The document discusses expository text structure and its importance for student comprehension. It provides a matrix that describes five common types of expository text structures (description, sequence, comparison/contrast, cause/effect, problem/solution), including their defining attributes, example signal words, and suitable graphic organizers. The document also offers general teaching strategies for helping students identify different text structures, such as providing explicit instruction on structures and signal words, modeling identification techniques, and having students represent structures graphically.

1. NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
VOLUME 26, NUMBER 3, 2009-2010
EXPOSITORY TEXT STRUCTURE
Gerald J. Calais
McNeese State University
ABSTRACT
The demands of the Information Age make it imperative that students currently enrolled
in K-12 are equipped to effectively handle expository text materials if they are to become
viable citizens in today’s highly competitive, global economic markets. Accordingly, this
manuscript focuses on research findings that converge on five of the most prevalent
types of expository text structures that one encounters in today’s reading materials. A
matrix is employed that provides a description, signal words, and graphic organizers
associated with each text structure. General Strategies that teachers can use to enhance
students’ abilities to identify text structure are also provided, as are conclusions.
Expository Text Structure and Comprehension
A lthough text structure is typically divided into two categories
of text, narrative and expository, this manuscript will focus
primarily on expository text structure. Initially, research
findings regarding expository text structure will be discussed; then, a
matrix focusing on specific attributes of five types of expository text
structure will be presented. Finally, general strategies for enabling
teachers to enhance students’ abilities to successfully identify various
types of expository text structure will be provided.
Research Findings Regarding Expository Text Structure
Whereas narrative text is normally a story whose primary
function is to entertain the reader, expository text’s essential function,
in contrast, is to inform the reader (Weaver & Kintsch, 1991). Text
structure per se refers to a text’s organizational attributes that operate
as a pattern for guiding and aiding readers in detecting critical
81

2. 82 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL__________
information, plus the logical connections between a text’s ideas
(Seidenberg, 1989).
Textbooks, journals, encyclopedias, essays, and numerous
magazine articles are typical examples of expository text that learners
must read in school. Seidenberg (1989) asserts that successful school
achievement is highly dependent upon students’ ability to understand
and formulate such diverse expository prose. When reading content
area material (e.g., social studies, math, science), learners need to
distinguish amongst various types of text structure (Vacca & Vacca,
2008). While story grammars have been the major focus of research on
narrative text structure, research focusing on expository text structure
has encompassed a much broader array of organizational patterns.
Prevalent types of expository text structure include description,
sequence, comparison and contrast, cause and effect, and problem and
solution (Vacca & Vacca, 2008). Each category of expository text
structure exhibits a specific organizational pattern that reflects various
types of relations between critical textual information; moreover, each
type of expository text pattern employs specific signal words that are
unique to each type (e.g., next, first, last, and additionally are signal
words used in the sequence pattern).
According to Kintsch and Yarborough (1991), research
suggests that learners perform significantly better on measures of
global comprehension or macroprocesses (e.g., main ideas or topics)
rather than on local comprehension or microprocesses (e.g., facts)
when reading well-structured expository text.
Zabrucky and Ratner’s (1992) research findings suggest that
expository text and narrative text differentially effect readers, with
expository text definitely more difficult than narrative text regarding
both comprehension, as measured via recall, and comprehension
monitoring. Their study revealed that text type impacted both good
and poor readers’ recall and comprehension monitoring. Inconsistent
passages prompted significantly more look-backs for narrative than
expository passages, implying that narrative passages’ inconsistencies

