Learning About Learning Disabilities || Difficulties in Reading Comprehension for Students with Learning Disabilities

CHAPTER 7

Difficulties in ReadingComprehension for Studentswith Learning Disabilities

Lorraine Graham and Anne BellertUniversity of New England

I. INTRODUCTION

The percentage of students identified with learning disabilities (LD) continues

to increase. Currently, about 7% of the school-age population in North

America are considered to have some form of learning disability (Gersten

et al., 2001). In Australia and New Zealand where the definition of LD is

broader and includes students with various learning difficulties, at least 20%of school students are considered to have problems in academic areas. Of

these students, 5% are considered to have specific learning disabilities in

academic areas, most commonly, reading (Westwood & Graham, 2000).

Definitions of learning disabilities and learning difficulties vary and con-

troversies over identification procedures, particularly the notion of a discrep-

ancy between individuals’ potential and their actual performance, persist

(e.g., Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998). However, in broad terms, it is agreed that

students with learning disabilities have significant and pervasive problems

acquiring and using some combination of listening, speaking, reading,

writing, reasoning, or mathematical skills due to underlying difficulties

involving their use of language and manipulation of abstract concepts

(e.g., Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998). These difficulties may be associated with

Bernice Wong / Learning about Learning Disabilities Final Proof 15.4.2004 1:15pm page 251

Learning about Learning Disabilities, Third Edition

Copyright � 2004 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

251

attention and behavior problems. However, they are not considered to result

from sight or hearing problems, intellectual disabilities, emotional disorders,

or cultural differences. Of all the students who are identified as having

learning disabilities, the vast majority experience problems in reading, not

only in terms of decoding deficiencies but also in terms of their abilities to

construct understandings and draw inferences (Carlisle, 1999; Tractenberg,

2002).

Reading comprehension is a necessary skill throughout schooling and a

vital component of the successful transition to adult responsibilities. It is the

complex outcome of the process of constructing meaning from print. Read-

ing comprehension can be conceptualized as an interactive process requiring

the dynamic combination of a reader’s background knowledge with the

information decoded from text. Successful comprehension requires students

to coordinate many complex skills and to actively participate in their own

learning. Students’ success in comprehension is influenced by how interest-

ing and relevant they find the text they are reading, their competencies in

recognizing, decoding, and pronouncing words fluently and accurately, their

awareness of the different purposes associated with reading, and facility with

comprehension monitoring strategies (Gersten et al., 2001; Swanson, 1999).

The effective comprehension of printed material is also related to text-based

factors, such as the structure and quality of texts, and the familiarity or

complexity of the concepts presented and the vocabulary used (Raben et al.,

1999).

Various theories have been put forward to explain how comprehension

occurs. The bottom-up model emphasizes the teaching of discrete skills that

combine to result in meaning and comprehension. The top-down model

advocates reading instruction that de-emphasizes skills and focuses instead

on a holistic approach to reading connected text and the value of immersing

children in a literate environment. Interactive models such as Rumelhart’s

(1976) combine both these theoretical approaches and characterize readers

as active and strategic learners who are engaged in predicting, questioning,

confirming, and self-correcting their interpretations of texts. In the inter-

active model, readers apply aspects of bottom-up or top-down processing as

appropriate, depending on the type of comprehension breakdown experi-

enced by the reader and whether the material being read is familiar or

unfamiliar (Manzo & Manzo, 1993). Whatever the theoretical perspective

that helps interpret a reader’s actions, comprehension involves recognizing

the words on the page (computer screen, television, billboard, or package)

fluently and accurately, together with understanding and interpreting the

ideas being conveyed in the context of the whole text and the individual’s

background knowledge.

In the first section of this chapter, we discuss the difficulties in reading

comprehension commonly experienced by students with learning disabilities.

252 Graham and Bellert


Because comprehending narrative texts requires some different strategies

than comprehending factual texts, the next section of this chapter offers a

synthesis of research findings related to effective instruction for improving

students’ understanding of these types of text. In the final part of the

chapter, we present what we consider to be continuing dilemmas in reading

research and promising future directions for addressing the comprehension

difficulties faced by students with learning disabilities.

II. STUDENTS’ DIFFICULTIES IN READINGCOMPREHENSION

Reading comprehension is an important academic skill. It underpins school

learning and becomes increasingly important in all subject areas as students

progress through the grades. Students with learning disabilities have more

difficulty comprehending what they read than students without disabilities,

even when differences in decoding skill are taken into account (Englert &

Thomas, 1987; Taylor & Williams, 1983).

In general, students with learning disabilities experience poor comprehen-

sion due to their failure to read strategically and to spontaneously monitor

their understanding while reading. Despite the volume of research on teach-

ing comprehension strategies, instructing students with learning disabilities

to use active and efficient reading strategies in a flexible and personalized

way remains a challenge. Students with learning disabilities can experience

comprehension problems because of difficulties in (a) using their back-

ground knowledge appropriately; (b) decoding and word recognition;

(c) vocabulary knowledge; (d) fluency; (e) strategy use and metacognitive

skills; and (f ) in differentiating between common text structures. The next

sections address, in turn, each of these difficulties that may be experienced by

students with learning disabilities.

A. Appropriate Use of Background Knowledge

The appropriate use of background knowledge is a crucial element in ex-

tracting meaning from text. Current research indicates that students benefit

most from activities that assess, activate, and develop their background

knowledge before reading (e.g., Brownell & Walther-Thomas, 1999; Jitendra

et al., 2000; Raben et al., 1999). Structured pre-reading activities serve to

make the text accessible to students and enable them to remember what they

have learned. Indeed, the activation of background knowledge can mean the

difference between being able to understand and apply new concepts and

confusion and lack of comprehension.

7. Difficulties in Reading Comprehension 253


When students are not familiar with the topic of a text, they are

likely to find the concepts presented in it difficult and confusing. For

example, the ease of understanding and drawing an appropriate inference

from the following pairs of sentences (Kintsch & Kennan, 1973) is quite

dramatic.

1. The burning cigarette was carelessly discarded. The fire destroyed many

acres of forest.

2. An abnormally low amount of hydrocele was found. The spermatic cord

was quite dry.

Because the reader is likely to know the consequences of throwing a

burning cigarette into dry bush land, comprehension of these sentences is

almost assured. However, the words hydrocele and spermatic cord are not

likely to be in the background knowledge of most readers. Therefore, the

comprehension of the second pair of sentences is much more effortful and

potentially unsuccessful.

As Rumelhart (1980) pointed out, background knowledge and compre-

hension interact in several ways. The reader may simply not have the

background knowledge to link to the text. The more limited students’

general knowledge and vocabulary skills are, the more difficulty they have

in activating appropriate knowledge to assist in comprehending text. Alter-

natively, textual cues may not be recognized as clues to link to or activate the

knowledge the reader already has, or comprehension failures can occur

because the reader may construct an interpretation of the text that is not

the one intended by the author.

Students with learning disabilities may experience difficulties in activating

appropriate knowledge or in developing background knowledge when it is

missing or uncertain. These students may have knowledge about a topic but

they do not necessarily bring this known information to the experience of

reading and comprehending (Paris et al., 1983). Pre-reading activities such as

brainstorming, developing a graphic organizer, questioning activities, and

writing related to the topic can help activate knowledge. When students lack

the background knowledge necessary to understand a particular text, deci-

sions need to be made regarding what specific knowledge will be provided,

how much time can be allocated for knowledge development activities, and

what specific activities will best facilitate students’ understanding. In general,

the more students know about a topic, the more motivated they are to learn

and the easier it is for them to integrate their background knowledge with

text information, and to organize the new information in memory, available

for later retrieval.



