learning about learning disabilities || highlights in reading comprehension intervention research...

191Learning about Learning Disabilities© 2012 Elsevier Inc.

All rights reserved.2012

Highlights in Reading Comprehension Intervention Research for Students with Learning DisabilitiesLinda H. Mason1, and Jessica L. Hagaman21The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA 2University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, WI 53190, USA

7

Chapter Contents

Introduction 191Reading Comprehension for Students with Learning Disabilities 192Impact of Decoding and Fluency on Comprehension 193Narrative Text 194

Narrative Text Interventions 195Expository Text 199

Text Enhancements 200Cognitive Strategy Instruction 203Multicomponent Interventions 206

Peer-Assisted Intervention in the Inclusive Classroom 207CSR 208PALS 208

Discussion 209References 210

CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION

In 1993, Durkin referred to reading comprehension as the “essence of reading.” Given that the underlying purpose of reading is to construct meaning from text, Durkin’s statement is even more applicable today; skills for constructing meaning from text are vital to success in the 21st century. As students progress through school, reading for comprehension becomes important not just in language arts classes, but also in content area classes such as science and social studies where information derived from text becomes a primary source of knowledge (Smagorinsky, 2001). Moreover, assessment data suggests that ability to read predicts academic

http://dx.doi.org/

Learning about Learning Disabilities192

achievement in core areas such as mathematics (e.g., The American College Testing Program, Inc.: ACT, 2006). However, the importance of reading for understanding is not limited to school.

Proficient reading comprehension skills are becoming increasingly important beyond school and are required for success in society. Today’s youth, for example, are required to have more advanced literacy skills (i.e., advanced comprehension of text) than any other generation to keep up with the increasing demands of the workplace (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006). It has been predicted that almost 90% of high-wage jobs will require at least some postsecondary education (U.S. Department of Labor, 2006). Another estimate suggests that the 25 fastest growing professions, such as professional, business, education, and health services, have far-greater-than-average liter-acy demands, with roughly 50% of all job growth between 2004 and 2014 requiring high-level literacy skills (Barton, 2000). These predictions suggest that without proficient literacy skills, employment is limited.

In addition to the increase in literacy demands in the workplace, stu-dents must acquire strong literacy skills to sort through the flood of information, such as web-based resources, that confronts them daily. This requires students to gather, comprehend, evaluate, and synthesize infor-mation from a wide range of narrative and expository media forms (e.g., print and nonprint; Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO, 2010]). For students to successfully navigate information, they must have the skills to differentiate between the various narrative and expository text types and be able to understand the different purposes for reading.

READING COMPREHENSION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Reading comprehension is often a challenge for many students especially those with learning disabilities (LD) who may still be gaining reading skills such as decoding and fluency. In addition, for some students with LD, the struggle with reading comprehension continues, even with improved decod-ing and fluency skills. Generally speaking, students with LD may have dif-ficulty comprehending what they read for several reasons. For example, students with LD often have difficulty attending to the meaning of text, relating what is being read to prior knowledge, making inferences, and iden-tifying main ideas (Taylor, Alber, & Walker, 2002). Many students with LD lack the metacognitive skills required for comprehension and as a result fail to engage in strategic reading behaviors such as monitoring understanding as

Highlights in Reading Comprehension Intervention Research for Students 193

they read, and using strategies when comprehension breaks down (Torgesen, 1977). Moreover, students with LD frequently confuse different text struc-tures (i.e., narrative, expository), which interferes with reading strategy selection and subsequent comprehension of material (Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2007). It is also important to note that the difficulties experi-enced by students with LD are not independent of one other. That is, there appears to be a multifaceted, reciprocal relationship between the underlying processes of comprehension that often result in complex reading problems (Graham & Bellert, 2004). To understanding these complex difficulties, it is important to consider the prerequisite reading skills of decoding and fluency.

IMPACT OF DECODING AND FLUENCY ON COMPREHENSION

Students with LD are likely to experience difficulties with important foundational reading skills such as decoding and fluency. Difficulties with these skills interfere with students’ ability to effectively comprehend what they read. To successfully comprehend text, readers must identify letters and words; must process the meaning of those words; and integrate the meaning of individual words with the overall meaning of the sentence, paragraph, and text (Best, Floyd, & McNamara, 2008). Hence, reading requires the coordination of many processes such as word or text decod-ing, fluency, and vocabulary knowledge. Readers who cannot identify and decode words cannot focus the necessary attention on comprehension. This is because their cognitive resources are consumed by laborious efforts at decoding, leaving little for text comprehension. Conversely, readers’ automatic or effortless decoding of words frees up their cognitive resources to focus on constructing meaning of the text (Kuhn, 2005). It follows for the same reason that rate, speed, and accuracy in readers’ text reading also influence how much is understood (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2005).

Students with LD often struggle to read fluently (Therrien, Wickstrom, & Jones, 2006). These difficulties may stem from problems in reading sight words or decoding words, highlighting the complex relationship among the composite skills that make up reading comprehension. Whatever the cause(s) of decoding problems may be for individual students with LD, their effortful decoding can negatively affect their motivation to read because so much time and effort is spent on decoding text that they do not see reading as an enjoyable task. Thus for students with LD, the nega-tive impact of effortful decoding goes beyond reading comprehension.


Understanding the possible underlying deficits that influence compre-hension is important. Specifically, if students with LD lack a sufficient foun-dation in decoding and fluency, intervention planning should include skill building, as both decoding and fluency have an important role in students’ ability to comprehend text. In fact, studies have found that interventions targeted at improving a foundational reading skill and reading comprehen-sion can have positive effects on both skills. For example, in a repeated read-ing for fluency experimental study (i.e., randomized control), 60 students in grades four through eight were taught how to generate questions while reading narrative text (Therrien et al., 2006). The researchers paired repeated reading with question generation in an eight-step intervention called “Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend” (RAAC). Students were taught to answer five questions while reading: (1) Who is the main character? (2) Where and when did the story take place? (3) What did the main character do? (4) How did the story end? and (5) How did the main character feel? Following a four-month period of instruction, students performed signifi-cantly better than control on the DIBELS oral reading fluency test (Effect Size: ES = .89)1 and the WJ-III Broad Reading Scale (ES = .69).

