Read Klingner-TeachingReadinginthe21stCentury.pdf text version

TEACHING READING IN THE 21ST CENTURY: A GLIMPSE AT HOW SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS PROMOTE READING COMPREHENSION

Janette K. Klingner, Jennifer Urbach, Deborah Golos, Mary Brownell, and Shailaja Menon

Abstract. In this study, we conducted 124 observations of 41 special education teachers teaching reading to their third- through fifth-grade students with learning disabilities to determine the extent to which and in what ways they promoted students' reading comprehension. In 42 lessons, we did not observe any comprehension instruction. In 30 lessons, the only comprehension-related activity consisted of asking students questions about what they had read by means of mostly factual, rote-level questions. In 49 lessons, teachers provided additional comprehension instruction, although this mostly consisted of prompting students to use a strategy rather than providing explicit instruction. Predicting was the most common strategy observed. We rarely saw teachers use more complex strategies, such as finding the main idea or summarizing. Most special education teachers seemed unsure of how to promote their students' reading comprehension. We noted many missed opportunities to do so. Our findings suggest implications for researchers and teacher preparation programs.

JANETTE K. KLINGNER, Ph.D., University of Colorado at Boulder. JENNIFER URBACH, Ph.D., University of Northern Colorado. DEBORAH GOLOS, Ph.D., Utah State University. MARY BROWNELL, Ph.D., University of Florida. SHAILAJA MENON, Ph.D., University of Colorado at Boulder.

Over 30 years ago, Durkin (1978-79) conducted an observational study of reading comprehension instruction. She found that typical comprehension instruction followed a mentioning, practicing, and assessing procedure. That is, teachers would mention to students the skill that they wanted them to use. Then they would give students opportunities to practice that skill through workbooks or skill sheets, and then they would assess

whether or not students used the skill successfully. Noticeably missing from this form of comprehension instruction is instruction. Thus, in over 4,000 minutes of reading instruction observed in fourth-grade classrooms, Durkin only recorded 20 minutes of actual comprehension instruction. Similarly, 12 years ago, Vaughn, Moody, and Schumm (1998) observed reading instruction in elementary-level

Volume 33, Spring 2010

59

special education teachers' resource rooms in South Florida. Observing 14 special education teachers three times each over the course of one year, the authors found that teachers rarely provided explicit instruction designed to promote their students' reading comprehension skills. Eleven teachers taught reading comprehension by either reading the story aloud to the students and asking questions, or having the group take turns reading the story followed by the teacher asking questions. The questions teachers asked were mostly factual and literal. Of Vaughn et al.'s 41 observations, in only one case did they record a teacher teaching students a comprehension strategy. Since then, the National Reading Panel has published its widely disseminated report (2000) emphasizing the importance of reading comprehension as one of the "big ideas" of reading. Reading First, as part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), mandated increased attention to reading skills instruction, including reading comprehension. As part of this initiative, teachers at participating schools received extensive professional development and reading coaches were assigned, all designed to improve teachers' reading instruction. Further, RAND published a report calling for an increased focus on reading comprehension (Snow, 2002). Given this heightened focus on reading comprehension, how much has instruction changed since Durkin's (1978/1979) and Vaughn et al.'s (1998) studies? The purpose of the current study was to examine how special education teachers integrate reading comprehension into their reading instruction. We conducted multiple observations of special education teachers teaching reading to their third- through fifth-grade students with learning disabilities (LD).

Reading Comprehension Instruction for Students with LD

Reading comprehension instruction is helpful for all students, but it is particularly critical for students with LD (Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000). Students with LD tend to be inactive learners (Torgesen & Licht, 1983), who do not monitor their learning or use strategies effectively. In addition, many students with LD have weak executive functioning and struggle with planning, organizing information and ideas, initiating and maintaining focus on activities, selecting relevant task goals, choosing and changing strategies, self-monitoring, and regulating behavior (McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1990; Meltzer, 2007; Swanson, 1999). Metacognition is central to the notion of executive functions, as is the importance of teaching students metacognitive strategies (Torgesen, 1994). Students

with LD who speak a home language other than English may face additional challenges. Like other students with LD, they tend to focus on surface aspects of reading and apply fewer comprehension strategies, and also may tap into background knowledge less and have more limited English vocabularies than their fluent English-speaking students (Jiménez, 1997). Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, and Baker (2001) speculated that the narrative comprehension difficulties of students with LD may be a result of a breakdown in metacognition, or not being able to reflect about how reading is progressing or knowing which strategies to use when comprehension breaks down. Expository text structures, such as those found in history books or periodicals, present students with LD with even greater challenges than narrative text structures. Expository text structures can take many different forms, and it can be difficult for students to figure out which form is being used. In contrast, good readers are better able to discern which structure is being used and to determine which strategies to apply to aid comprehension. For these reasons, students with LD benefit from focused instruction in how to identify different text structures (Gersten et al., 2001). Many of the reading comprehension strategies that have been associated with the highest effect sizes for students with LD are those that teach strategies that prompt students to monitor and reflect before, during, and after reading. Such strategies ask students to consider their background knowledge about the topic they are reading, to summarize key ideas, and to self-question while they read (e.g., Gajria et al., 2007; Gersten et al., 2001; Jenkins, Heliotis, Stein, & Haynes, 1987; Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, & Whedon, 1996; Swanson, 1999; Wong & Jones, 1982). Direct instruction, strategy instruction, or a combination of the two, are associated with the highest effect sizes in reading comprehension for students with LD (Swanson, 2001; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999). The instructional components that contributed the most to improved effect sizes in reading comprehension include (a) teacher and students questioning, (b) interactive dialogue between teachers and students and/or students and students, (c) controlling task difficulty and scaffolding instruction, (d) elaboration of steps or strategies and modeling by the teacher, (e) small-group instruction, and (f) use of cues to help students remember to use and apply what they learn.