B. Decoding and Word Recognition

Decoding and word recognition skills are implicated in comprehension

difficulties because they are related to the core deficit that is assumed to

underlie learning disabilities. As Swanson (1999, p. 505) states, the assump-

tion has emerged in recent years that students with learning disabilities have

‘‘specific processing deficits localized in phonological processing, particu-

larly at the word-recognition level . . . (Shaywitz et al., 1996; Seigel, 1992;

Stanovich & Seigel, 1994).’’ This view is widely accepted because reading

problems are so pervasive in students with learning disabilities and because

of the large volume of research suggesting that phonological coding deficits

underlie their reading difficulties, particularly in sight word recognition

(Seigel, 1993). Although there is some evidence that other factors such as

naming speed are also important in understanding the difficulties experi-

enced by readers with learning disabilities (Wolf, 2002), phonological pro-

cessing remains conceptualized as a core deficit at the heart of learning

disabilities.

When students do not decode quickly and accurately, their available

cognitive resources and limited working memory capacity are used for

identifying words and not for constructing meaning at the sentence and

text level. Some readers labor so much over decoding and word recognition

that by the time they struggle to the end of a sentence, they have forgotten

what happened at the beginning. Such effortful and inefficient decoding

obviously affects students’ comprehension and, as a consequence, their

motivation to read. Some students must work so hard to decode text that

they experience reading as neither engaging nor enjoyable.

Automatic decoding is an important component of Stanovich’s (1980)

interactive–compensatory model of reading. Stanovich illustrates his model

by describing a poor reader who is deficient in word recognition skills. In

order to make sense of text, this reader uses known words and guesses

unknown words based on semantic and syntactic knowledge and other

contextual clues. Stanovich concludes that compensating for poor decoding

and word identification skills in this way is unlikely to lead to fluent and

accurate reading. if beginning readers and those with learning disabilities are

to become proficient readers, they must develop the ability to recognize

words independent of context clues in a rapid and automatic fashion.

Competent readers’ skills in context-free word recognition and effective

phonological decoding combine to produce fluent reading (Carlisle & Rice,

2002). Rapid and accurate decoding seems a necessary, but not sufficient,

condition for comprehension to occur. It reduces memory demands for word

identification and releases limited working memory resources for the



construction of meaning. However, this does not ensure that meaning will be

constructed successfully. Students need to establish a bank of words they

know instantly by sight so that they gain confidence and enjoyment from

reading. Because students with learning disabilities can have memory diffi-

culties and may forget words that they seemed to know the day before,

systematic practice of word recognition skills and vocabulary development

activities are of benefit (Westwood, 2001). The more frequently encountered

and practiced words are, the more likely learners will remember them and use

their stored knowledge when reading and comprehending connected text.

C. Vocabulary Knowledge

A lack of vocabulary knowledge or a mismatch between the reader’s

vocabulary and that of the text can also be a cause of reading comprehension

difficulties. McCormick (1999) uses the following example to illustrate how

the ease of comprehension is affected by an individual’s knowledge of word

meanings.

1. Apprehension of the semantic fields of morphological units is pivotal for

deriving semantic content when reading. This seems to be consummately

plausible and most preceptors’ ripostes to this attestation would predict-

ably be, ‘‘Inexorably so!’’

2. Knowledge of word meanings is important for reading comprehension.

This seems to be quite logical and most teachers’ responses to this

statement would be, ‘‘Of course!’’

These contrasting paragraphs convey the same message but use very

different vocabulary words to do so. Text that contains many unfamiliar

words leads students to experience a high error rate in reading due to their

inability to link text to their background knowledge, thus impacting their

comprehension and contributing to a sense of frustration and loss of motiv-

ation. Birsh (1999) indicates that successful reading comprehension is closely

related to an individual’s oral language comprehension and vocabulary

skills.

Perfetti (1984, p. 87) also notes that vocabulary differences make an

important contribution to reading ability because ‘‘knowing word meanings

enables the reader to assemble and integrate propositions’’ from text and

make sense of what is read. When words are not known, readers’ initial

representations of text can be incomplete and the further integration of ideas

becomes problematic. Just as a lack of vocabulary knowledge can hamper

comprehension, so can a lack of knowledge of syntax and sentence structure

related to the sequence of words in phrases and sentences. As a consequence,

most students with learning disabilities benefit from explicit instruction



regarding how various connecting and signal words, such as prepositions,

can change the meaning of text and how pronouns relate to their referents.

D. Fluency Related to Reading Comprehension

Fluency related to reading is most often conceptualized in terms of speed and

accuracy (Chard et al., 2002). There seems to be an optimum rate of fluency

that allows the smooth processing of information by the reader. Automati-

city in reading through smooth effortless decoding and word identification

frees cognitive capacity so that the reader’s attention can be focused on

meaning (Perfetti, 1977, 1985). Slow reading makes it difficult to retain

information in working memory long enough for meaning to be constructed

and restricts students to low levels of processing by focusing on letters and

words rather than on concepts and how they link together. In contrast,

reading that is too fast may result in the neglect of important detail in text.

Students with learning disabilities often struggle to read fluently (Meyer &

Felton, 1999). Common problems are related to sight reading words, decod-

ingwords, and reading phases and sentences automatically andwithmeaning.

Slow reading is debilitating because it prevents students thinking about the

text while reading. Both rapid reading of high frequency words and the speedy

application of decoding skills appear critical for optimal reading development

(Chard et al., 2002). As students with learning disabilities are so commonly

dysfluent readers, Wolf (2000) and her colleagues (e.g., Bowers &Wolf, 1999)

have put forward the double deficit hypothesis, which theorizes that students

with learning disabilities have core difficulties in the naming speed of words as

well as in the phonological processing of letters and sounds. The implication

of this thoroughly researched and increasingly influential hypothesis is that

students who are able to decode need ample opportunities to practice reading

connected text in order to become fluent readers. As students become fast and

accurate readers, they often take more delight in reading and may even begin

to reverse the consequences of lack of reading practice, which Stanovich

(1986) has termed the Matthew Effects.

Stanovich (1986) describes how students with learning disabilities experi-

ence delayed phonological awareness and subsequent difficulty in attaining

automaticity of decoding and word recognition. Because laborious decoding

is a drain on cognitive resources, poor comprehension follows and students

become mired in low-level processing. As able readers continue to develop

their reading proficiency, they tend to read more and develop the benefits of

extended practice opportunities as well as exposure to new words and ideas.

In contrast, students who encounter difficulties with reading are generally

less inclined to read. As a result, students with learning disabilities practice

reading skills significantly less than their peers and the cycle of Matthew

Effects in reading, which Stanovich (1986) characterizes as ‘‘the rich get



richer and the poor get poorer,’’ continues. As students progress through

school, the gap between able and struggling readers widens.

Interestingly, interventions focused on enhancing reading fluency may

have the potential to reverse Matthew Effects over time. A study conducted

by Graham et al. (2001) indicated that an emphasis on word recognition,

repeated reading, and students’ strategy use resulted in improved measures

of speed and accuracy, as well as in gains on standardized vocabulary and

comprehension tests. In addition, students maintained their improvement in

fluency up to one year after the completion of the intervention (Pegg et al.,

2002). During the intervention, students made comments such as ‘‘I didn’t

know I could read like that. I sound just like the good kids!’’, indicating

increased confidence and enjoyment of reading. The implication of this

finding is that providing opportunities for repeated readings and the motiv-

ated practice of word recognition skills improves students’ automaticity of

word recognition and reading fluency and this frees cognitive resources to

focus on comprehension of text. The essential change here is a shift in

cognition from a concentration on lower levels of processing, such as decod-

ing letters and words, to processing higher-order aspects of text, such as

conceptual understandings and inferred meaning.