Another common reason that students with LD may struggle with reading comprehension, as noted previously, is because they fail to dif-ferentiate between different types of text (Englert & Thomas, 1987). As a result, they may not understand that texts may be read for different pur-poses, have different structures, and therefore require different strategies. Two of the most common types of text that students will encounter in schools are narrative and expository. This review of intervention research is framed within these two broad textual contexts.

NARRATIVE TEXT

From an early age, students are exposed to narratives in various forms. Narratives, for example, can be presented aurally, through pictures, on television, or from text (Kremer, Lynch, van de Broek et al., 2008). The structure of narrative texts is often referred to as a “story grammar”. Story grammars contain similar elements and structure such as characters; setting (when and where); action or problem to be solved; a conclusion or resolu-tion; and emotion (Short & Ryan, 1984). Understanding the structure of

1 Effect sizes for group studies are considered to be small (.20), medium (.50), or large (.80) as suggested by Cohen (Huck, 2000).


narrative texts helps the reader to make predictions, to organize informa-tion, to generate inferences (Trabasso & Wiley, 2005), and to construct a mental representation of the text (van den Broek et al., 2005), thus facili-tating comprehension.

Researchers suggest that students with LD may struggle with multi-ple aspects of narrative text. Specifically, students with LD may struggle to identify relevant information and theme in stories, and fail to iden-tify important story components or structures such as setting and plot (Williams, 2005). Griffith and colleagues found that students with LD did not have a strong sense of story grammar when compared to their nondisabled peers (Griffith, Dastoli, Ripich, & Nwakanma, 1985; Griffith, Ripich, & Dastoli, 1986). In the two studies, students with LD recalled fewer details from simple stories than their nondisabled peers. In addition, when stories became more complex and included more detail, the recall of students with LD was much lower than their nondisabled peers, sug-gesting that students with LD struggle to attend to important information in narrative text.

Narrative Text InterventionsStudies have shown that explicit instruction in underlying narrative text structure, or story grammars, can help students with LD improve com-prehension (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Explicit instruction is critical as it provides students a framework for organizing thinking and for generalizing understanding to new situations. The following sections describe research that has examined improving students’ narrative compre-hension by applying story grammar to text that is read aloud to students, and by teaching story mapping and self-questioning strategies. Interventions that combine approaches for reading comprehension are also noted.

Story Grammar for a Read AloudResearchers have suggested that students may benefit from instruction in story grammar components, even before students are able to read a story on their own. Garner and Bochna (2004), for example, taught first grad-ers to use a story structure strategy while listening to stories. Following instruction, students who were taught story grammar were able to recall more information from the story than students who were not taught story structure.

In a quasi-experimental study for young struggling learners with and without disabilities, Stevens, Van Meter, and Warcholak (2010) trained


four kindergarten (K) teachers three first grade teachers, two primary (K—second grade) self-contained special education class teachers, to teach story structure elements. Teachers read stories aloud while explicitly teaching elements of story structure (e.g., main character, setting). Results indicated that the intervention resulted in significant increases in compre-hension with small effects, ES = .23 and .39 for free and prompted recall respectively. There were no significant differences for students of low and high ability or special education status. These findings suggest that insert-ing instruction in story grammar elements into common reading routines (e.g., reading a story aloud) can have positive effects on students’ ability to comprehend narrative text and should be considered for further evalua-tion for young students with LD who may be nonreaders.

Story MappingStory mapping, a well-studied intervention for students with LD, is a visual representation or graphic organizer, of the structure of narrative text. Generally, when teaching story mapping, students are asked to cre-ate an outline or detailed picture that includes main elements of a nar-rative text, creating a schema between what the reader knows and the text read. In two multiple-baseline studies, Idol (1987) and Idol and Croll (1987) investigated the effects of story mapping with five third and fourth grade, and five second through fifth grade students with LD. After using a model-lead-test approach with question prompts for teaching students to complete a story map (setting—characters, time, place; the problem; the goal; action; and the outcome) while reading, students significantly improved performance in answering comprehension questions. In both studies student performance on comprehension questions maintained after instruction and generalized to listening comprehension and standard-ized reading comprehension tests. Curriculum-based measures were also improved in Idol (1987); however, mixed with the two reading programs tested in Idol and Croll (1987). Spontaneous retelling also yielded mixed results (Idol & Croll, 1987); researchers noted that explicit instruction in story retelling and for specific reading programs, for some students with LD, is needed.

Vallecorsa and DeBettencourt (1997) examined the effects of story mapping on reading comprehension performance with three middle school students with LD. Story mapping instruction included elements (characters; time; place/locale; the problem; the goal—starter event, actions/episodes, reaction; and outcome/ending) developed by Graham


and MacArthur (1987) and question prompts developed by Idol (1987) and Idol and Croll (1987). Researchers in this study used oral and written retelling as the outcome measures. Significant gains in level and trend data for oral retelling were noted following story mapping instruction; how-ever, the results for the written retell were mixed and only improved after explicit story writing instruction was provided. The importance of explicit instruction for each literacy area, reading and writing, was noted.

Gardill and Jitendra (1999) used explicit instruction in advanced story map note sheets to help six middle school students identify information that was explicitly stated in passages, and to identify information inferred or unstated. Students addressed story components developed by Carnine, Silbert, and Kame’enui (1997) while reading: (1) Name the problem or conflict; (2) Identify the main characters and describe them; (3) Where did the story take place? (4) Tell how the characters try to solve the problem; (5) Is there an added twist or complication in the story? (6) Tell how the problem is or is not solved; and (7) What is the theme of the story? What is the author trying to say? Students were taught the strategy in pairs over a 14–20 week period. Following instruction, students were able to recall more story elements than were initially recalled in baseline, with a mean percent increase of 26%. In addition, increased generalization (as measured with a novel passage and oral story retells) was noted across all six partici-pants. The authors, however, noted that identifying story themes was dif-ficult and required additional instruction.