3. Gerald J. Calais 83
were more transparent than expository passages’ inconsistencies.
Expository passages also proved to be more difficult than narrative
passages for students when verbally reporting on passage consistency.
Students’ expository passages were reread more frequently than
narrative passages when reading passages without inconsistencies,
indicating that expository passages were more problematic than
narrative type.
Despite the high positive correlation between reading
comprehension and well-organized text structure, text structure alone
may be inadequate to promote reading comprehension because an
additional pivotal dimension is essential: awareness of, or sensitivity
to, text structure. According to Weaver & Kintsch (1991), the
performance results of learners who read appropriately structured,
lucidly cued text and who were assessed through measures of global
comprehension (e.g., main ideas) indicated that learners acquainted
with text structure significantly outperformed those who lacked
familiarity regarding text structure. Pearson and Fielding (1991)
corroborated the aforementioned study’s findings by observing two
systematic findings: First, students familiar with text structure recalled
more appropriate information than students who were unfamiliar with
text structure. Second, in recalling text, significantly more good
readers than poor readers follow the author’s text structure.
Research further suggests that students differ not only in being
aware of text structure but also in being aware of different text
structures. For example, Graesser, Golding, and Long (1991) found
evidence that students are far more aware of narrative than expository
text structure. On the other hand, Zabrucky & Ratner (1992) found
that narrative text structure is both easier to recall and comprehend
than is expository text structure. In addition, Englert and Thomas
(1987) showed that students’ awareness of text structure even differs
in terms of the different types of expository text structure. More
specifically, they found that among four different categories of
expository text structure that students were significantly more familiar
with sequence text structure than with enumeration or description text

4. 84 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL__________
structure; they also found that both enumeration and sequence text
structure were easier than comparison and contrast text structure.
Finally, they also discovered that awareness of expository text
structure appeared to be developmental because older students’
awareness of expository text structure was significantly greater than
that of younger students. Having discussed research findings about
expository text structure, the next section discusses a matrix that
provides information about five dominant types of expository text
structure.
Five Types of Expository Text Structure Matrix
Figure 1 below provides information associated with five
popular types of expository text structure commonly employed in
materials used for students in K-12 classrooms: description, sequence,
comparison and contrast, cause and effect, and problem and solution
(Vacca & Vacca, 20). Upon examination, the matrix in Figure 1
describes each text structure along three dimensions. First, it describes
unique attributes associated with each text structure and also provides
an example of where and how it is used. Second, the matrix provides
specific examples of signal words associated with each type of text
structure. Third, various graphic organizers are suggested as a means
of graphically representing or explicating information reflecting each
of the text types. It should be noted that only one example was
provided for how and where a specific text type could be applied;
naturally, other examples as well as other disciplines could have
equally applied. In addition, the list of signal words typically
associated with each text type and the suggested ways to graphically
represent each text type are not meant to be exhaustive. Note, too,
how many dimensions are associated with the cause and effect text
pattern.

5. Gerald J. Calais 85
Table 1
Five Types of Expository Text Structure Matrix
Text Description Associated Graphic Organizer
Structure Signal Words
Description Resembles an outline by For example, Bubble map, spider
providing information for instance, map, network tree,
(attributes, examples, such as, in semantic word map,
facts, features) about a addition, looks semantic webbing,
topic based on criteria like, in back of, modified Frayer model,
such as importance or to begin with clustering, cubing,
size. Herringbone technique,
concept of definition
Example: A science book
may describe an animal
cell or a volcano.
Sequence Implicitly or explicitly On (date), first, Series-of-Events
indicates the numerical second, last, Chain, continuum
or chronological order in then, finally, scale, cycle, timeline,
which facts, events, or initially, flowchart
concepts occur by tracing preceding, not
the evolution of the topic long after
or the steps entailed in
the sequence.
Example: A science text
discusses the steps in the
life cycle of a butterfly.
A history text explains
the events that led to the
Great Depression or
WWII.
Table 1 Continues

6. 86 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL__________
Table 1 Continued
Text Description Associated Graphic Organizer
Structure Signal Words
Comparison/ Specifies similarities Similar to, Compare/contrast matrix,
Contrast (comparison) and/or different from, double bubble map, Venn
differences (contrast) however, in diagram, ladder map,
among objects, common, flowcharts, semantic
events, facts, although, not feature analysis,
concepts, etc. only…but also analogies
Cause and Demonstrates how Consequently, Single cause and single
Effect facts, events, or therefore, effect, single cause and
ideas (effects) because, as a multiple effects, multiple
materialize due to result, since, causes and single effect,
other facts, events, if…then, thus, multiple causes and
or ideas (causes). leads to multiple effects,
Herringbone technique,
Example: A science cycle, a string of slightly
book explains the overlapping circles,
causes and effects of central concept with
a tornado. cause and effect
explanations
Problem and Reveals the This led to, Problem/Solution outline,
Solution evolution of a because, flowchart, IDEAL
problem and the problem is, Problem Solving
solution (s) to the if/then, Framework, task analysis,
problem. consequently, fuzzy cognitive maps,
nevertheless, establishing problematic
Example: A science accordingly situations, discussion
chapter discusses the webs
problem of global
warming and asks
for proposed
solutions, or a social
studies chapter
discusses the
problem of slavery
in the Old South and
asks for proposed
solutions to avoid a
Civil War.