Stanovich (1986) used a biblical passage (Matthew 25:29) to illustrate the

effects of lack of practice on readers. Similarly, increasing fluency through

interventions that emphasize word recognition and repeated readings may

have effects on readers akin to that described in the Wisdom of Solomon

(16:11), ‘‘For they were pricked, that they should remember thy words; and

were quickly saved, that not falling into deep forgetfulness, they might be

continually mindful of thy goodness.’’ Overall, it appears that fluency is

a critical but neglected factor in many reading programs (Kamenui &

Simmons, 2001). Accurate decoding is not enough; readers need to remem-

ber words and read quickly if they are to understand the connections

between ideas in print and ‘‘not fall into deep forgetfulness.’’

E. Strategy Use and Metacognition

An area of focus in comprehension research is strategy instruction and

metacognition, which is concerned with students’ awareness of their own

thinking and their ability to regulate strategy use while working to compre-

hend printed material. It is important for students to monitor their own

comprehension and to take steps to regain clarity of understanding when

meaning breaks down or becomes confused. Comprehension strategies can

explicitly teach students how to draw inferences from text, summarize infor-

mation, predict what will happen next in a narrative, formulate and answer

questions about text, and visualize what they read in order to improve

comprehension (see Table I).



Table I

Metacognitive Strategies for Making Meaning during Reading

Inferring Questioning Clarifying Predicting Visualizing

‘‘But the answer is not there!’’

How to find an unstated answer in

a text:

. Join information together

(synthesize)

. Try to make a reasonable

guess (draw a conclusion)

based on the information at

hand

. Make connections,

generalize from specific text

to real life experiences

. Read between the lines to

detect an underlying

message

. Relate cause and effect;

apply reason when facts are

not specifically stated

. Recognize and explore

supporting details

. Make comparisons

. Sense motives

. Make judgments about

characters, relationships,

validity of the text

. Infer information from

visual cues including layout

. Monitor text structure;

detect the main idea in each

section

Infer—to conclude by reasoning

from evidence; to deduce, to imply

Readers generate questions and

respond through self-talk or

‘‘think alouds’’

. Who is ___?

. What is/does ___?

. When is ___?

. Where is ___?

. Why is ___ important?

. Why does ___ happen?

. What are the parts of ___?

. How is ___ an example of

___?

. How do ___ and ___

compare?

. How are ___ and ___

different?

. How does ___ happen?

. What is most important,

___ or ___?

. What is my opinion of

___?

. How many subheadings

are there?

. Does this section finish

soon?

. What will the next section

be about?

Peer modeling of self-questioning

during reading is a powerful

means of demonstrating this

strategy to students with LD.

Clarify when an unknown word is

encountered

. Sound the word out. Is it

at all familiar?

. Use context clues to help

work out the meaning

. Look for a definition

elsewhere in the text

. Look for word roots or

other word parts that may

be familiar

. Consider the need to use a

dictionary or glossary –

now or later?

. Ask someone

Clarify when meaning is

unclear

. Read ahead to see if the

text makes sense anyway

. Reread the section that is

confusing

. Change pace of reading,

slow down to get more

clues, speed up to get ‘‘the

big picture’’

. Reconsider original

predictions

. Evaluate material being

read—is it accurate, is it

biased?

. Ask someone

Students with LD may need cues

and prompts to ask for

clarification (e.g., ‘‘What I don’t

understand is . . . ’’ or ‘‘This is the

part that’s confusing me . . . ’’).

Make a prediction when

. Headings are provided

. The author asks a

question in the text

. The text suggests what

will be discussed next

. A previous prediction is

confirmed or confounded

. A nuance or implication is

detected

Predict outcomes and themes

. Adjust and change

predictions, anticipate

endings

. Where does the narrative

seem to be heading?

. Is the factual text true to

topic or form? Is there an

underlying message?

. What is the purpose of

this part of the text?

. How does this relate to

the main idea of the text?

Predicting content and outcomes

is an important pre-reading

activity but successful

comprehension requires readers

to continue to make and adjust

predictions during reading as

well.

Encourage students to create a

picture in their minds

. Describe the picture

. How does the picture

change over time?

. What events or

information cause the

picture to change?

Explore imaginings and

emotional responses

. When I read this, I

imagine . . .

. As I read in my mind, I

see . . .

. Reading this reminds me

of . . .

. This makes me feel

like . . .

Develop a graphic organizer to

illustrate cause and effect or to

explore relationships

. Concept maps

. Grids, tables, charts,

graphs, etc.

. Venn diagrams

. Sociograms

. Theme charts

Students with LD often need

visual representation of

information to reinforce spoken

or written sources.

Bern

iceWong/LearningaboutLearningDisa

bilities

FinalProof

15.4.2004

1:15pm

page259

In light of findings from research investigating students’ metacognition

and strategy use, conceptions of the nature of learning disabilities have

changed. Although the notion of an underlying processing difficulty still

stands, in terms of strategy use, the present view is that inefficiencies rather

than deficiencies characterize the difficulties experienced by students with

learning disabilities (Gersten et al., 2001). These students could possess the

strategies necessary to approach the comprehension of text in a planned and

strategic way but may fail to use them at the appropriate time or may apply

these strategies in an inefficient or incomplete manner.

The primary function of reading is extracting meaning from text. If

children do not notice that comprehension has broken down, they will fail

to take steps to fix whatever the problem is. Students need to monitor the

success and failure of their attempts to construct meaning from text in order

to be strategic and successful readers. Comprehension monitoring is key in

the development of this kind of independent and self-regulated reading for

meaning. While some reading tasks, such as following directions, are more

likely to elicit comprehension monitoring than other reading situations,

comprehension monitoring is important in processing all types of text. In

fact, recent comprehensive syntheses literature indicates that instruction

focused on comprehension monitoring and strategy training is one of the

most effective instructional techniques for students with learning disabilities

(Forness, 1997; Gersten et al., 2000, Swanson, 1999).

Given the complexity of effective strategy use and the necessity of

developing a repertoire of strategies appropriate for different purposes, it

is essential that instruction be specific, long-term, and directly address issues

of transfer and generalization of strategies to other reading tasks. Instruc-

tion in reading comprehension strategies appears to be most effective when it

aims to increase metacognitive skills (Chan & Cole, 1986; Graves, 1986;

Malone & Mastropieri, 1992), includes ample opportunities for practice

(Pressley et al., 1989), and attributes success to effort and strategy use

(Borkowski et al., 1988; Schunk & Rice, 1992). An important general finding

in many strategy training studies has been that students are more successful

and more likely to transfer strategy use to new situations when the strategic

procedure includes self-monitoring questions (Graves, 1986; Malone &

Mastropieri, 1992; Wong & Jones, 1982).

Many effective strategies direct students to reread or look back in the text

if they cannot respond confidently to the questions that they learn to ask

themselves. Simply rereading and returning to the text in a random way,

however, does not help students with learning disabilities improve their

comprehension; rather, these students have to learn to reread strategically.

For example, Graham andWong (1993) compared self-instructional training

to the more traditional teaching of a question–answer relationship strategy.

Their results indicated that instructing students with learning disabilities to



ask themselves three focus questions as a strategy to guide rereading was

more effective and resulted in better maintenance of learning.

The three self-monitoring questions used in this study were: (1) How will I

answer this question? (Select a strategic approach) (2) What kind of ques-

tion is this? (literal, inferential, or creative), and (3) Is my answer correct?