In a later descriptive ABC (baseline, intervention, maintenance) study, six 3rd and 4th grade students with LD were taught to create story maps after reading narrative text (Boulineau, Fore, Hagan-Burke, & Burke, 2004). After five days of instruction in story mapping (setting/time; main character; episode(s)—problem, solution, outcome; reaction; theme) the authors reported that five of the six participants showed mean increases, from what was noted in baseline, in recall of character, setting, and time. As in Gardill and Jitendra (1999), narrative elements such as theme, outcome, and reaction/emotions were difficult for the students, and required addi-tional instruction.

Self-Questioning InterventionsSelf-questioning is the act of asking questions before, during, and after reading a text to facilitate understanding (Wong & Jones, 1982). Good readers do many of these things naturally when reading narrative text. For example, a good reader might read the title of a passage and make a


prediction about what they will be reading. Struggling readers often approach reading passively. By explicitly teaching struggling readers how and when to self-question, reading comprehension can be enhanced. Taylor and colleagues (2002) compared story mapping and self-questioning with five students with LD in third through fifth grade. The authors reported that both story mapping and self-questioning resulted in higher levels of comprehension as measured by quizzes. They noted that, while not sta-tistically significant, it appeared that students taught self-questioning per-formed higher than those taught the story mapping strategy.

In an extensive program of research that spans narrative and exposi-tory text comprehension, Williams and colleagues (see Williams, 2005 for an overview of the program) developed a self-questioning interven-tion variation, Themes Instruction Program, targeting the complex task of theme. The approach, for narrative text, was tested in four random-ized control studies: two studies with seventh and eighth grade students with LD (Williams, Brown, Silverstein, & DeCani, 1994), one study with middle students with LD (Wilder & Williams, 2001), and one study with elementary students (Williams, Lauer, Hall, Lord, Gugga, Bak et al., 2002). The intervention, which was scaffolded for student age and ability level, included: (1) discussion before reading; (2) story reading (reading aloud for younger students); (3) self-questions for discussing key elements; (4) story theme identification and generalization to a variety of situations; and (5) theme knowledge and story structure transfer to other story exam-ples and/or real-life experience. Results were impressive with significant effects noted after instruction across grade levels and settings. Elementary students, for example, were able to successfully identify themes in stories they had not been exposed to during instruction with strong post instruc-tion results, ES = .68 to 2.71. Although the authors note the challenges in teaching theme to students with LD (e.g., “both teachers and students felt that the program was excessively slow and redundant;” Williams et al., 1994, p. 219), the results of this line of inquiry indicate promise for this difficult area of reading comprehension.

Combining Comprehension InterventionsSeveral researchers have investigated the effects of combined interventions on student comprehension of narrative text. For example, in an exper-imental components analysis study with 47 fourth through sixth grade students with LD, Johnson, Graham, and Harris (1997) implemented a story grammar strategy intervention (Who, When, Where, What did the


character(s) do? What happened next? How did the character(s) feel? How did the story end?). Strategy instruction alone was compared with strategy instruction combined with explicit instruction for student self- regulation for goal setting, self-instruction, or goal setting and self-instruction. Results of a story retelling assessment indicated significant results pre- to post-test and pre- to maintenance-test for all groups; how-ever, no additive effect for self-regulation procedures was noted for the students in this study. Researchers noted that explicit instruction for the story grammar strategy, in all conditions, was intense and extensively sup-ported and scaffolded; therefore many components of self-regulation may have been implicitly imbedded.

Faggella-Luby, Denton, and Deshler (2007) investigated the effects of teaching Embedded Story Structure (ESS) to a heterogeneous group of ninth grade students, 14 identified with LD. ESS instruction included instruction for three reading strategies: student self-questioning, story-structure analysis, and summarizing. Students randomly assigned to ESS instruction outperformed students assigned to comprehension skill instruction (CSI) on measures of strategy use and story structure knowl-edge. On a measure of unit reading comprehension after instruction, ESS students scored significantly higher (ES = .78) than students in CSI. Moreover, results indicated equivalent gains for ESS students regardless of disability versus nondisability category.

In summary, the highlighted research for narrative text reading com-prehension clearly indicates the benefits of explicit instruction for story grammar strategies across multiple measures of reading comprehension. Researchers noted for more complex tasks such as story retelling, theme development, and writing, additional and intense instruction is often required for students with LD.

EXPOSITORY TEXT

Expository text differs substantially from narrative as it is written, often in an inconsistent style, to communicate truth or empirical facts, theories, and dates (Bakken & Whedon, 2002; Graesser, Leon, & Otero, 2002). Four characteristics—unfamiliar text structures, conceptual density, vocabu-lary complexity, and expectation of prior knowledge—make expository text challenging for students with LD (Saenz & Fuchs, 2002). Expository texts are written using unfamiliar structures such as lists, compare-contrast, time-sequence, procedural, problem-solution, classification, concept, and


cause-effect or are written in a hybrid, mixed-text style (Mason & Hedin, 2012). Expository text is often conceptually dense with abstract logical-causal relationships (Gertsen et al., 2001) and contains vocabulary that is more difficult than narrative vocabulary. In addition, expository text pro-vides little opportunity for vocabulary development placing students with LD at a great disadvantage (Roberts, Torgesen, Boardman, & Scammacca, 2008).

As noted previously for story grammar, exposure to expository mate-rial should begin early, for both emerging and struggling readers. Teachers should provide time for comprehension acquisition during a read-aloud and support students’ awareness of text features (Smolkin & Donovan, 2003). Fortunately for more proficient readers, researchers have docu-mented the positive effects of expository reading comprehension inter-ventions that address comprehension difficulties by enhancing text and by providing cognitive strategy instruction. Several thorough meta-analyses of expository text interventions have been published (Berkley, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2010; Dexter & Hughes, 2011; Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007) and have been utilized in this review, when appropriate, for report-ing effect sizes.