Observation Studies of Special Education Reading Instruction

The majority of special education reading observation studies have focused on determining the amount of time spent on various activities. For example, Allington

Learning Disability Quarterly

60

and McGill-Franzen (1989) followed 64 students in second, fourth, and eighth grade for one full school day. Half of the students were in special education (of whom the "vast majority" were labeled with LD, p. 534), while the other half received Chapter 1 services. The authors found that, compared to the general education classroom, reading instruction in special education programs offered the smallest proportion of active teaching and the largest proportion of seatwork activities, with fewer total minutes actually spent on reading instruction. In another study, Haynes and Jenkins (1986) observed fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students with disabilities in 23 resource rooms and in general education classrooms. They found that reading instruction varied a great deal across programs and that the amount of actual reading instruction was "remarkably low" (p. 161). Specifically, students in resource rooms spent more than half of their time on seatwork (52%), 19% of the time receiving small-group instruction, and 16% receiving one-to-one support. Similarly, Leinhardt, Zigmond, and Cooley (1981) and O'Sullivan, Ysseldyke, Christenson, and Thurlow (1990) observed students with LD in different settings and noted the amount of time spent in different activities with similar results. Yet, in none of these studies did the researchers look specifically at reading comprehension instruction. Gelzheiser and Myers (1991) did include reading comprehension. Observing the reading instruction provided to students with disabilities in general, remedial, and special education classrooms, these authors found that students spent an excessive amount of time waiting, on seatwork, and on independent activities rather than actually reading or receiving explicit instruction. The amount of time spent on reading comprehension was especially low (8% in the resource room). While Gelzheiser and Myers noted how many minutes were spent on different types of instruction, they did not describe what the instruction looked like. As noted earlier, Vaughn et al. (1998) observed reading instruction in resource rooms and found very little comprehension instruction. Moody, Vaughn, Hughes, and Fischer (2000) conducted a followup study to Vaughn et al., observing in the same teachers' classrooms. They noted more emphasis on phonics teaching than in the initial study and more emphasis on children's literature; however, they did not report any changes in reading comprehension. Thus, it appears that to date, special education reading observation studies have not focused much on reading comprehension instruction. In fact, in their synthesis of special education reading observation studies, Vaughn, Levy, Coleman, and Bos (2002) noted that

"reading comprehension instruction was sorely neglected in the reports of these observations" (p. 9).

Purpose

Although researchers and educators now know a great deal about the importance of providing explicit instruction in reading comprehension and how to teach various comprehension strategies, little is known about how special education teachers currently teach reading comprehension. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which and in what ways special education teachers promote their students' reading comprehension.

METHODS

The current study was part of a larger investigation conducted over two years to assess relationships among special education teachers' reading instruction, other teacher and school-level variables, and student achievement. In the larger study, researchers observed 98 special educators providing reading instruction across three states (e.g., Brownell et al., 2009; Brownell et al., in preparation). The research team evaluated teachers' instructional practices using the Reading Instruction in Special Education Observation Instrument (RISE) and assessed their reading content knowledge. In addition, the team assessed individual students' reading achievement using a variety of standardized and curriculum-based measures. Multiple-regression analyses indicated that teacher knowledge of decoding explained a moderate proportion of variance in observed reading practice, ranging from .08 to .21, depending on the practice being observed. Teacher knowledge of comprehension did not account for a significant proportion of variance in observed classroom practice. Hierarchical linear modeling analyses demonstrated that decoding instruction accounted for a moderate proportion of variance in word identification (.12) and word attack gains (.15), whereas various aspects of observed classroom practice accounted for a moderate proportion of variance in oral reading fluency (ranging from .09 to .10). Different facets of generic classroom practice and comprehension practice accounted for significant and moderate proportions of the variance in students' reading comprehension scores, ranging from .08 to .13. Notably, time spent in instruction and the number of students in a group moderated the relationships between observed classroom practice and student achievement.

Research Design

The focus of the current mixed-methods study was on the descriptive data from the RISE as well as findings

Volume 33, Spring 2010

61

Table 1 Characteristics of Special Education Teachers

Teacher

19 1 4 4 4 17 23 10 16 33 27 3 8 30 2 4 5 22 25 3.5 1.5 4 MA MA MA MA BA MA 71.8 89.4 47.6 71.8 87.3 94.2 MA 53.9 BA 69.5 MA 69.5 R R R R R R R R R BA 29 R BA 32.4 R BA 69. R MA 79. R Read 180 Harcourt RM-Plus RM Harcourt Harcourt Harcourt Harcourt SFA Harcourt SFA RM Harcourt SFA Eclectic Eclectic BA 1.9 R RM MA 44.8 R RM MA 46 I RM 12 7 7 5 4 13 5 6 6 11 5 5 6 5 6 7 BA 45.5 R RM 3 MA 89.2 R SFA/Harcourt 2 BA 75 R Harcourt 6 MA 34.8 R Harcourt RM 7 50/0 60/0 90/0 60/90 60/90 60/0 100/100 80/80 90/0 55/55 95/95 90/90 90/90 90/90 70/0 50/0 60/0 100/0 60/30 30/60 MA 54.1 I Kaleidoscopes 9 75/75 MA 87.7 R Harcourt 3 45/45

Gender

Ethnicity

Yrs. Teaching Degree Curriculum

School FRL%

Class Type

Studs. Tested

Minutes in SE/GE

RC Rating

3.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 1.5

101

F

W

102

F

W

103

F

B

104

M

B

105

F

W

106

F

W

107

F

W

108

F

W

109

F

W

110

F

W

Learning Disability Quarterly

111

F

W

112

F

W

62

113

F

W

114

F

W

115

F

W

116

F

W

117

F

W

119

F

W

120

F

W

121

F

W

301

F

W

302

F

W

continued on next page

Table 1 continued Characteristics of Special Education Teachers

Teacher

26 7 30 25 30 29 25 7 16 17 30 17 25 14 6 5 32 6 13 BA MA MA 4.1 94.3 93.3 MA 77.3 MA 35.3 MA 96 R R R R R R/I MA 91.7 R MA 2 R MA 35 R MA 46 R MA 90.2 R/I Eclectic/DPS Soar to Success Eclectic Eclectic SRA Eclectic Eclectic Eclectic Eclectic Eclectic Eclectic/DPS MA 85.7 I DPS MA 94 R Eclectic 6 3 5 8 7 6 3 4 4 7 5 4 4 MA 23 R Eclectic 6 MA 25 R Eclectic 8 MA 92.4 R/I Eclectic 6 MA 57.5 R Eclectic 7 45/45 40/60 40/0 50/0 45/45 90/0 30/60 30/30 60/30 35/60 45/45 30/60 45/40 60/30 30/90 40/50 50/40 MA 51.2 R Open Ct/Jump St 4 50/40 MA 25 R Eclectic 7 50/0

Gender

Ethnicity

Yrs. Teaching Degree Curriculum

School FRL%

Class Type

Studs. Tested

Minutes in SE/GE

RC Rating

2.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 4.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.5

303

F

W

304

F

W

305

F

W

306

F

W

307

F

W

308

F

W

309

F

W

310

F

MA/JA

311

M

W

Volume 33, Spring 2010

312

F

W

313

F

W

314

F

W

63

316

F

W

317

F

W

318

F

319

M

AC

320

F

W

321

F

W

322

F

W

Note. F = female; M = male; W = White; B = Black; MA = Mexican American; JA = Japanese American; AC = African Caribbean; FRL = free or reduced-price lunch; R = resource setting; I = inclusion; SC = self-contained; SE = special education; GE = general education; RM = Reading Mastery (published by SRA); Harcourt = Harcourt Trophies; SFA = Success for All; DPS = Denver Public Schools curriculum; RC = reading comprehension rating on the RISE.

from extensive field notes collected during observations of reading instruction over one school year.