(Justify or prove the answer). The 3H strategy, displayed in Figure 7–1 has

been successfully used by students in Canada and Australia as a self-

instruction strategy to guide rereading and answering questions.

Likewise, Swanson’s (1999) meta-analysis of reading research related to

students with learning disabilities assembles convincing evidence to show

that such strategies are beneficial to students with learning disabilities.

Gersten et al. (2001) in their review of teaching reading comprehension

strategies also conclude that many of the strategic inefficiencies experienced

by students with learning disabilities can be ameliorated and that instruction

can significantly improve their strategic processing. Strategy instruction,

combined with direct instructional techniques, appears to yield the highest

effect sizes, indicating the most positive influence on students’ reading

comprehension performance.

1. Head First!

Before reading What do I know?

During reading What don’t I understand?

After reading What do I need to find out?

Ask for help if you need to.

Content?

Vocabulary?

How to?

Use the 3Hs to remind you where the answers to questions are found:

2. HERE In one sentence from the passage.

3. HIDDEN Join together. The answer is in two or more parts of the passage. Or the answer

comes from joining together information from the passage and information that

you already know.

4. In my HEAD Use what you already know to answer the question. Just you or the passage

and you.

5. Check Your Answers. Reread each question and your answer to see if they fit together. How

confident are you of your answer? After you have finished all the

questions, return to any answers you are not sure of. Go through the

3H strategy and check these answers again. You should have a reason

for each of your answers. You do? Well done!

Figure 7–1 The 3H Strategy for Answering Comprehension Questions after a Passage.



F. Differentiating between Common Text Structures

Research during the 1980s established that students with learning disabilities

have difficulty recognizing many task demands related to comprehension

activities, including how to differentiate between, and strategically ap-

proach, different types of text (e.g., Englert & Thomas, 1987; Taylor &

Samuels, 1983; Wong & Wilson, 1984). Students with learning disabilities

tend to be unsure of the characteristics of common narrative and factual

texts, and consequently experience difficulties using their knowledge of text

structures and recognition of the different purposes of texts as an aid

to comprehension. As more narratives tend to be used in schools, general

comprehension strategies were initially taught to suit these story-oriented

texts. In recent times, however, increased awareness that specific strategies

apply more to one text type than another has meant that differentiating

among types of text has become increasingly important.

Students in today’s schools encounter a variety of texts such as poems,

plays, stories, novels, essays, reports, descriptions, and textbook expositions

that are presented through traditional and electronic media. The two most

common of these text structures are narrative and factual. With experience,

most students gradually develop awareness of the different structures used in

written texts; however, it is particularly important that teachers facilitate this

awareness for students with learning disabilities. These students tend to be

delayed in their comprehension of the different text structures used in factual

or informational texts (Weisberg & Balajthy, 1989) and in their awareness of

the basic elements of narratives (Montague et al., 1990).

The elements of a narrative are organized into what can be described as

‘‘story grammars,’’ consisting of setting, characters, events, and eventual

outcome. Students typically develop an awareness of the story grammar

appropriate to narrative text (e.g., fiction, fairy tales, myths, fiction, fables,

plays, and legends) as they listen to and read stories during their early years

of life. Students who struggle with reading, however, are slower to develop a

sense of the importance of elements such as main characters, setting, the

problem, the complication, and the resolution of a plot. This is evident from

the stories that these students tell and their comprehension of those they

read. For example, Montague et al. (1990) gave students, with and without

learning disabilities, tasks that required the students to retell and write

stories. They found that students with learning disabilities did not perform

as well as their peers did in terms of amount and type of information

included in their recounts and written stories. Compared to their peers,

students with learning disabilities demonstrated less developed understand-

ing of the conventions of a narrative.



In contrast to narrative texts, the purpose of factual writing is to impart

new information and develop students’ general knowledge about the world

and natural phenomena. Factual texts use one or more patterns of text

structure, such as cause and effect, problem and solution, temporal sequen-

cing, enumeration, or comparison and contrast (Anderson & Armbruster,

1984). Factual or expository text structure can also include embedded defin-

itions, explanations of technical processes, and procedural sequences, as

well as labeled diagrams, graphs, and charts that need to be ‘‘read’’ and

interpreted.

In the same way that awareness of the conventions of narratives affects

student’s comprehension, awareness of structures used in factual texts

affects students’ understanding and recall. For example, Taylor and Samuels

(1983) investigated how students’ awareness of text structure impacts on

their comprehension by comparing recall of well-organized passages with

that of passages consisting of randomly ordered sentences. They found that

the fifth and sixth grade students who were aware of text structure recalled

more from the well-organized passages. The students who were less aware of

text structure, however, performed in a similar way on both the randomly

ordered and the well-organized passages. In this and other related research,

students with learning disabilities seemed unaware of their inability to

comprehend and used no strategies to monitor their understanding of text

(Englert & Thomas, 1987; Taylor & Williams, 1983).

Gersten et al.’s (2001) review of reading comprehension research presents

the following three major research findings related to students’ awareness of

text structure and their comprehension of factual texts. From the literature,

it appears (1) that awareness of text structure increases developmentally

(Brown & Smiley, 1977), (2) that some text structures are more obvious

and easier to recognize than others (Englert & Hiebert, 1984), and (3) that

skill at discerning text structures, and then using knowledge about them

appropriately, is an important factor in comprehending factual text (Taylor

& Beach, 1984; Taylor & Samuels, 1983). Acquiring an awareness of text

structure seems particularly important for readers with learning disabilities.

It appears to foster an appreciation of the organizational factors that under-

lie factual texts and provides a way for students to remember new infor-

mation. The strategy of analyzing the structure of texts may also lead to

more active processing and a greater effort on the part of students

to understand and remember what is read (Carlisle & Rice, 2002). While

an awareness of text structure is not likely to address all the problems

associated with understanding different types of texts that are experienced

by students with learning disabilities, it is clearly likely to enhance the

coherence of students’ comprehension.



G. Summary of Students’ Difficulties in ReadingComprehension

Students with learning disabilities can experience comprehension problems

for a range of reasons which can generally be conceptualized as a lack of

mastery of the component knowledge and skills that make up effective

reading comprehension. For students with learning disabilities, reading

comprehension problems often feature difficulties in recognizing and appro-

priately applying background knowledge, poor decoding and word recogni-

tion skills, limited vocabulary knowledge, underdeveloped reading fluency, a

less than strategic approach to comprehension, including the use of ineffect-

ive or inefficient strategies, and limited understandings about common text

structures. Frequently, these reasons do not operate independently of one

another; rather, there exists a reciprocal causation between the component

skills of reading comprehension, resulting in potentially complex and debili-

tating reading comprehension problems. Nonetheless, students’ difficulties

with reading comprehension can be ameliorated by focused and effective

instruction.

Swanson’s (1999, p. 522) meta-analysis indicated that the most important

instructional components associated with improvements in reading compre-

hension were:

1. Directed response questioning, which included the teacher directing stu-

dents to ask questions, the teacher and students engaging in dialogue,

and/or the teacher asking questions.

2. Controlling the difficulty of the processing demands of tasks so that activ-

ities were generally short, with the level of difficulty controlled, the tasks

appropriately sequenced, and the teacher providing necessary assistance

through demonstration.

3. Elaboration, which occurred when additional or redundant explanations

were made about the concepts, procedures, or steps in a strategy.

4. Modeling by the teacher of steps so that the teacher demonstrated the

processes that the students were to follow.

5. Small group instruction, either with students and a teacher or between

students.