Text EnhancementsText enhancements include routines and practices that assist students in identifying, organizing, comprehending, and recalling key informa-tion. Mastropieri and Scruggs (1994) noted large comprehension effects (ES = .92) when text enhancement instruction was used for students with LD; however, caution that although text enhancements support students’ learning, students with LD need systematic instruction in how to use these supports. Research-based enhancement interventions for students with LD can be categorized as graphic organizers, mnemonics, and com-puter assisted instruction.

Graphic OrganizersGraphic organizers promote students learning by making learning and abstract concepts more concrete. In a recent meta-analysis of 55 group experimental studies, Dexter and Hughes (2011) noted five categories of graphic organizers: cognitive mapping, semantic mapping (SM), seman-tic features analysis (SFA), syntactic/semantic features analysis (SSFA), and visual display. Results of the meta-analysis yielded a large post-test effect for students with LD in factual comprehension, vocabulary, and written


recall following graphic organizer instruction, ES = .91. Effects gen-erally maintained over time, ES = .56, with the drop explained due to interventions of short range. Findings also indicated that students gen-eralized instruction to near and far transfer tasks. Graphic organizers, as reviewed by Dexter and Hughes, were noted to have the strongest effects for science learning. Several key studies, reviewed next, illustrate effective graphic organizer instruction for students with LD.

Cognitive MappingA cognitive map assists students by linking ideas and relationships with cues such as lines, arrows, and spacial arrangements. Two experimental studies (Boyle, 1996, 2000) tested cognitive mapping (linking main ideas and details in study one with middle school students; a Venn diagram in study two with high school students) for improving students’ literal and inferential read-ing comprehension. Students receiving the cognitive mapping intervention outperformed control on literal comprehension in both studies with strong effects for literal comprehension and inferential comprehension.

SM, SFA, and SFFAIn seven experimental studies, Bos, Anders, and colleagues investigated the effects of SM, SFA, and SFFA instruction for middle and high school stu-dents with LD. SM includes arrangements of concepts that demonstrate the relationship of a superordinate concept with coordinate concepts, examples, functions, and/or characteristics and are generally created col-laboratively by the teacher and the students (Bos & Anders, 1990, 1992). SFA is similar to SM with key information included in a matrix format with vocabulary for superordinate concepts listed at the top and coordi-nate concepts, examples, functions, and/or characteristics along the side of the chart (Bos, Anders, Filip, & Jaffee, 1989). SSFA extends SFA by replac-ing key vocabulary with cloze sentences in place of vocabulary (Bos & Anders 1992; Study 1 and 2). In 1990, Bos and Anders compared the effects of SM, SFA, SSFA, and definition instruction on vocabulary learn-ing, reading comprehension, and written retells with 61 middle school students with LD. Results indicated that students in SM, SFA, and SSFA outperformed students in definition instruction at post-test, SSFA outper-formed at maintenance on reading comprehension measures. Results for the vocabulary post-test indicated that SM and SFA were more effective than definition instruction; however, in maintenance testing the SM, SFA, and SSFA conditions outperformed the definition comparison. There were


no significant differences for SM, SFA, or SSFA on any written retell mea-sure; however, SFA and SSFA did have significant scores at maintenance when compared to definition instruction. There were no differences in SM, SFA, and SSFA during post-test or maintenance for reading compre-hension, vocabulary, or written retell.

Visual DisplayThe use of visual display for graphically organizing expository text informa-tion has been tested in six experimental studies with students with LD in grades four through high school (Darch & Carnine, 1986; Darch, Carnine, & Kame’enui, 1986; Darch & Eaves, 1986; Datch & Gersten,1986; Griffin, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1991; DiCecco & Gleason, 2002). In visual displays, concepts are clearly presented temporally as in timeline or life cycle, spa-tially as in a decision tree, sequentially, hierachally, or comparatively (Hughes, Maccini, & Gagnon, 2003). In the first four studies conducted by Darch and colleagues, students were provided a visual display organizer prior to read-ing and then completed the organizer by filling in information (e.g., writing main ideas) during reading and learning activities. In these studies, students demonstrated significant improvement, compared to the comparison treat-ment (basal reading approach, formal teacher presentation/teacher-led dis-cussion, and text/teacher-led discussion), in comprehension as measured by free recall and/or cued comprehension tests. Interestingly, in the next study (Griffin et al., 1991), students receiving the visual display treatment per-formed comparably to students receiving the comparison treatment, “list of facts”. Griffin and colleagues noted that the geometric shapes and successive presentation in the graphic organizer may not have adequately communi-cated idea relationships or may have been visually distracting or confusing to students with LD, and caution that great care should be given when creating graphic organizers. Dicecco & Gleason (2002) used graphic organizers as an after reading activity; results of students’ written knowledge essays indicated significant differences favoring intervention students over a “no graphic organizer” control for relational knowledge statements. No differences were found for factual content knowledge.

MnemonicsBy enhancing student learning through mnemonic instruction, students with LD learn to improve retention of essential information in expository text. In four randomized control experiments, Mastropieri, Scruggs, and colleagues (Brigham, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 1995; Mastropieri, Scruggs, &


Levin, 1987; Scruggs, Mastropieri, McLoone, Levin, & Morrison, 1987), for example, found that mnemonic illustrations inserted into text, compared to inserted descriptive illustrations, significantly improved students’ text recall. Use of a keyword mnemonic method (i.e., using a familiar/keyword such as conquer to learn an unknown word such as conquistador) has also been noted to improve comprehension (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Fulk, 1990). Results of meta-analysis indicate that mnemonic interventions have yielded a large overall effect (ES = 1.62) for elementary and secondary students with LD, indicating the benefits of this intervention for students with LD (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2000).