7. Gerald J. Calais 87
General Strategies for Identifying Expository Text Structure
From a practical standpoint, there are a variety of strategies
that the classroom teacher can utilize to enhance students’ abilities to
identify and employ expository text structure for both reading and
writing (Simonsen, 1996):
(1) Initially advise students that expository texts exhibit specific
text structures. Inform students that various organizational
patterns (e.g., sequence, description, comparison and contrast)
are used to compose expository texts (e.g., science, social
studies, and math textbooks) and that text structures are what
organizational patterns are called.
(2) Provide students with explicit classroom instruction when
introducing them to signal words and five common types of
expository text structure: description, sequence, comparison
and contrast, cause and effect, and problem and solution.
Inform students under what specific circumstances certain
signal words (e.g., first, second, initially) can be used to
identify specific text structures (e.g., sequence) while reading
various content areas or when composing expository text.
(3) Scaffold instruction with sample paragraphs corresponding
with the five common types of expository text structure and
provide students with focusing questions. The teacher could
provide students with different clues, supports, and focusing
questions while endeavoring to distinguish amongst the five
types of text structure typically found in various content texts,
such as sample situations of where and when these text
structures are usually applied. Also, let students know that the
same topic could be written by using one of several types of
expository text structure. For example, WWII could use
description, sequencing, or cause and effect. Let them also
know that at other times, a specific text structure serves as the
most powerful way to discuss a topic. For example, if asked to
write about the American Revolution, the French Revolution,

8. 88 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL__________
and the Russian Revolution, that comparison and contrast
would probably be the single most effective way to
compose/discuss this topic.
(4) Model writing strategies that focus on specific types of text
structure. For example, while writing a paragraph depicting a
specific text structure, the teacher could describe what s/he is
doing.
(5) Model a metacognitive strategy: think-alouds. Initially, the
teacher models this strategy; then the students are encouraged
to demonstrate this strategy while trying to identify text
structure, such as identifying the textual clues used in a given
text while they attempt to identify text structure.
(6) Have students explicate text structures by using graphic
organizers while reading and writing. For example, the teacher
models the graphical representation or explication of specific
paragraphs while one reads or writes expository text.
Conclusions
The demands of the Information Age, which has
ushered in gargantuan quantities and varieties of information,
make it imperative that students currently enrolled in K-12 are
equipped to effectively handle expository text materials if they
are to become viable citizens in today’s highly competitive,
global economic markets. Modeling and teaching our students
how to perceive the five most common types of expository text
structure (description, sequence, comparison and contrast,
cause and effect, and problem and solution) while reading, how
to employ them while writing, and how to charter or explicate
them while reading and writing will enhance their chances of
achieving a successful future. Fortunately, teachers have a
variety of strategies at their disposal for methodically

9. Gerald J. Calais 89
familiarizing students with expository text structure while
reading or writing.
REFERENCES
Content literacy: Text structure (n.d.). Retrieved September 15, 2008,
from http://www.literacymatters.org/content/text/intro.htm
Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in
reading and writing: A comparison between learning disabled
and non-learning disabled students. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 10, 93-105.
Graesser, A., Golding, J. M., & Long, D. L. (1991). Narrative
representation and comprehension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.
Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 2, pp. 171-204). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Kintsch, W. & Yarbrough, J.C. (1982). Role of rhetorical structure in
text comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,
828 834.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In
R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 815-860). White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Seidenberg, P. L. (1989). Relating text-processing research to reading
and writing instruction for learning disabled students.
Learning Disabilities Focus, 5 (1), 4-12.
Simonsen, S. (1996). Identifying and Teaching Text Structures in
Content Area Classrooms. In D. Lapp, J. Flood, & N. Farnan
(Eds.), Content area reading and learning: Instructional
strategies (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Using text structure (n.d.). Retrieved September 15, 2008, from
www.nea.org/reading/usingtextstructure.html
Words That Signal a Text's Organizational Structure (n.d.). Retrieved
September 15, 2008, from
www.somers.k12.ny.us/intranet/reading/signalwords.html

10. 90 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL__________