6. Strategy cues that included reminders to use strategy steps, the teacher

verbalizing the procedures, and the use of ‘‘think aloud’’ models with the

teacher presenting the benefits of strategy use and its applicability to

certain reading situations.

Obviously, there is no quick fix to difficulties with reading comprehen-

sion for students with learning difficulties. However, well-considered instruc-

tion delivered over an extended period of time, and integrated across the



curriculum, will support students to improve and develop their skills and

enable them to better participate in learning at school and in the wide

variety of ‘‘real life’’ experiences that require effective and efficient reading

comprehension.

III. EFFECTIVE READING COMPREHENSIONINSTRUCTION

Before discussion of the role of specific strategies in improving the compre-

hension of narrative and factual texts, general approaches to implementing

effective instructional interventions for students with learning disabilities

will be outlined. This is an important area to address because considerable

progress has been made in designing, implementing, and evaluating effective

interventions that target these students’ performance difficulties in academic

areas (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2000).

For instance, one of the prevailing criticisms of special education for

students with learning disabilities is ‘‘its overemphasis on the ‘basics’ with

the exclusion of any creative or cognitively complex activities,’’ which con-

sequently limits these students to a sparse intellectual diet (Gersten, 1998,

p. 163). This type of instruction reflects the belief that the development of

basic skills precedes any complex cognitive activity. Swanson’s (1999) meta-

analysis of reading research, however, suggests that providing many practice

opportunities can actually minimize the difficulties experienced by students

with learning disabilities, as long as the practice takes place in small, inter-

active groups and is accompanied by direct questioning and careful control

of the difficulty level of tasks.

Similarly, Vaughn et al.’s (2000) meta-analysis, which examined the com-

ponents of interventions associated with high effect sizes, found that the

strongest impact on students’ learning came from interactive, small-group

instruction coupled with controlled task difficulty which, together, ensured

students’ success. Vaughn and her colleagues (2000) also found that effective

interventions focused on key learning areas and used a style of ‘‘direct

response teaching’’ which is interactive and invites dialogue between the

teacher and students, and among peers, through posing questions and

encouraging students to think aloud about text.

In their analysis of reading comprehension research for students

with learning disabilities, Mastropieri et al. (1996) also concluded that self-

questioning strategies had a positive impact on students’ learning. Similarly,

Gersten et al. (2001) in their review categorized effective strategy interven-

tions as either ‘‘comprehension monitoring’’ or ‘‘text structuring.’’ In both

these types of studies, students were taught to generate questions and to

think aloud about what they read before, during, and after they interact with



text. Table II presents some of the self-questions students can ask as they

work towards constructing and clarifying the meaning of a passage.

To summarize, in effective reading comprehension interventions, students

are encouraged to articulate their thoughts while teachers provide feedback

or ask follow-up questions based on the students’ responses to text. This

interactive dialogue accelerates the comprehension process and moves stu-

dents with learning disabilities toward the ultimate goal of the internaliza-

tion of more sophisticated thinking skills that can be used appropriately as

they read. The role of the teacher is to explicitly teach students how to apply

appropriate strategies. This instruction should be overt and should include

Table II

Self-Questions Asked Before, During and After Reading

Before reading During reading After reading

What will this text be about?

Make predictions based on

the cover, title, context of

book, prior info about the

author, etc.

What do I already know about

this topic?

Relate and explore in terms of

background knowledge.

Make connections.

What don’t I understand about

this text?

Skim to identify any words

that may be difficult. Clarify

their meanings.

What type of text is this?

Getting a grip on text

structure can help me

understand the purpose of the

text and know what to expect

from it.

What type of graphic

organizer would be appropriate

for this text?

Concept map, matrix, cause

and effect diagram, numbered

steps, etc.

What is important

information?

Underline important parts of

the passage in order to

remember where important

information is.

Where does the information fit

into my graphic organizer?

Formulate an ongoing

graphic overview.

Consider relationships and

connections to what I already

know.

What is the author going to say

next?

Make predictions based on

your reading so far.

What will I do if I encounter an

unfamiliar word or if I realize I

don’t understand what I have

read?

Apply ‘‘fix-up’’ strategies:

- Sound out the word. Have I

heard it before?

- Read ahead.

- Reread the section that is

confusing me.

- Vary my pace of reading to

better enable

comprehension (slow down)

or fluency (speed up)

- Ask someone to help.

Can I retell the story or restate

the main points in my own

words?

Summarize and self-question.

What connections does this

text have with my life and

background knowledge?

Make links with what

I already know.

What do I need to find out?

Skimming for a date or name,

and looking for a key word or

a particular phrase, involves

knowing about text structure

and layout

How will I answer

comprehension questions after

a passage?

Use a strategy like the 3H

Strategy. The answers are

either Here, Hidden, or in my

Head.

How can I remember

information from the passage?

Complete the graphic

overview



multiple opportunities for students to practice under quality feedback con-

ditions with the teacher or with able peers before they use strategies on their

own. Students should also be taught that there are some instances where

strategies are only somewhat useful and other situations where strategies do

not fit particular passages. Interactive dialogue is an essential component of

strategy instruction. It provides ongoing and systematic feedback to assist

students in understanding what they read.

A. Improving Students’ Comprehension of Narrative Text

Proficient readers set their own purposes for reading, engage in active

questioning, and understand when to reread or apply other fix-up strategies.

As we have already discussed, students with learning disabilities can be

taught these strategic ways of approaching comprehension tasks. Strategic

readers make decisions based on their purposes for reading. For example,

if reading for pleasure, they can approach the task in any manner, including

reading as fast or as slowly as desired and even skipping over sections of the

text. However, if students are reading to learn, they need to use effective

strategies that will vary depending on whether the text is narrative or exposi-

tory. In general terms, strategic readers start by thinking about what they are

going to read and then use the sort of self-questions and fix-up strategies

already outlined in Table II.

Although this discussion of the strategies appropriate to different text

structures is separated into narrative and factual sections, in actuality,

many of the instructional procedures that facilitate comprehension of narra-

tives can also ease the interpretation of factual texts and vice versa. There are

some special features of each type of text, however, that merit separate

consideration. Graesser et al. (1991) suggest that several characteristics of

narratives make them easier to comprehend than factual texts, mainly

because the topics covered and the organizational strategies used in narra-

tives tend to be more familiar than those employed in, for instance, text-

books. Table III contains a range of strategies that specifically support

students’ comprehension of narrative texts.

Question–Answer Relationships and Reciprocal Teaching are two general

comprehension strategies that can be applied to narrative texts. While stra-

tegic readers attempt to visualize the action of the story and ask themselves

questions focusing on narrative elements (such as setting, characters, and

motives, the main events of the plot, the problem presented in the story, and

its resolution), students with learning disabilities are generally not so active in

processing text. Question–Answer Relationships (QARs), then, are useful in

reminding teachers and students of the variety of questions that can be asked

about any text. QARs focus on three particular types of comprehension

questions that can be asked after reading. These are text-explicit questions



that are answered using literal information from one sentence in the passage,

text-implicit or inferential questions, and script-implicit questions that rely on

students’ background knowledge. The 3H strategy, depicted in Figure 7–1, is

an example of a QAR strategy. Question–Answer Relationship strategy

instruction requires a considerable amount of teacher modeling and collab-

orative work if students are to understand different question types and their

importance to effective comprehension processing.

Another strategy that also encourages students to ‘‘relate information

in the text to their own experiences’’ (Au, 1999) is reciprocal teaching. In

this strategy, the adult and students take turns assuming the role of teacher

(Palincsar, 1986). Using a reciprocal teaching framework, the teacher and

students interact by predicting, questioning, summarizing, and clarifying

information from text. When students predict what will happen or what

information the author wants them to understand from what they are about

to read, they are activating their background knowledge. They also learn to

use the structure of the text to help them make defensible predictions.