Participants and Setting

We included 41 special educators from Florida and Colorado (i.e., all of the teachers from Florida and Colorado from Year 2 of the larger study) (see Table 1). To select teachers, we asked participating school districts to provide us with the names of the special education teachers in the district. We subsequently invited to participate the special education teachers whom the schools had identified as teaching reading to upper-elementary students with LD for at least 90 minutes a week. When teachers expressed interest in participating in the study, we determined whether they were fully certified to teach special education and only included teachers with such certification. Teachers had obtained their degrees from a variety of in- and out-of-state institutions of higher education. The vast majority of teachers were of Caucasian ethnicity. Three were male. Thirtytwo of the teachers had earned master's degrees, while a bachelor's degree was the highest degree earned by nine. Over half (n = 25) of the teachers taught in schools with a free or reduced-priced lunch count over 50%; 13 taught in schools where this percentage was over 80%. All teachers taught third-, fourth-, and/or fifth-grade students with LD in reading. Teachers had between 1 to 32 years of experience, with a mean of 15.3 years. The student sample was diverse. Of the 244 students tested, 106 were White (43%), 66 were Hispanic/Latino (27%), 65 were African American (27%), and 7 were Other (3%). None of the students were considered to be English language learners not yet proficient in English. Subjects consisted of 143 boys (59%) and 101 girls (41%); 175 (72%) received a free or reduced-price lunch. All students were in grades 3 through 5, had been school-identified as having LD, and were considered to have reading difficulties. Mean pretest scores on an oral reading fluency (ORF) curriculum-based measure1 were higher for Florida students than for Colorado students. On second-grade level ORF passages, Florida students' (N = 127) mean was 85.16, SD = 35.44; Colorado students' (N = 117) mean was 54.07, SD = 31.52. On third-grade ORF passages, Florida students' mean score was 79.25, SD = 36.94; Colorado students' mean score was 47.56, SDD = 32.83. For information about students' gains on the ORF and correlations with teachers' RISE ratings, as well as students' gains as assessed by other measures and their correlations, see Brownell et al. (in preparation). The instructional groups in teachers' load ranged from 2 to 17 students. Service delivery models varied between resource (n = 35) and full inclusion (n = 3), or

a combination (n = 3). Instructional time in special education for reading ranged from 150 minutes to 500 minutes a week. In about two thirds of the settings (n = 28), students received additional reading instruction in the general education classroom. Curricula varied among classrooms, ranging from core reading programs such as Reading Mastery Plus (Engelmann et al., 2002) or Harcourt Brace Trophies (Beck et al., 2003), to less prescriptive approaches (see Table 1). Teachers using less prescribed curriculum models relied on a variety of materials and techniques, including a reader's workshop model (Atwell, 1998; Roller, 1996), combined with guided reading (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996).

Instrumentation

Classroom observation tool ­ Reading Instruction in Special Education Observation Instrument (RISE). The researchers completed the RISE when observing teachers. The RISE consists of 22 items that address Instructional Practices, General Instructional Environment, Phonological Awareness, Decoding, Fluency, Reading Comprehension, Classroom Management, and Overall Classroom Practice. We developed the RISE by examining, drawing from, and adapting other observation instruments and procedures, including the English Language Learner Classroom Observation Instrument (e.g., Haager, Gersten, Baker, & Graves 2003), a tool used to document the effectiveness of reading practices in firstgrade classrooms, and observational research on effective teaching of special education students (Englert, 1984; Stanovich & Jordan, 1998). Before using the RISE in this study, we conducted an extensive pilot study of the instrument and refined it based on pilot study results. The coefficient alpha reliability was .96. Items are rated on a 1-4 Likert scale. A score of 1 represents "Low Quality" for an item and 4 represents "High Quality." Observers may check a box marked "Not Observed" if there is no occurrence of an item during the observation. An example of the comprehension items scored is found in Figure 1. Teacher observations. We observed 40 teachers three times each and one teacher four times, for a total of 124 observations. Observers informed participating teachers of the purpose of the observations ("to understand how special educators typically teach reading") and instructed them to teach a typical lesson. For each observation, a trained observer scheduled observations with the teachers and then observed the entire reading lesson for the students in the study for the scheduled day. Observers took detailed field notes in real time, which they used to identify behaviors that corresponded to exemplary practices highlighted on the

Learning Disability Quarterly

64

Figure 1. Sample comprehension items from the RISE.

COMPREHENSION 21. Provides comprehension instruction

1 Low

2 Moderate

3 High

4

Not Observed (If not observed, do not score 22, 23, and 24)

22. Provides explicit instruction in comprehension skills and strategies

· Models/explains comprehension skills and strategies (e.g., demonstrates how to find the main idea in a passage) · Thinks aloud for students in order to demonstrate strategies or skills · Prompts students to focus on relevant information in the text or summarize text

1 Low

2 Moderate

3 High

4

Not Observed

23. Prompts and cues students to use comprehension strategies and skills

· Reminds students to use strategies · Models metacognition · Promotes self regulation

1 Low

2 Moderate

3 High

4

Not Observed

24. Effectively uses teacher facilitated discussions to build comprehension

· Engages students in meaningful discussions · Incorporates students' questions · Monitors students' comprehension · Asks more higher-order questions · Asks students to provide evidence for their responses (asking how and why) · Encourages students to elaborate when responding to questions about the text or while discussing the text

1 Low

2 Moderate

3 High

4

Not Observed

Volume 33, Spring 2010

65

RISE, and then assigned a score to each item. Observations lasted from 30 to 100 minutes, corresponding to the time allocated for reading. Observations were spread over the school year, occurring in late fall, winter, and spring. Interrater reliability was established between and within sites. Observers participated in across-site training by viewing two videotapes and debriefing across the sites. The initial average interrater scores were 71% and 64%, respectively, for between and within sites. To improve interrater agreement, we developed a training tape that exemplified the behaviors identified in the RISE and a training protocol that described scenarios for each rating level of every item. Colorado and Florida established anchor persons who trained the group to 80% reliability before going into the field. In addition, two observers completed observations for 18% of the lessons. For those lessons, the interrater reliability was 91%.