Computer Assisted InstructionMulti-media technology and computers have been effectively used to enhance text in two studies. In an experimental study with 21 middle school social studies students, Okolo and Ferretti (1996) investigated the effects of integrating multi-media technology with project-based learning; a small effect (ES = .21) was obtained on a knowledge test, favoring students in the enhanced treatment condition. McArthur and Haynes (1995) evaluated the effects of a hypermedia format with embedded enhancements on science text comprehension of ten students with LD in grades nine and ten. Enhanced text versions included highlighted main ideas, visual questions related to vari-ous text sections, teacher comments and notes, and a glossary. All but one stu-dent demonstrated improved comprehension with medium effects (ES = .50).

Cognitive Strategy InstructionThe most consistent positive gains in expository reading comprehension for students with LD follow explicit cognitive strategy instruction (CSI). For example, Gajria et al. (2007) found, in their meta-analysis of 15 cogni-tive strategy instruction studies, an aggregate effect size of 1.83. As will be described, CSI intervention may include a combination of strategies and procedures to teaching and supporting self-regulated learning.

Main Idea Identification and SummarizationStudents with LD often miss the main ideas and important details when reading expository text (Wong, 1980) and do not consistently attempt to repair misunderstandings while reading (Carlisle, 1999). Reviewed research-based interventions for supporting remediation of these defi-cits include self-questioning, paraphrasing, summarization, and question-answer relationships (QAR).


Self-QuestioningWong and Jones’ (1982) experimental study and Wong, Wong, Perry, and Sawtsky’s (1986) single subject design study evaluated the effects of self-questioning training for concept text reading with eighth and ninth grade students. Training included five steps: (a) Ask, “What are you studying this passage for?” (b) Find and underline the main idea; (c) Think of a question about the main idea; (d) Learn the answer to the question; and (e) Look back at questions and answers. Although small effects (ES = .49; Gajria et al., 2007), for the experimental study, were obtained on measures of reading comprehension, these early studies laid the groundwork for the use of self-questioning in cognitive strategy development for students with LD.

ParaphrasingInstruction for a main idea strategy (i.e., RAP: Read a paragraph, Ask yourself what the paragraph was about, Put the main idea and two details in your own words) was tested in three experimental studies with students with LD. The interventions included principles of direct instruction (e.g., teacher-led modeling, guided practice, and feedback). In each study, main idea strategy instruction was enhanced by including self-monitoring train-ing (ES = 4.59 in Graves, 1986; ES = 2.55 in Graves & Levin, 1989), or repeated reading (ES = 4.17 in Ellis & Graves 1990) resulting in strong gains (Gajria et al., 2007).

In 2000, Jitendra, Hoppes, and Xin taught 33 middle school stu-dents (29 with LD) specific steps for identifying main ideas through self- questioning. Lesson passages included a different text structure (e.g., single subject and action, cause and effect, time sequence, description or procedure). Students received scaffolded support for main idea strategy implementation and for self-monitoring with a prompt card (Does the paragraph tell: What or who the subject is? What action? Why something happened?). Significant gains with large effect sizes of 2.13 and 1.41 on multiple-choice and produc-tion tasks, respectively, were noted when student performance was compared to a traditional reading control condition.

SummarizationSummarization strategies are based on Brown and Day’s (1983) five-step approach:1. Delete trivial information.2. Delete redundant information.3. Substitute super ordinate terms for a list of terms.


4. Select a topic sentence.5. Invent a topic sentence.In a study with sixth through ninth grade students with LD, Gajria and Salvia (1992) tested the effects of explicit instruction for summarization. After the intervention, students performed better on condensation and factual questions when compared to students in a no-treatment control group (ES = 4.45, Gajria et al., 2007). Performance for students with LD was comparable to average readers for factual questioning, but exceeded average readers for condensation questioning.

In a study that compared summarization to summarization with self-monitoring, Malone and Mastropieri (1992) found that both instructional approaches were equally effective in improving social studies text compre-hension as measured by free-recall when compared to traditional instruc-tion (ES = 2.95; Gajria et al., 2007) however, only summarization with self-monitoring resulted in differential effects on the far transfer measure. Researchers noted that the complexity of the far transfer measure was bet-ter supported by the addition of self-monitoring.

QARThe effects of question-answer-relationships (QAR) have been tested in one experimental study with students with LD in grades one to nine (Simmonds, 1992). Students were taught to answer three question types in social studies content: right there or literal; think and search or text implicit; and on my own or script implicit. When compared to students receiving traditional instruction, QAR students had stronger comprehen-sion test results (ES = 1.57; Gajria et al., 2007).

Text Structure InstructionSeveral researchers have explored the effects of teaching students to iden-tify and use text structure in supporting expository text understanding. In an early study, Wong and Wilson (1984) demonstrated that when fifth- and sixth-grade students with LD were provided a strategy for reorganizing expository text, retelling was improved. Bakken, Mastropieri, and Scruggs (1997) found that text structure instruction improved comprehension of eighth-grade students with LD for three passage types: (a) main idea; (b) list; and (c) sequence of events. The intervention included text-structure-based booklets highlighting keywords and strategy clues in text. Results indicated large effect differences (ES = 2.27 to 3.29; Gajria et al., 2007), favoring the text structure intervention when compared to students in


traditional instruction or paragraph restatement, in immediate, delayed, and transferred recall testing.

In two studies, the effects of compare-contrast text structure, situated within the context of a theme scheme program (Williams, Hall, Lauer, Stafford, Desisto, & deCani, 2005) and embedded in a second grade sci-ence program (Williams et al., 2009), on comprehension has been evalu-ated. In both studies, students were explicitly taught to use: clue words, a graphic organizer, and a series of questions to cue to important infor-mation. Students’ post-instruction performance was compared to students’ performance in content instruction classrooms receiving no text structure instruction. Large effects (ES = 1.36 to 7.56) were obtained, for students with and without disabilities, across strategy, structure, and content mea-sures. Williams et al. (2009) noted that findings support the use of explicit comprehension instruction for primary students and provide evidence that text structure training can lead to transfer, and can be accomplished with-out compromising content delivery.