Students are, therefore, using and consolidating their knowledge of the

structure of text when engaged in reciprocal teaching activities.

The questioning part of the reciprocal teaching strategy, which can also be

incorporated into the 3H strategy, provides students with opportunities to

Table III

Strategies that Support Students’ Comprehension of Narrative Texts

Types of text Strategy

. Stories

. Drama

. Poetry

. Fairy tales

. Myths

. Fables

. Legends

Focus on descriptive passages featuring noun groups, adjectives, and adverbs

that illustrate characters and settings.

Develop understandings about story grammar. Explain how narratives are

typically structured in terms of orientation, complication, and resolution.

Develop appropriate graphic organizers. For example:

. sociograms to plot understandings about characters and relationships

. storymaps to clarify the sequence of events.

Look for nuances, hints of future events, and the implications of happenings.

These are often key clues to what will happen in the narrative.

Identify main characters and secondary characters. Consider their roles.

Explore the relationships between characters.

Consider, explore, and visualize the setting. Relate it to the characters.

Derive meaning from figurative language. Deconstruct similes, metaphors,

and descriptions.

Verbalize and reflect on ‘‘the movie in your head’’ (i.e., students’ visualization

of the narrative). How and why does it change as the text is read?

Identify temporal words that connect happenings to clarify the sequence of

events.

Retell or recount the text using ‘‘who, what, when, where, why’’ questions as

a guide.



identify the kind of information that is the basis of a good question, to frame

their own questions (whether Here, Hidden, or in my Head), and then

engage in asking themselves and their peers what their answers might be.

In this way, reciprocal teaching empowers students and gives them agency in

what and how they learn. It also allows students to practice identifying

important information in a passage.

In a similar way, reciprocal teaching fosters summarizing skills. Summar-

izing is a difficult task for students with learning disabilities. They find it

difficult to condense information and to determine which parts of a text are

important and which can be omitted without losing key concepts. Teaching

summarizing requires much modeling and practice before students with

learning disabilities experience independent success.

Clarifying is the final aspect of the reciprocal teaching strategy. This

section encourages students to preview difficult vocabulary in a passage

and gives them practice at implementing fix-up strategies to address com-

prehension breakdowns. This strategic approach to comprehension moni-

toring is of particular importance to students with learning disabilities who

are likely to have a history of comprehension difficulties. Once students are

taught in a structured and direct way to clarify their understanding of text

through rereading, reading ahead, using pictures or structural clues, and

asking for help, the conditions are set for them to read meaningfully and to

engage thoughtfully with both narrative and factual texts.

B. Improving Students’ Comprehension of Expository Text

Compared to narrative texts, many students find factual texts less familiar

and less engaging (Gersten et al., 2001). Because factual texts are written to

communicate information, they are more likely to incorporate a greater

variety of text structures (e.g., analysis, cause and effect, classification,

comparison and contrast, definition, description, enumeration, identifica-

tion, illustration, problem and solution, and sequence) and, therefore, to

require the use of multiple comprehension strategies. Table IV presents a

number of strategies that specifically support students’ comprehension of

factual texts. This section will specifically describe the utility of graphic

organizers, the KWL strategy, and SQ3R in supporting students’ effective

comprehension of factual texts.

The use of graphic organizers is a general strategic approach to teaching

reading comprehension that is particularly applicable to factual texts because

they can alert students to the organization of the passage, the central con-

cepts, and the relationships among the ideas presented in the text. Graphic

organizers are also known as semantic maps, semantic webs, concept maps,

frames, or thematic maps. In essence, graphic organizers are representations

of what has been read. They can take various forms, such as a Venn diagram



of similarities and differences between two countries described in a magazine

article, a matrix which organizes attributes of different minerals along two or

more dimensions, or a flowchart marking the events of a significant period of

history. Graphic organizers not only help to make text comprehensible, but

they also assist in the memorization, storage, and analysis of information. As

well, they can encourage students to engage in critical thinking activities and

improve recall of factual information. Graphic organizers are particularly

helpful to students who have limited vocabulary knowledge because they can

serve as mental maps that allow students to draw and visualize the complex

relationships between concepts in any content area.

Another frequently used strategy for understanding factual text is the

K-W-L method. This strategy is based on research that emphasizes the

importance of activating students’ background knowledge in order to assist

them in constructing meaning from purposeful reading (e.g., Anderson,

1977; Slater, 1989; Steffensen, 1978). This strategy makes use of a chart

divided into three categories:

What we already know (K) What we want to learn (W)

What we learned (L)

After the teacher introduces the topic in a general way, students are

instructed to complete the first column of the chart. The teacher then leads

Table IV

Strategies that Support Students’ Comprehension of Factual Texts

Types of text Strategies

. Reports

. Arguments

. Procedures

. Descriptions

. Explanation

. Response

. Discussion

. Recounts

. Personal responses

Build up knowledge of text types in order to understand the social

purposes of text and identify important organizational structures

& features.

Focus on keywords, technical terms, and their synonyms. This key

strategy requires development of vocabulary skills.

‘‘Read’’ charts, graphs, pictures, headings, and other graphics.

Use graphic organizers. Concept maps, definition maps, flow

charts, and structured overviews are all useful organizers for

factual texts.

Make judgments and be critical. For example: Is this an argument

or an information report? Is this a realistic procedure? How

concrete are these ‘‘facts’’?

Develop skills in skimming, scanning, and summarizing

for understanding text organization and for locating

information.

Use contents, glossary, indexes, dictionary, and other sources

to gather information and clarify vocabulary knowledge.



a class discussion on what students think they already know about the topic

and writes down every response the students offer. No judgment about the

validity of responses is made at this time. After the brainstorming session is

complete, the teacher elicits and lists comments from students about what

they want to find out about the chosen topic. At the completion of the

activity, students can direct the teacher to cross out the things they thought

they knew but which proved inaccurate during their exploration of the topic.

During the time set aside to record what was learned, students can clarify

vocabulary, categorize new knowledge, and reflect on the amount of learn-

ing that has occurred (Ogle, 1989).

SQ3R (Survey, Question, Read, Recite (or Record), Review) is a well-

known study method (Robinson, 1961) that helps students work actively

with content material. The process provides a systematic format for reading

that helps students interact with the text by asking questions and then

looking for answers. The steps of this strategy are:

1. Survey. Students examine the titles, headings, subheadings, captions,

charts, and diagrams to get the ‘‘big picture.’’

2. Question. Formulate questions for each title, heading, subheading,

caption, chart, or diagram.

3. Read. Students read and make notes about each section in order to answer

the questions formulated from reading the titles, headings, subheadings,

captions, charts, or diagrams.

4. Record. After reading the selection, students attempt to answer the

questions without looking back at the material.

5. Review. Students reread to verify answers and to make sure they have

understood the main points of the text.

As the students become more proficient at using SQ3R, they formulate

their own questions and guide their own study of text. The time students

spend practicing and being guided to learn this strategy benefits them when

they begin to use this strategic approach independently. Carlisle and Rice

(2002) note, however, that, ‘‘Although SQ3R is often advocated as a useful

comprehension strategy for poor readers, research on the technique over the

years, most of which involved college students, has yielded mixed results.’’

(p. 197) Indeed, most of the studies investigating this technique have focused

on normally achieving students, not those with learning difficulties. It is clear

from the current research on comprehension strategy instruction, however,

that students with learning disabilities need modeling and explicit instruction

to master the prerequisites of strategic reading, such as how to formulate

good questions and how to locate the main idea of a passage. Such instruc-

tion must accompany strategies like SQ3R if they are to be of maximum use

to students with comprehension difficulties.