After we finished coding and tallying all of the data and were in complete agreement, we examined the codes again for the purpose of finding relationships among the codes, clustering them into categories (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999). For example, we assigned data chunks with the codes of "predicting," "finding the main idea," and "summarizing," and then combined these and other codes into a "comprehension strategies" category. We highlighted representative examples of each type of instruction throughout this process. In all, we used 22 codes and 6 categories. See Table 2 for more details.

RESULTS

We observed 124 reading lessons in Colorado and Florida taught by 41 teachers. On the RISE, the mean rating in reading comprehension across all teachers was 2.5. This rating is midway between the lowest possible score (1) and the highest score (4). We gave seven teachers either a 3.5 or a 4 rating in reading comprehension (only 1 with 4), indicating that they appeared to be quite skilled in promoting reading comprehension during the lessons observed. We rated 5 teachers with a 1.5, and 13 with a 2.0, suggesting that their reading comprehension instruction was poor. Finally, we scored 10 teachers with a 2.5 and 3 with a 3.0.2 Three teachers never taught reading comprehension when we observed, and thus received no score. In the 124 lessons that we observed, 82 included at least one comprehension activity. We identified six categories that dealt with other activities or instruction: teachers' questions, interactive dialogue, identifying text structure, metacognition, comprehension strategies, and instruction in comprehension strategies. We separated many of these into subcategories. Table 2 shows the number of times we observed each activity other than teachers' questions and interactive dialogues. This list is an indication of the quantity of various activities, but not of the quality. Additional information about the quality of instruction in each category is presented below.

Data Analysis

First, we determined teachers' scores on the RISE and tabulated those data for descriptive purposes (see Table 1). For more information on how teachers' ratings correlated with student achievement, see Brownell et al. (in preparation). Second, we (in this case, the first two authors) separately read and reread all field notes and identified all comprehension-related activities. Next, we independently developed codes to reflect all comprehensionrelated activities according to type of activity or instruction. This was done by randomly selecting two sets of observation field notes and independently chunking all data into idea units (i.e., bracketing every instructional occurrence) and assigning each unit a label or code that referred to the type of instruction observed (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Once we had developed an initial set of codes, we met to compare and refine our lists and come up with one agreed-upon set of codes. We looked for areas of agreement and disagreement. When we disagreed, we discussed what would make sense and refined the code list accordingly. We then independently coded an additional set of observation notes, adding more codes as needed, and repeated this process. In this way, we created a master code list, which we used with all of our observation notes. Separately, we then tallied the number of instances we observed of each instructional practice, and met again to compare our tallies. In the few cases in which our tallies for a specific instructional practice differed, we went back to the original data (i.e., observation notes), examined the instructional occurrence in question, and reached an agreement on whether the practice fit a particular code.

Teachers' Questions

As stated, 82 reading lessons included at least one comprehension activity. In three cases, the only comprehension-related instruction was review of vocabulary. In the other 79 lessons, the teacher asked at least one comprehension question. Of those, in 30 lessons the only comprehension-related activity was to ask students questions about what they had read (or listened to as read by the teacher, as was the case five times). In general, this questioning consisted of mostly factual, rote questions, either to check if students understood what they read or to assess recall. Higher-level questioning was observed only 16 times. In 39 lessons, the

Learning Disability Quarterly

66

teacher asked surface-level questions regarding what vocabulary terms meant (e.g., "Do you know what a plank is?").

Interactive Dialogue

Even when teachers engaged in extensive questioning of students, they did not necessarily promote interactive dialogue of the content students were reading that might have promoted their understanding of the material. Instead, most teachers followed the InitiationEvaluation-Response sequence (IRE) typical of classroom discourse (Cazden, 1988). We looked for an

active exchange of ideas with multiple contributions by students. We noted interactive dialogue in seven lessons. The excerpt below is similar to an IRE sequence, yet is different in that multiple students were involved, did not raise their hands, and were actively engaged in the conversation. Teacher: Can a human baby do much at 6 weeks old? A tiger baby is already hunting with their mother. Student 1: No. Student 2: That's crazy! Teacher: What does extinct mean?

Table 2 Type and Number of Comprehension Activities Other Than Teachers' Questions and Interactive Dialogues

Activity Text Structure

Problem-Solution Compare-Contrast Beginning/Middle/End

Number of Times Observed

4 1 2

Metacognition

Reminder to think before or during reading Other (questions about what students thought after reading; praise for thinking) 15 2

Comprehension Strategies

Predicting Making connections Rereading Summarizing Finding the main idea Figuring out the meaning of words Retelling Visualizing Previewing questions Generating questions Paraphrasing 30 13 12 7 4 4 3 2 2 2 2

Instruction in Comprehension Strategies

Explanations Modeling

Note. Of the 124 lessons observed, only 49 included one or more of the activities listed in this table.

7 4

Volume 33, Spring 2010

67

Student 3: Like, they are all gone. Student 1: Like dinosaurs. Teacher: Good example ... Teacher: Who can think of one way they are alike? Student 1: They have tan fur? Student 2: They hunt the same. Teacher: Which is how? Student 2: They jump in front and bite their neck. Teacher: Who remembers another one? Student 3: They are both becoming extinct. Student 2: They are not! Teacher: Which one is? Student 2: The tiger. In the second excerpt, the teacher was conversing with just one student. The teacher is questioning the student, using higher-order questions, but the discussion goes beyond the IRE sequence in the ways the teacher and student respond to one another. Teacher: Why would he want the map? If it's not that much money ... Student: But it is; I know that it is. The guy was listening to the conversation, I think maybe so he can sell it or something. He tried to buy the chest ... and got very mad when she wouldn't sell it to him. Teacher: Do you think he knew the treasure map was in the chest? Student: I think he did. Teacher: But how could he know the map was in there? Student: I don't know, maybe he didn't ... Teacher: OK, let's see if your prediction is true.

teacher reminded them that they had been talking about compare and contrast and asked, "So how are they alike?" When no one responded, she told them, "They are both 9 and they are both girls." Beginning, middle, end. Two lessons included references to stories having a beginning, middle, and end. However, in one of the lessons in which the teacher was asking students how to summarize a story, it was a student rather than the teacher who noted this. In the other, the teacher directed students to "write something you remember at the beginning, something you remember in the middle, and something you remember at the end."