Multicomponent InterventionsMulticomponent reading comprehension training systems combine several evidence-based practices into one intervention package. These approaches present strategies for prior knowledge acquisition, comprehension monitor-ing, and summarization of information throughout reading (Baker, Gertsen, & Scanlon, 2002). Reciprocal Teaching procedures such as predict, ques-tion, clarify, and summarize (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), are generally imple-mented. Interventions evaluated with students with LD include Multipass, POSSE (Predict, Organize, Search, Summarize, Evaluate), and TWA (Think before reading, While reading, and After reading).

MultipassDuring Multipass instruction students are taught to review (e.g., “survey, size up, and sort out”) chapter material (Schumaker, Deshler, Denton, Alley, Clark, & Warner, 1984). Each component includes multiple strategy pro-cedures. During “survey,” for example, students are taught to attend to the organization of the chapter and main ideas, and then complete summaries. In “size-up,” chapter questions are answered through paraphrases. Finally, to “sort out” students self-test their understanding. Ten steps are included for teaching Multipass strategies: (a) pre-assessment; (b) strategy description; (c) teacher-led modeling; (d) strategy memorization; (e) guided practice with controlled materials; (f ) feedback; (g) progress assessment; (h) guided practice with grade-level materials; (i) feedback; ( j) progress assessment. Multipass


was proven effective for improving content test scores in a single subject design study with eight high school students with LD.

POSSEFive steps are included in POSSE instruction:1. Predict, students are cued to use text signals (e.g., titles, headings, pictures,

keywords) and brainstorm predictions.2. Organize their ideas.3. Search for the text structure.4. Summarize the main ideas.5. Evaluate understanding (Englert & Mariage, 1991).Graphic organizers to support main idea identification and summariza-tion, with sentence stems (e.g., I predict that…) are included to promote strategy use (Mariage, 1995). Experimental research for POSSE small group instruction demonstrated significant positive effects on free recall (ES = 1.90; Gajria et al., 2007) for students with LD in fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. Lederer (2000) replicated these positive findings, measured by summary composition, with fourth and fifth grade students with LD (ES = .82; Gajria et al., 2007).

TWATWA, taught within the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model, has nine strategies in three phases of reading—before reading, while reading, and after reading (Mason, 2004). In the first phase, “Think before reading,” students identify text structure and develop statements and ques-tions for what they know and want to learn. Steps in “While reading”—monitor speed, monitor understanding, and make connections - are taught next. The “After reading” phase includes main ideas and summarizing strate-gies. Students then orally retell what has been read and learned in the pas-sage. TWA has been evaluated in eight studies for struggling students with and without LD; small to large effects have been found (ES = .46 to .94; Mason, in press). In two single case studies with fourth-grade and fifth-grade students with LD, similar positive effects were noted (Hedin, Mason, & Gaffney, 2011; Mason, Hickey Snyder, Sukhram, & Kedem, 2006).

PEER-ASSISTED INTERVENTION IN THE INCLUSIVE CLASSROOM

Researchers have also investigated the effect of peer-assisted instruction to supplement reading comprehension in the inclusive classroom. Two


established lines of research, Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) and Peer-assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) are described.

CSRKlingner and Vaughn (1996) developed CSR to improve informative com-prehension skills of students with linguistically diverse learning needs. The intervention includes a mix of whole class instruction, followed by small group peer-assisted learning. CSR assists students in self-monitoring com-prehension while implementing three strategy steps: “Click and Clunk, Preview, and Wrap up.” CSR was developed and has been evaluated in extensive case study research (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000). In two quasi-experimental studies (Klingner, Vaughn, Arguelles, Hughes, & Leftwich, 2004; Klingner, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1998), the effects of CSR were evaluated for social studies comprehension in 4th grade classrooms. Significant effects favoring CSR compared to the control classrooms were noted on reading comprehension measures (ES = .51 and .43 respectively). Recently, CSR was evaluated in a large experimental study (Hitchcock, Dimino, Kurki, Wilkins, & Gersten, 2010) without significant findings. Researchers suggested findings were limited due the use of convenience sampling, the lack of specificity of English Language Learner (ELL) status, and weak fidelity of implementation documentation. For CSR to be effec-tive, it is critical that intensive training and coaching be provided to teachers.

PALSThe PALS instructional approach, developed by Doug and Lynn Fuchs, supports reading fluency and comprehension by providing students with multiple opportunities for reading in the general education classroom. There are three versions of PALS: K-PALS, PALS for elementary students, and PALS for high school students (McMaster, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2006a). In all PALS instruction high-performing students are paired with low-performing students. Instruction includes: (1) partner reading with 2 min retell; (2) paragraph shrinking; and (3) prediction relay. In K-PALS instruc-tion for kindergarten and first grade students, more teacher guidance through extended coaching, and activities for phonological awareness and for reading words and sentences are included. For high school students, PALS is extended by changing partners more frequently than is done with younger students, by adding a system for managing and spending PALS dollars for points earned, and by focusing on reading with expository text. PALS has been evaluated in over 15 years of pilot study, component


analyzes, and experimental studies; and has been approved for inclusion in the National Diffusion Network on effective practices (McMaster, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2006b). Researchers caution that although PALS is effective for a majority of students, approximately 20% of low-achievers and more than 50% of students with disabilities appear to be nonresponsive to the inter-vention (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005). Researchers note supporting intervention fidelity through teacher training and support; consistent/frequent intervention scheduling; and progress monitoring (McMaster et al., 2006a; b).

DISCUSSION

Despite increasing literacy demands in schools, recent reports from the National Center for Education Statistics (2009) suggest that reading comprehension remains a concern for our nation’s youths. For example, only 33% fourth, 34% eighth, and 38% twelfth grade students perform above proficiency in reading (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). Reported results on reading achievement across grade levels have remained relatively stable, with no statistically significant growth over latest testing periods for students with disabilities. In other words, gaps in read-ing achievement for many students, including students with LD, persist.