Researchers from the University of Kansas developed a strategy called

MULTIPASS, based on SQ3R (Schumaker et al., 1982), which takes into

account the particular needs of students with learning disabilities. In this

strategy, readers are taught to make several purposeful ‘‘passes’’ over a

passage from a textbook. The innovation Deshler, Schumaker, and team

made in developing this strategy and many others appropriate to content-

area reading was not so much in the technique itself but in the teaching

method they used. Students experienced instruction that was very explicit

and intense, and practiced on materials of controlled difficulty before apply-

ing the strategy to grade-appropriate textbook passages. Under these condi-

tions, there was clear improvement in comprehension for adolescents with

learning disabilities. These findings suggest that, for students with learning

disabilities, strategy instruction needs to be systematic and sustained over

time, with many opportunities to practice and extend the use of strategies to

a variety of reading situations.

In summary, explicit instruction is an essential feature of effective inter-

ventions that aim to improve the comprehension of both narrative and

factual texts for students with learning disabilities. The elements of appro-

priate strategies should be identified and demonstrated to students using

examples and providing models of strategy use and interactive dialogue.

Ample opportunities for teachers to provide formative feedback and to

shape students’ practice and habit of using comprehension strategies are

necessary.

IV. FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Although strategy instruction for students with learning disabilities has

undoubtedly been successful in improving reading comprehension perform-

ance, considerable work still remains in order to explore how students come

to ‘‘own’’ and to modify, over time, the strategies they are taught. Import-

antly, future research will also need to grapple with how strategy instruction

can be incorporated into schools and classrooms to better support students

with learning disabilities. Unless these challenges related to understanding

and implementing comprehension strategy research are met, the situation

described by Trent et al. (1998, p. 303) will continue, that is, ‘‘Children who

have always learned despite our paradigmatic shifts, structural reforms, and

policy changes will continue to learn, and the children who have always

failed will continue to fail. We must strive to do better.’’

Because students with learning disabilities perform at a level considerably

below that of their age peers on academic tasks, it is vital to make full use of

valuable learning time. Yet, little is known about how to get students to

‘‘own’’ their strategies, personalize them, and apply them spontaneously to



new contexts. Further research into these issues is necessary because, as

Garner (1986) points out, the changes that students make to strategies

after an intervention do not always work in their favor. Alterations

and modifications to strategies, as well as the ways students personalize

strategies, need to be monitored to ensure that students’ strategic plans

remain effective.

Comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities appears

to be most effective when it is explicit and intensive and also attends to some

of the basic elements of academic skill, such as speed of reading and decod-

ing words (Chard et al., 2002). In striving to better understand students’

reading comprehension strategy use though, it will also be necessary to

investigate the importance of the control of task difficulty and its underlying

relationship to students’ task persistence and motivation. The various

organizers and strategies that assist students with learning difficulties to

actively comprehend narrative and factual texts may help them understand

the purposes of comprehension and critical literacy in relation to their own

life goals and sense of agency in the world. Students with learning disabilities

need to be motivated to persist, and may persist longer in what can be for

them the arduous task of comprehension, when they take an active role in

learning.

While the instructional adaptations that meet the needs of students with

learning disabilities may benefit others in a regular classroom setting, the

dilemma of providing the intensity of instruction required by this population

remains. The small group and explicit nature of the effective instructional

approaches identified by recent meta-analyses seems at odds with moves

toward the inclusion of all students in the regular classroom, in-class models

of support for learning difficulties, and the lack of success students with

learning disabilities can experience in resource room pull-out reading pro-

grams. Schumm et al.’s (2000) finding that appropriate and successful inter-

ventions are an effective means of improving the self-concepts of elementary

school children further highlights the importance of small-group instruction.

Although comprehension strategies designed for students with learning

disabilities may benefit all learners, their use in the regular classroom belies

the intensity of instruction that is necessary to make a lasting change to the

comprehension performance of individuals with learning disabilities.

The implementation of procedures for the spread of information about

comprehension strategies requires a great deal of coordination and cooper-

ation between researchers, school system personnel, principals, teachers, and

parents. For example, it is important to consider the impact of classroom

factors, such as classroom goal structure, the view of knowledge and intelli-

gence held by teachers and students, and students’ attributional patterns on

strategy use (Borkowski et al., 1989; Garner, 1987). As Palincsar and David

(1992) observed, successful classroom interventions must take into account



‘‘(1) the culture of the classroom; (2) the place of the intervention in the total

curriculum; and (3) the match between the instructional goals of the research

and the outcomes to which assessment systems hold teachers and children

accountable.’’ (p. 77) As such, whether strategy instruction is effective or not

is subject to a myriad of classroom factors, and, in addition, must fit closely

with current models of special education service delivery.

Unless the challenge of incorporating strategy instruction productively

into school systems is met, we will continue to experience the situation where

‘‘many of the instructional practices that have the most potential to make a

meaningful difference for students with LD and other poor readers are

seldom employed’’ (Carlisle & Rice, 2002). Whole-class undifferentiated

instruction still seems to be the norm in both regular classrooms (Schumm

et al., 2000) and resource settings (Moody et al., 2000). Gersten et al. (1997)

found that when strategy instruction is used in schools, the quality of

instruction can be poor and implementation erratic, with essential elements,

such as the fostering of active participation from students with learning

disabilities, omitted. It is clear that we must strive to do better. Children

need well-designed instruction in comprehension in order to reach the

levels of reading achievement necessary to meet the demands of life in our

increasingly technologically oriented society. Researchers and teachers must

work together to foster critical thinking, motivation, and comprehension

competence for all.

What better testimony to the possibilities of effective strategy instruction

than the comments of a student who learned a reading comprehension

strategy during a successful intervention:

Before I couldn’t answer very many questions. Only one like,

‘‘What’s the title?’’ or something like that. I couldn’t do any of the

others. It was hard for me to understand. I didn’t know what the

heck to do. I was scared of it. I know what to do now!

References

Anderson, R. C. (1977). Schema-directed processes in language comprehension (Tech.

Rep. No 50). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Centre for the Study

of Reading.

Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Content area textbooks. In R. C.

Anderson, J. Osborne, & R. J. Tierney (eds.), Learning to read in American schools

(pp. 193–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Au, K. H. (1999). A multicultural perspective on policies for improving literacy

achievement: Equity and excellence. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.

Pearson, & R. Barr (eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 111, pp.

835–851). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.



Birsh, J. R. (1999). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore, MD:

Paul H. Brookes.

Borkowski, J. G., Estrada, M. M., & Hale, C. A. (1989). General problem-solving

skills: Relations between metacognition and strategic processing. Learning Dis-

ability Quarterly, 12, 57–70.

Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional

retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning disabled students.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 46–53.

Bowers, P. G., & Wolf, M. (1999). Theoretical links between naming speed, precise

timing mechanisms, and orthographic skill in dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An

Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 69–85.

Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1987). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension

strategies: A natural history of one program for enhancing learning. In

J. Borkowski & J. D. Day (eds.), Intelligence and cognition in special children:

Comparative studies of giftedness, mental retardation, and learning disabilities. New

York: Ablex.

Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of pose

passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1–8.

Brownell, M. T., & Walther-Thomas, C. (1999). An interview with Dr. Marilyn

Friend. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 223–228.

Carlisle, J. F. (1999). Free recall as a test of reading comprehension for students with

learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 11–22.