Metacognition

We also looked for instances of teachers promoting metacognition in the lessons, but they were noticeably absent. We did not see teachers prompting students to develop self-regulation or an awareness of their behaviors during the reading process. However, we did note 17 examples of teachers prompting students to think about what they were reading. Most often (in 15 cases), this prompt consisted of a simple reminder to think, as in the following examples: · "Listen carefully ­ this is a difficult question ­ you are going to have to think about it." · "Let's read the first questions at the bottom so we'll know what we need to think about to find answers." · "Be thinking about that; about why the author chose this title." · "Stop and think." Two other instances were slightly different. In one lesson, the teacher questioned students about their thinking after reading (i.e., "What were you thinking about when we read this book?"). In another case, the teacher reinforced a student for thinking (i.e., "I like how you were thinking, Abby."). As mentioned, most of these prompts were reminders "to think" rather than an explicit focus on cognitive processes related to reading (e.g., monitoring understanding, selecting what to remember, and regulating strategies). Thus, it is not clear that teachers were asking students to consciously control their metacognitive processes. In fact, in one lesson, the teacher rejected the importance of metacognition. In this counterexample, the teacher tells students not to think: "It is here in the book. Read it and don't think. Read from here to the end and then you tell me. Don't do any thinking while you read."

Text Structure

Teachers rarely (six times) instructed their students about different text structures. When they did, a few taught the problem-solution structure and one taught the compare-contrast structure. Another explained that narrative stories have a beginning, middle, and end. Problem-solution. We noted four instances in which teachers engaged students in finding the problem and the solution in stories they read. For example: · The teacher asked students to work in pairs to read and figure out problems and solutions. She had written phrases on the board ahead of time. She asked, "Who found a solution to the problem of pandas dying?" · The teacher asked students to identify the problem in a story they read. Using a "study guide," the students looked at a story map. The teacher asked questions about the map. Compare-contrast. One teacher mentioned the compare-contrast structure as follows, "How are they alike and different?" Before students answered, the

Comprehension Strategies

We observed several comprehension strategies, including predicting, making connections, looking back or rereading to find answers to questions, summa-

Learning Disability Quarterly

68

rizing, finding the main idea, taking steps to fix understanding when comprehension breaks down, retelling, visualizing, previewing questions, paraphrasing, and generating questions. We describe these next in the order of how often they occurred. In most cases, the teacher prompted students to use the strategy but did not provide instruction in how to do so. (This may have occurred in other lessons we did not observe.) Predicting. By far the most common strategy the teachers used, or prompted students to use, was predicting (30 times). Teachers asked students to either guess what would happen next in a narrative story or to predict what they thought they would learn as part of previewing expository text; for example: · "What do you suppose he's going to do?" · "What will happen next?" · "Make a prediction about how successful this lemonade stand will be if he keeps it open." · "What are we going to learn about? (We predict) because that's what good readers do." · "Just from looking at the cover and reading the title, what do you think this is going to be about?" In nine of these lessons, the students were asked to predict based on pictures. Only three instances involved "picture walks" (i.e., looking at a book's pictures as part of previewing to get a sense for what a story will be about). Teachers rarely followed up with students to check if their predictions were accurate. One teacher asked, "We predicted. Were you right?" Another teacher said, "OK, tomorrow when we come back, we are going to see if the predictions are true." We were not able to observe the next day to find out if the class actually discussed their predictions. Helping students make connections. Helping students activate and connect with background knowledge is an important aspect of reading comprehension. Yet, we saw few teachers do this. Nevertheless, this was still the strategy observed the second most often (13 times). Teachers asked students to think about what they already knew related to a topic or a vocabulary word, reminded them of a similar lesson, or provided examples they thought would make the content more meaningful and relevant for them. For example: The teacher says, "OK, the next time you're in your mom's car, ask her to go 35 miles per hour, and that's how fast the lion's running ..." In the same lesson, "Lupe, how much do you weigh? So the lions could eat more than what Lupe weighs." · The teacher asks, "Have you ever been to the bank with your parents? Do you go inside or drive through? If you go talk to the person ... that person is called a teller."

· The teacher asks students to respond in writing to the following prompts: The chapters made me think about ... The chapters reminded me about the time ... I connected to ____ because so far I think ________ In two cases, we recorded students making their own connections. One student said, "That kid, I think he is one of those kids that loves to get videos, like me, I love to go rent videos." The teacher responded, "Yeah?" In the other case, the teacher exclaimed: "She brought in her prior knowledge like good readers do! Good job!" We noted one case as a negative example, where the teacher asked students what they already knew about a topic, but then disapproved of a student's connection, as follows: The story is about alligators; the teacher asks students what they know about alligators. One student says, "My father caught an alligator when we lived in Georgia." The teacher responds, "Robert, we are in Florida, not Georgia, so we don't want to talk about Georgia." Robert doesn't respond again and starts to fidget. The teacher soon says, "Robert, please sit up." Looking back or rereading. The third most commonly applied strategy (12 times) was looking back or rereading to find answers to comprehension questions. Most often this consisted of prompting students to use the strategy. For example: · "Go back in the story. That's Ms. Mac's favorite reading strategy." · "Use the strategy of looking back in the book if you don't know the answer to the question." · "When you are working on these, it's OK to look back in the book even when you are doing CSAP (i.e., the state's high-stakes standardized assessment) next week. It's not only OK to look back, you need to, we want you to ..." In two cases, teachers reinforced students for applying a strategy (e.g., "Good job looking back."). In another, a student asked, "Can we look back?" The teacher responded, "Yes." In addition, there was at least one missed opportunity for using this strategy. In this instance, the teacher asked a question and students did not answer. Instead of instructing the students in the strategy, the teacher looked for the answers herself and told them to students. The teacher never mentioned that she was using a comprehension strategy. Summarizing. Teachers asked students to summarize seven times. They rarely provided scaffolding to support students. Apparently, some teachers might not have been sure themselves what a summary entails. For example: · The teacher asked students to summarize the story from the day before. When students hesitated, the