It is evident, from this current review of literature, that there are many available research-based strategies that can remediate reading comprehen-sion deficits. However, barriers remain in getting research-based interven-tions into effective practice. Instruction, for example, should begin early, and not be withheld until students can read fluently. For those students who cannot decode fluently, basic reading skill instruction needs to be included in a language arts program, however, not at the expense of com-prehension instruction. As noted previously, text enhancements and read-ing comprehension strategies must be explicitly taught and supported over a sufficient time period. It is also critical that teachers received adequate training and coaching to insure that interventions are implemented with a high degree of fidelity.

In conclusion, reading comprehension intervention research remains to be completed. In a review of intervention research quality, Jitendra, Burgess, and Gajria (2011) found that group designed research generally met evidence standards; however, many group design studies conducted prior to 1997 and single subject studies did not meet evidence standards. Although reading comprehension interventions have been established as


effective (Berkley et al., 2010; Dexter & Hughes, 2011; Gajria et al., 2007; Gersten et al., 2001), many studies have either demonstrated small effects or noted nonresponse. Future research should attend to quality indicators established in recent years ( Jitendra et al., 2011) and to establishing the effectiveness of interventions for all students with LD.

REFERENCESACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in

reading. Iowa City: IA: Author.Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices

in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431.

Baker, S., Gertsen, R., & Scanlon, D. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 65–77.

Bakken, J. P., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of exposi-tory science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. Journal of Special Education, 31, 300–324.

Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. K. (2002). Teaching text structure to improve reading compre-hension. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, 229–233.

Barton, P. E. (2000). What Jobs Require: Literacy, Education, and Training, 1940–2006. Washington, DC: Educational Testing Service.

Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 423–436.

Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contribut-ing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137–164.

Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabu-lary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31–42.

Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1992). Using interactive teaching and learning strategies to pro-mote text comprehension and content learning for students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 39, 225–238.

Bos, C. S., Anders, P. L., Filip, D., & Jaffe, L. E. (1989). The effects of an interactive instruc-tional strategy for enhancing reading comprehension and content area learning for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 384–389.

Boulineau, T., Fore, C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2004). Use of story-mapping to increase the story-grammar text comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27, 105–121.

Boyle, J. R. (1996). The effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 86–98.

Boyle, J. R. (2000). The effects of a Venn diagram strategy on the literal, inferential, and relational comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10, 5–13.


Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A (1995). Elaborative maps for enhanced learning of historical information: Uniting spatial, verbal, and imaginable information. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 440–460.

Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14.

Carlisle, J. F. (1999). Free recall as a test of reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 11–22.

Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1997). Direct instruction reading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406.

Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governor’s Association. (2010). Common Core State Standards Initiative, Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Retrieved from <http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf>.

Darch, C., & Carnine, D. (1986). Teaching content area material to learning disabled stu-dents. Exceptional Children, 53, 240–246.

Darch, C. B., Carnine, D. W., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1986). The role of graphic organizers and social structure in content area instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 275–295.

Darch, C., & Eaves, R. (1986). Visual displays to increase comprehension of high school learning-disabled students. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 309–318.

Darch, C., & Gersten, R. (1986). Direction-setting activities in reading comprehension: A comparison of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 235–243.

Dexter, D. D., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning dis-abilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 51–72.

DiCecco, V. M., & Gleason, M. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 306–320.

Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read (6th ed.). Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Ellis, E. S., & Graves, A. W. (1990). Teaching rural students with learning disabilities:

A paraphrasing strategy to increase comprehension of main ideas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10, 2–10.

Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading “POSSE”. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 123–138.

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.

Faggella-Luby, M., Schumaker, J. S., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). Embedded learning strategy instruction: Story-structure pedagogy in heterogeneous secondary literature classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 131–147.

Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 2–17.

Garner, J. K., & Bochna, C. R. (2004). Transfer of a listening comprehension strategy to Independent reading in first-grade students. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32, 69–74.

Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of exposi-tory text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.

Gajria, M., & Salvia, J. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehen-sion of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 508–516.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehen-sion strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.

http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf


Graesser, A. C., Leon, 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 (Ch. 1, pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graham, L., & Bellert, A. (2004). Difficulties in reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities. In B. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 251–280). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. A. (1987). Written language of the handicapped. In C. Reynolds, & L. Mann (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education (pp. 1678–1681). New York: Wiley.

Graves, A. W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on find-ing main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1, 90–100.

Graves, A. W., & Levin, J. R. (1989). Comparison of monitoring and mnemonic text-processing strategies in learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 12, 232–236.

Griffith, P. L., Dastoli, S. L., Ripich, D. N., & Nwakanma, O. N. (1985). Story grammar orga-nization in story recall by learning disabled and nondisabled children. Mental Retardation & Learning Disability Bulletin, 13, 92–105.

Griffith, P. L., Ripich, D. N., & Dastoli, S. L. (1986). Story structure, cohesion, and propositions in story recalls by learning-disabled and nondisabled children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 539–555.

Griffin, C. C., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1991). Investigating the effectiveness of graphic organizers instruction on the comprehension and recall of science content by students with learning disabilities. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 7, 355–376.

Hedin, L., Mason, L. H., & Gaffney, J. (2011). TWA plus prompted discourse: Reading com-prehension effects for three students with learning disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 55, 148–157.

Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.Hughes, C. A., Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2003). Interventions that positively impact

the performance of students with learning disabilities in secondary general education classes. Learning Disabilities, 12, 101–111.

Idol, L. (1987). A critical thinking map to improve content area comprehension of poor readers. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 28–40.

Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading com-prehension. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 10, 214–229.

Hitchcock, J., Dimino, J., Kurki, A., Wilkins, C., & Gersten, R. (2010). The impact of collab-orative strategic reading on the reading comprehension of grade 5 students in linguistically diverse schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (NCEE 2011-4001)

Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Yin, P. X. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 127–139.