Carlisle, J. F., & Rice, M. S. (2002). Improving reading comprehension: Research-

based principles and practices. Baltimore, MD: York Press.

Chan, L. K. S., & Cole, P. G. (1986). The effects of comprehension monitoring

training on the reading competence of learning disabled and regular class stu-

dents. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 33–40.

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(5), 386–406.

Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children’s developing awareness of text

structures in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65–75.

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(2), 93–105.

Forness, S. (1997). Mega-analysis of meta-analyses: What works in special education

services. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(6), 4–9.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for recon-

ceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities

Research and Practice, 13, 204–219.

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Garner, R. (1986). Children’s knowledge of structural properties of expository text.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(6), 411–416.

Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with

learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,

13, 162–170.



Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading

comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of

research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279–320.

Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about

using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 466–476.

Graesser, A. C., Golding, G. T., and Long, V. B. (1991). Advances in discourse

processes: Structures and procedures of implicit knowledge. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Graham, L., & Wong, B. Y. L. (1993). Comparing two modes in teaching a question-

answering strategy for enhancing reading comprehension: Didactic and

self-instructional training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4), 270–279.

Graham, L., Bellert, A. M., & Pegg, J. E. (2001). Enhancing the automaticity of

basic academic skills for middle school students. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the Australian Association of Special Education, October, Melbourne,

Australia.

Graves, A. W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training

on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1(2), 90–100.

Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea

comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of summarization

strategy and self-monitoring instruction. Journal of Special Education, 34,

127–139.

Kamenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (2001). Introduction to this special issue: The

DNA of reading fluency. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 203–210.

Kintsch, W., & Kennan, J. M. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the

number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5,

257–279.

Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction:

Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabil-

ities. Exceptional Children, 58, 270–279.

Manzo, A. V., & Manzo, U. C. (1993). Literacy disorders: Holistic diagnosis and

remediation. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. (1996). Reading

comprehension: A synthesis of research in learning disabilities. In Advances in

learning and behavioural disabilities, T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (eds.),

Vol. 10, pp. 201–223. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

McCormick, S. (1999). Instructing students who have literacy problems. New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall.

Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency:

Approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283–306.

Montague, M., Maddux, C. D., & Dereshiwsky, M. I. (1990). Story grammar and

comprehension and production of narrative prose by students with learning

disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 190–197.

Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Fischer, M. (2000). Reading instruction

in the resource room: Set up for failure. Exceptional Children, 66, 305–316.

Ogle, D. M. (1989). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of

expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564–570.



Palincsar, A. M., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-

fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1,

117–175.

Palincsar, A. M., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independ-

ent learning from text. Reading Teacher, 39(8), 771–777.

Palincsar, A. S., & David, Y. M. (1992). Classroom-based literacy instruction: The

development of one program of intervention research. In B. Y. L. Wong (ed.),

Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international

perspective (pp. 65–80). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316.

Pegg, J. E., Graham, L. J., & Bellert, A. M. (2002). An analysis of long-term effects of

an intervention program designed for low-achieving middle-school students.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Psychology in Math-

ematics Association, July, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Perfetti, C. A. (1977). Language comprehension and fast decoding: Some psycholin-

guistic prerequisites for skilled reading comprehension. In J. T. Guthries (ed.),

Cognition, curriculum, and comprehension (pp. 20–41). Newark, DE: International

Reading Association.

Perfetti, C. A. (1984). Some reflections on learning and not learning to read. Remedial

and Special Education, 5(3), 34–38.

Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. D. (1989). The

challenges of classroom strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 89,

301–342.

Raben, K., Darch, C., & Eaves, R. C. (1999). The differential effects of two system-

atic reading comprehension approaches with students with learning disabilities.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(1), 36–47.

Robinson, H. M. (1961). The major aspects of reading. In H. A. Robinson

(ed.), Reading: Seventy-five years of progress. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro,

B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (eds). Theoretical issues in reading comprehension

(pp. 33–58). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1976). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.),

Attention and performance (Vol. VI, pp573–603). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D., Alley, G. Warner, L., & Denton, T. (1982). Multipass:

A learning strategy for improving reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities

Quarterly, 5(3), 295–304.

Schumm, J. S., Moody, S. W., & Vaughan, S. (2000). Grouping for reading

instruction. Does one size fit all? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5),

477–488.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1992). Verbalization of comprehension strategies:

Effects on children’s achievement outcomes. Human Learning, 4(1), 1–10.

Seigel, L. S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 25, 618–629.



Seigel, L. S. (1993). The cognitive basis of dyslexia. In M. Howe & R. Pasnak (eds.),

Emerging themes in cognitive development (pp. 33–52). New York: Springer

Verlag.

Shaywitz, B. A., Stuebing, J. M. Shaywitz, S. E., & Fletcher, J. (1996). Intelligent

testing and the discrepancy model for students with learning disabilities. Learning

Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(4), 295–304.

Slater, M. D. (1989). Messages as experimental stimuli: Design, analysis, and infer-

ence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in

Journalism and Mass Communication, August, Washington, DC.

Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual

differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16,

32–71.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Cognitive processes and the reading problems of learning

disabled children: Evaluating the assumption of specificity. In J. K. Torgesen &

B. Y. L. Wong (eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning

disabilities (pp. 87–131). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects on reading: Some consequences of individ-

ual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,

360–407.

Stanovich, K. E., & Seigel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children

with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable

difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24–53.

Steffensen, M. S. (1978). Satisfying inquisitive adults: Some simple methods of

answering yes/no questions. Journal of Child Language, 5(2), 221–236.

Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of

intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(6), 503–534.

Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on

students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review

of Educational Research, 68, 277–321.

Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on

middle grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading

Research Quarterly, 19, 134–146.

Taylor, B. M., & Samuels, S. J. (1983). Children’s use of text structure in recall of

expository material. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 517–528.

Taylor, M. B., & Williams, J. P. (1983). Comprehension of learning-disabled readers:

Task and text variations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 743–751.

Tractenberg, R. E. (2002). Exploring hypotheses about phonological awareness,

memory, and reading achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5),

407–424.

Trent, S. C., Artiles, A. J., & Englert, C. S. (1998). From deficit thinking to social

constructivism: A review of theory, research, and practice in special education.

Review of Educational Research, 23, 277–307.

Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD

intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children,

67(1), 99–114.



Weisberg, R., & Balajthy, E. (1989). Improving disabled readers’ summarization and

recognition of expository text structure. In N. D. Padak, T. V. Rasinski, &

J. Logan (eds.), Challenges in reading (pp. 141–151). Provo, UT: College Reading

Association.

Westwood, P. (2001). Reading and literacy difficulties: Approaches to teaching and

assessment. Victoria, Australia: ACER.

Westwood, P., & Graham, L. (2000). How many children with special needs in

regular classes: Official predictions vs teachers’ perceptions in South Australia

and New South Wales. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5(3), 24–35.

Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. (2000). ‘‘The double-deficit hypothesis’’ for the developmen-

tal dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 1–24.

Wolf, M. (1996). ‘‘The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias.’’

Paper presented at the meeting of the Orton Dyslexia Society, Boston, MA.

Wolf, M. (2002). The second deficit: An investigation of the independence of phono-

logical and naming speed deficits in developmental dyslexia. Reading and Writing:

An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15(2), 43–72.

Wong, B. Y. L., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing meta-comprehension in learning

disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training.

Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(2), 228–238.

Wong, B. Y. L., & Wilson, M. (1984). Investigating awareness of and teaching

passage organization in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabil-

ities, 17, 477–482.



Documents

Learning About Learning Disabilities || Difficulties in Reading Comprehension for Students with Learning Disabilities