Volume 33, Spring 2010

69

teacher prompted, "Tell me about the story..." · The teacher asked, "What does summary mean?" A student responded, "The very main idea." The teacher did not question this answer or elaborate. · The teacher asked a student to summarize the book. She told her that she wanted her to say the main characters, setting, and problem. · The teacher asked, "Why don't you summarize for us ­ tell us what happened?" In only one case did the teacher provide explicit instruction in how to summarize, as follows: Teacher: If we were to write a summary, what would we do? Student: Tell the beginning, middle, and end. Teacher (writing this on a poster sheet): About what? What will we write a summary about? Student: About what happened in the book? Teacher: Little tiny details or the big idea? Students: Big idea! Teacher: If I say (some small detail) ­ is this a good point to include in a summary? ... Finding the main idea. Teachers asked students to find the main idea four times. They provided no explicit instruction in the lessons, instead simply directing students to "find the main idea." In one lesson, the teacher asked students to provide three details that supported the main idea. Monitoring comprehension and figuring out the meaning of words. We only noted four examples of teachers teaching strategies for figuring out the meanings of unknown words. In one lesson, the teacher had written strategies for figuring out word meanings on the board: · Look at pictures. · What makes sense? · Finish the sentence and then reread the sentence. · Break the word apart. She commented, "Excellent; very nice job there with what makes sense. Nice reading strategies." In another example, the teacher told students, "You will have to read all that again and figure it out. That is what it is all about, read and reread it until we can figure it out." And in a third example, a different teacher directed students to "reread if something doesn't make sense." Retelling. In three cases, the teacher explicitly asked students to retell. In one of these lessons, the teacher was reading aloud to the whole class and asked students to turn to their partners and ask them to retell the story. She asked, "What is happening in the story so far?" In another case, students retold a story as part of the reading program used. Visualizing. We noted only two examples of a teacher asking students to develop a mental image of what they were reading. One was when students were reading a

poem. The teacher directed students to "picture what the words are saying." In the other instance, the teacher asked, "Anybody get any picture of that?" Previewing questions. Teachers asked students to preview questions twice. In one example, the teacher directed small groups to answer questions before reading. As students worked in their groups, she mentioned to them the purpose of this task: "Previewing gives you the purpose for reading." Generating questions. Teachers did not instruct students in how to generate teacher-like questions as taught in Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1994) or Collaborative Strategic Reading (Klingner, Vaughn, Argüelles, Hughes, & Ahwee, 2004). Rather, in two instances they encouraged students to come up with questions that reflected what they were wondering before they read the next section of text, as in the following example: Teacher: I'm wondering why rain comes sometimes from clouds, but not always. I'm wondering, "Are there some kinds of clouds that produce rain and some that do not?" What are you wondering? Student: I'm wondering, "When does it rain and when does it snow?" Teacher: Great question. If the answer is not in this book, I'll find another for you with the answer. OK, let's read. Paraphrasing. Paraphrasing was not used by students nor was it modeled. The strategy was mentioned by two teachers when they told their students to "put it in your own words," but they did not explain what is included in a paraphrase or why it is important.

Instruction in Reading Comprehension Strategies

We noted two types of instruction: direct explanations and modeling, or thinking aloud. Explanations. Given that we observed 81 instances of comprehension strategies, it is surprising that we noted only seven instances of direct explanation. We rarely (only seven times) observed teachers explaining how to implement a comprehension strategy. Most examples were brief. It is possible that this instruction took place when we were not present; however, we observed numerous missed opportunities to teach or review the procedures for implementing strategies. Examples of explanations follow: · "Skim through the book and find the answers (to questions). Scan through the book, Susan. Scanning is to read really fast and find the information fast." · "Preview gives you the purpose of reading ... You are still previewing. You are not reading yet, but your brain wants to know what happens in the book."

Learning Disability Quarterly

70

· "So what are we going to do today? Yes, we'll find and circle the problem and solution." The teacher reviews what problem and solution means and reminds students about the problem and solution from the last story ... "Now, that was a fiction text. This is a little different. It's nonfiction. We have to put it together. What do you know about the features of nonfiction? Look first at the picture on top, the map, and the caption. Look at the chart, but don't spend too much time on it. Get with a partner. One reads one paragraph and the other finds the problem and solution. You have 10 minutes to read; then come back and we'll discuss it." Modeling or thinking aloud. Modeling and "thinking aloud" are other forms of instruction that can be very effective for helping students learn how to implement comprehension strategies. Yet, we only noted four examples of these teaching behaviors. One such example appears above in the "generating questions" subsection. Another follows: Teacher (thinking aloud): What time of day is it? But I don't think the pictures are showing us. Like I was thinking it is midday, like 12 or 1, because, what is he saying? "It's too hot." But I think that the illustration got us off track, didn't it, Abby? You were doing great thinking about that. So maybe it is sun RISE?

DISCUSSION

At least in the classrooms in which we observed, comprehension instruction seemed to have progressed little in the 30 years since Durkin's groundbreaking study (1978-1979) or in the 12 years since Vaughn and colleagues (1998) observed reading comprehension instruction in special education resource rooms. Even though reading comprehension was one of the main instructional areas emphasized by the National Reading Panel (2000) and promoted in Reading First, most of the special education teachers we observed still provided limited reading comprehension instruction to their students with LD. In the 124 lessons we observed, only 82 addressed comprehension (66%). The absence of comprehension instruction in 34% of the lessons led us to wonder if teachers prioritized word study over comprehension instruction or if comprehension instruction was taught more often in the general education classroom. Yet, pre- vious research of students with LD in general education classrooms suggests that they may not receive much help there either (Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Mistretta-Hampston, & Echevarria, 1998; Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Mecklenburg, & Graden, 1984). Despite the absence of comprehension instruction in one third of the lessons we observed, comprehension