Jitendra, A. K., Burgess, C., & Gajria, M. (2011). Cognitive strategy instruction for improv-ing expository text comprehension of students with learning disabilities: The quality of evidence. Exceptional Children, 77, 135–160.

Johnson, L. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). The effects of goal setting and self-instruction on learning a reading comprehension strategy: A student of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 80–91.

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strate-gies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 275–293.


Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using collaborative strategic reading. Exceptional Children, 30, 32–37.

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Promoting reading comprehension, content learning, and English acquisition through collaborative strategic reading (CSR). The Reading Teacher, 52, 738–747.

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (2000). The helping behaviors of fifth graders while using col-laborative strategic reading during ESL content classes. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 69–98.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Leftwich, S. A. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: “Real-world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291–302.

Klinger, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Boardman, A. (2007). Teaching reading comprehension to students with learning difficulties. New York: Guilford Press.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99, 3–22.

Kremer, K. E., Lynch, J. S., van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., White, M. J., & Lorch, E. P. (2008). The development of narrative comprehension and its relation to other early reading skills. Reading Psychology, 29, 327–365.

Kuhn, M. R. (2005). A comparative study of small group fluency instruction. Reading Psychology, 26, 127–146.

Lederer, J. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary class-rooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 91–106.

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to non-responders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strat-egies: The promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 5–25.

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Promises and limitations of peer-assisted learning strategies in reading. Learning Disabilities:A Contemporary Journal, 5, 97–112.

MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. B. (1995). Student assistant learning from text (SALT): A hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 150–159.

Mariage, T. V. (1995). Why students learn: The nature of teacher talk during reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 214–234.

Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 270–279.

Mason, L. H., & Hedin, L. (2011). Reading science text: Challenges for students with learn-ing disabilities and considerations for teachers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26, 214–222.

Mason, L. H. (in press). Teaching students who struggle with learning to think before, while, and after reading: Effects of SRSD instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly.

Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal Questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283–296.

Mason, L. H., Hickey Snyder, K., Sukhram, D. P., & Kedem, Y. (2006). Self-regulated strategy development for expository reading comprehension and informative writing: Effects for nine 4th grade students who struggle with learning. Exceptional Children, 73, 69–89.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehen-sion in students with learning disabilities: 1976 to 1996. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 197–213.


Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Fulk, B. J. M. (1990). Teaching abstract vocabulary with the keyword method: Effects on recall and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 92–96.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. (1987). Learning-disabled students’ memory for expository prose: Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic pictures. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 505–519.

National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2009. Washington, D.C: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (NCES2011-458)

Okolo, C. M., & Ferretti, R. P. (1996). Knowledge acquisition and technology supported projects in the social studies for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 91–103.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.

Roberts, G., Torgesen, J. K., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N. (2008). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23, 63–69.

Saenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 31–41.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2000). The effectiveness of mnemonic instruction for students with learning disabilities and behavior problems: An update and research syn-thesis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 163–173.

Schumaker, J., Deshler, D., Alley, G., Warner, M., & Denton, P. (1984). Multipass: A learning strategy for improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 295–304.

Short, E. J., & Ryan, E. B. (1984). Metacognitive differences between skilled and less-skilled readers: Remediating deficits through story grammar and attribution training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 225–235.

Smagorinsky, P. (2001). If meaning is constructed what’s it made from? Toward a cultural theory of reading. Review of Educational Research, 71, 133–169.

Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2003). Supporting comprehension acquisition for emerg-ing and struggling readers: The interactive information book read-aloud. Exceptionality, 11, 25–38.

Stevens, R. J., Van Meter, P., & Warcholak, N. D. (2010). The effects of explicitly teaching story structure to primary grade children. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 159–198.

Taylor, L. K., Alber, S. R., & Walker, D. W. (2002). The comparative effects of a modified self-questioning strategy and story mapping on reading comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 69–87.

Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of a combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 21, 89–97.

Torgesen, J. K. (1977). The role of nonspecific factors in the task performance of learning disabled children: A theoretical assessment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 33–40.

Trabasso, R., & Wiley, J. (2005). Goal plans of action and inferences during comprehension of narratives. Discourse Processes, 39, 129–164.

U.S. Department of Labor, “America’s Dynamic Workforce: 2006 [Chart Book]” (2006). Federal Publications. Paper 288. <http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/288>.

Vallecorso, A. L., & deBettencourt, L. U. (1997). Using a mapping procedure to teach read-ing and writing skills to middle grade students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 173–188.

Van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., Kremer, K., Lynch, J., Butler, J., White, M. J., et al. (2005). Assessment of comprehension abilities in young children. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl

http://www.digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/288

http://www.digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/288


(Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 107–130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wilder, A. A., & Williams, J. P. (2001). Students with severe learning disabilities can learn higher order comprehension skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 268–278.

Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary grade students: A focus on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 6–18.

Williams, J. P., Brown, L. G., Silverstein, A. K., & deCani, J. S. (1994). Instructional program in comprehension of narrative themes for adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 17, 205–221.

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, 538–550.

Williams, J. P., Lauer, K. D., Hall, K. M., Lord, K. M., Sonia Gugga, S., Bak, S., et al. (2002). Teaching elementary school students to identify story themes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 235–248.

Williams, J. P., Stafford, K. B., Lauer, K. D., Hall, K. M., & Pollini, S. (2009). Embedding read-ing comprehension training in content-area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 1–20.

Wong, B. Y. L. (1980). Activating the inactive learner: Use of questions/prompts to enhance comprehension and retention of implied information in learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 29–37.

Wong, B. Y. L., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–240.

Wong, B. Y. L., & Wilson, M. (1984). Investigating awareness of and teaching passage organi-zation in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 477–482.

Wong, B. Y. L., Wong, R., Perry, N., & Sawatsky, D. (1986). The efficacy of a self-questioning summarization strategy for use by underachievers and learning disabled adolescents in social studies. Learning Disabilities Focus, 2, 20–35.

learning about learning disabilities || highlights in reading comprehension intervention research...

Documents