early Reading and Headsprout Reading Comprehension (see Layng et al, 2003Layng et al, , 2004Leon et al, 2011). The methods of analytical example sequencing in DI programs have strong researchtested support in the education literature.…”

How to Do Things With Texts: A Functional Account of Reading Comprehension

“…Although the polymorphous, dispositional, and adverbial features of the concept of comprehension do not map onto behavioral-analytic terms on a one-to-one basis (otherwise, they would not enlighten us in any way), we believe that this kind of conceptual analysis is (a) compatible with behavioral-analytic terminology and (b) an important part of functional analysis. Our analysis of comprehension is a token, not of empirical investigation (obviously) nor of theoretical construction (Leon, Layng, & Sota, 2011 ; for examples of these in the field of reading comprehension, see Sota, Leon, & Layng, 2011 ), but of what Machado and Silva ( 2007 ) regarded as one of the three pillars of scientific activity: conceptual clarification (mathematization/theory and empirical investigation/experimentation being the other two). The analysis of the concept of comprehension does not tell us anything about how, for example, shared reading interventions might help a child gain better comprehension of a story (an empirical question; for a recent example, see Gentilini & Greer, 2020 ), nor does it consist of theoretical proposals (as when we introduce the notion of degrees of embeddedness of reinforcement later in this article).…”