instruction of some type was still attempted in 82 lessons. However, 40% of those 82 lessons included only nominal comprehension instruction through either teacher-generated comprehension questions or a review of vocabulary words. Although teachers frequently asked their students about what they were reading, most questions were factual or rote in nature rather than higher level. Few teachers engaged their students in interactive dialogues that would promote understanding. Delving into the 49 lessons that provided other comprehension-related activities, we saw a number of strategies and instructional practices being used; however, such instruction was rarely connected to current research. Research suggests that the highest effect sizes are associated with strategies that prompt students to monitor and reflect before, during, and after reading (e.g., Gajria et al., 2007; Gersten et al., 2001). Yet, we did not see any examples of teachers deliberately teaching students to use multiple strategies. Other aspects of reading comprehension instruction associated with the highest effect sizes (Swanson, 2001; Swanson et al., 1999) did not fare much better. Only occasionally did teachers explain how to implement a strategy or model strategy usage. Also, they rarely provided students with the scaffolding that could have promoted deeper learning. The quality of the instruction varied in these instances. Instead of offering daily reviews of material taught, introducing new material through examples and demonstration, providing direct explanations, and making sure students had opportunities for guided feedback, many instances of instruction were quick explanations or modeling without telling students what strategy was being demonstrated or why. On the other hand, teachers did use cues to prompt students to use strategies, but they tended to be superficial and without followup. None of the instances of instruction we observed combined all aspects associated with the highest effect sizes (Swanson, 2001). Perhaps, as Duffy (2002) suggested, it is too difficult for many teachers to learn to teach this way. In general, most teachers in the study seemed to be aware of the need to incorporate some type of comprehension instruction into their teaching. We saw many instances of teachers asking students to predict. It appeared that this was the easiest strategy for them to use. However, they did not seem to understand the importance of following up on students' predictions to see if they were accurate. Further, we noted that the strategies of making connections with background knowledge and rereading were used more frequently than more difficult or complex skills such as finding the main idea and summarization. Participating teachers

Volume 33, Spring 2010

71

seemed unsure of what a summary entails. We observed other strategies only occasionally. Because many students with LD tend to be inactive learners (Torgesen & Licht, 1983), it is critical that we teach students to self-regulate their reading. Thus, we looked for ways teachers in our study promoted self-regulation and other metacognitive skills. Though a few teachers encouraged students to "think" during the reading process, metacognitive strategy instruction was largely missing. Most often, the reminder to think consisted of a prompt to think about the meaning of what students were reading rather than to think about the cognitive processes related to reading. Given the importance of teaching metacognitive strategies to students with LD (Gersten et al., 2001; Meltzer, 2007; Swanson, 1999), teachers should provide explicit instruction instead of casual comments about thinking, and focus more on teaching metacognitive strategies designed to enhance students' executive functioning as well as their reading comprehension. Also, little attention was paid to text structure. In the few cases where teachers taught text structures, they did not make explicit the steps necessary to identify the structure. Since we know that skillful readers use organization patterns within the text to assist in gaining meaning from the text and that students with LD often have difficulty with planning and organizing information and ideas (Gersten et al., 2001), this was a notable omission.

whether or not these aspects influenced their instructional practices. Determining the extent to which teachers operated under time or program constraints may be helpful in understanding why so few teachers explicitly taught comprehension. Perhaps teachers were following teachers' manuals and felt constrained by them; however, that did not seem to be the case.

Implications for Research and Practice

Our research suggests that there are still gaps between research and what teachers are doing in practice. It appeared as though the teachers in this study did not have sufficient understanding of how to teach reading comprehension, or at least were unable to incorporate an understanding into their practice. Although some teachers taught a few comprehension skills and strategies, they did not demonstrate a full repertoire of ways to teach comprehension. Perhaps even more important, they did not provide instruction that would help students become self-regulated learners (Meltzer, 2007). If our goal is to ensure that students with LD become independent learners, teachers must help them identify breakdowns in comprehension, teach specific step-bystep strategies, and help them internalize and generalize such strategies. We concur with Snow's (2002) assertion that "understanding how to improve reading comprehension outcomes, not just for students who are failing in the later grades but for all students who are facing increasing academic challenges, should be the primary motivating factor in any future research agenda" (p. xi). It is not clear whether the special education teachers in our study (a) did not understand what explicit comprehension instruction should look like; (b) did not consider comprehension instruction important (e.g., perhaps thought that phonics instruction should take precedence over comprehension); (c) were constrained by curricular considerations that interfered with comprehension instruction; or (d) simply were unsure of what is involved in reading comprehension. Future research should include interviews that explore teachers' beliefs, concerns, or decisions regarding comprehension instruction to shed light on why teachers are doing little to promote comprehension. We agree with Snow (2002), who emphasized that teachers need guidance in how to combine and prioritize various instructional approaches in the classroom. Future research should focus on preservice and inservice teacher education programs and the extent to which they focus on reading comprehension. The National Reading Panel (2000) reported that for teachers to use strategies effectively, extensive formal instruction in reading comprehension is necessary. Although we know a great deal about the features of

Limitations

This study examined how 41 special education teachers promoted reading comprehension by observing examples of their instruction. We observed every teacher at least three times. Because we were not in the participating teachers' classrooms more often, we cannot say with certainty that comprehension instruction did not take place at other times during the year. However, it is noteworthy that we observed many missed opportunities to support student learning. In addition, most of the teachers in our study taught in special education resource rooms rather than inclusive settings. In these cases, we were unable to observe the literacy instruction that occurred in general education classrooms. Therefore, students may have received comprehension instruction within the general education classroom while resource room time was specifically devoted to word-level activities. This may help explain why 42 of the 124 lessons did not address comprehension. Yet, it does not explain the insufficient instruction in other lessons. We did not analyze teachers' instructional practices according to the amount of time spent with students or the curriculum used. Therefore, we are unable to say

Learning Disability Quarterly

72

effective reading comprehension instruction and what strategies are helpful for students, we know less about what it takes to help teachers become proficient in teaching strategies to their students. Also, as the National Reading Panel (2000) noted, we do not know enough about which "teacher characteristics influence successful instruction of reading comprehension" (p. 15). Several researchers have documented the challenges in teaching teachers how to implement reading comprehension strategies and suggested ways to optimize professional development programs (Deshler & Schumaker, 1993; Hilden & Pressley, 2007; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Klingner et al., 2004; Pressley & El Dinary, 1997). Clearly, we still need to do more to make sure teachers are successful at promoting their students' reading comprehension.

CONCLUSION

In the past 30 years researchers have conducted numerous studies on comprehension instruction. Yet, the findings from those studies do not seem to be reflected in the reality seen in at least some classrooms. While the National Reading Panel (2000) and the RAND (Snow, 2002) reports emphasized the need for more guidance for teachers in the area of comprehension, it is not clear whether that is happening. The fact that the recent Reading First evaluation found no statistically significant differences in students' reading comprehension test scores (Gamse, Bloom, Kemple, & Jacob, 2008) suggests that comprehension is not emphasized enough. Similar to Durkin's (1978-1979) findings, the most prevalent comprehension activity in our study was still asking questions. When other activities were involved, teachers continued the practice of "mentioning" a skill and providing opportunities to practice but neglected to offer explicit instruction in the skill. Thus, it is clear that a gap still exists between research and practice. Our challenge is to find ways to bridge that gap.

REFERENCES

Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, M. (1989). School response to reading failure: Chapter 1 and special education students in grades 2, 4, & 8. Elementary School Journal, 89(5), 529-542. Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understanding about writing, reading, and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Beck, I., Farr, R., Flor-Ada, A., Brechtel, M., McKeown, M., Roser, N., et al. (2003). Harcourt Trophies: Reading 1-6. Orlando, FL: Harcourt School Publishers. Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. G., Gersten, R., Klingner, J. K., Dimino, J., Haager, D., Menon, S., Penfield, R., & Sindelar, P. T. (2009). Examining the dimensions of teacher quality for beginning special education teachers: The role of domain expertise. Exceptional Children, 75, 391-411. Brownell, M. T., Haager, D., Bishop, A., Klingner, J. K., Penfield,

R., & Dingle, M. (in preparation). Teacher quality in special education: The role of domain expertise. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1993). Strategy mastery by atrisk students: Not a simple matter. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 153-167. Duffy, G. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In M. Pressley & K. C. Block (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 28-41). New York: Guilford. Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481-533. Engelmann, S., Arbogast, A., Bruner, E., Lou Davis, K., Engelmann, O., Hanner, S., et al. (2002). SRA Reading Mastery Plus. DeSoto, TX: SRA/McGraw-Hill. Englert, C. S. (1984). Effective direct instruction practices in special education settings. Remedial & Special Education, 5, 38-47. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256. Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210-225. Gamse, B. C., Bloom, H. S., Kemple, J. J., & Jacob, R. T. (2008). Reading First impact study: Interim report (NCEE 2008-4016). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Gelzheiser, L. M., & Myers, J. (1991). Reading instruction by classroom, remedial and resource room teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 512-526. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320. Haager, D., Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Graves, A. (2003). The English-Language Learner Classroom Observation Instrument: Observations of beginning reading instruction in urban schools. In S. R. Vaughn & K. L. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for observing teaching and learning (pp. 111144). Baltimore: Brookes. Haynes, M., & Jenkins, J. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 161-190. Hilden, K. R., & Pressley, M. (2006). Self-regulation through transactional strategies instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 51-75. Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719-729. Jenkins, J. R., Heliotis, J., Stein, M. L., & Haynes, M. (1987). Improving reading comprehension by using paragraph restatements. Exceptional Children, 54, 54-59. Jiménez, R. T. (1997). The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low-literacy Latina/o readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(3), 224-243. Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Menendez, R. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 411-429.

Volume 33, Spring 2010

73

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Argüelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Ahwee, S. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: "Real world" lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291-302. LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. W. (1981). Reading instruction and its effects. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 343-361. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. (1996). Reading comprehension: A synthesis of research in learning disabilities, In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 277-303). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1990). Comprehension and coherence: Neglected elements of literacy instruction in remedial and resource room services. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 6(2), 149-182. Meltzer, L. J. (Ed.). (2007). Executive function in education. New York: Guilford Press. Mercer, C. D., Jordan, L., Miller, M. D., Schenck, B. J., Black, K., Bock, M., et al. (1997). Curriculum-based assessment in Alachua County. Gainesville, FL: Exceptional Student Education School Board of Alachua County. 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. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction [On-line]. Available: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/small book.pdf O'Sullivan, P. J., Ysseldyke, J. E., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (1990). Mildly handicapped elementary students' opportunity to learn during reading instruction in mainstream and special education settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 131-146. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). The reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175. Pressley, M., & El Dinary, P. B. (1997). What we know about translating comprehension-strategies instruction research into practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 486-488. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 159-194. Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, enacted January 8, 2002. Roller, C. (1996). Variability not disability: Struggling readers in a workshop classroom. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Stanovich, P., & Jordan, A. (1998). Canadian teachers' and principals' beliefs about inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms. Elementary School Journal. 98, 221-238. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newberry Park, CA: Sage. Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading comprehension and working memory in learning-disabled readers: Is the phonological loop

more important than the executive system? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 72, 1-31. Swanson, H. L. (2001). Reading intervention research outcomes and students with LD: What are the major instructional ingredients for successful outcomes? Perspectives, 27(2), 18-20. Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcome. New York: Guilford. Torgesen, J. K. (1994). Issues in the assessment of executive function: An information-processing perspective. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 143-162). Baltimore: Brookes. Torgesen, J. K., & Licht, B. (1983). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Restrospect and prospects. In J. D. McKinney & L. Feagans (Eds.), Current topics in learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 3-32). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. S. (2002). Reading instruction for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. Journal of Special Education, 36, 2-13. Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99-114. Vaughn, S., Moody, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64(2), 211-226. Wong, B.Y.L., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questing training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228-240. Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., Mecklenburg, C., & Graden, J. (1984). Opportunity to learn for regular and special education students during reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 29-37.

1 We used an oral reading fluency measure developed by Alachua

FOOTNOTES

County Schools in Florida (Mercer et al., 1997). Oral reading fluency (ORF) was selected because the correlation between fluent reading and overall reading ability has consistently been supported (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003). Reliability coefficients for the measure ranged from .89 to .99 for internal consistency, testretest reliability, and interrater reliability. 2 Although scores of 2.5 and 3.0 indicate that these teachers were adequate in their teaching of reading comprehension, in retrospect we believe that these scores were somewhat inflated. There may have been a halo effect. In other words, if teachers seemed to teach other areas of reading well, we were more likely to rate their reading comprehension as adequate.

AUTHORS' NOTE

This study was conducted through the Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, funded by the Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education (cooperative agreement #H3256Q000002).

Please address correspondence about this article to: Janette Klingner, University of Colorado at Boulder, School of Education 249 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0249; e-mail: [email protected] colorado.edu

Learning Disability Quarterly

74

Information

16 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

35561


You might also be interested in

BETA
Microsoft Word - eogsurroundg5w.doc
untitled
Writing Assessment Covers.pmd
Microsoft Word - Teaching Composition.doc
Validity of the Secondary Level English Proficiency Test at Temple University-Japan