The changing job market requires a sophisticated array of literacy skills that adolescents with learning disabilities reading below grade level have not yet acquired. This summary of the research on reading comprehension highlights emerging findings and related instructional conditions necessary to achieve optimal student outcomes with limited instructional time. Limitations in the existing evidence base are addressed via four factors for future research and development agendas: (a) use theory to inform research and practice, (b) study the role that dosage plays as an independent variable, (c) study tiered models of instruction that are applicable for use in middle and high school settings, and (d) study factors that can enhance scaling of reading comprehension interventions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BiancarosaG., & SnowC. E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC : Alliance for Excellent Education.
2.
BrasseurI. F., HockM. F., & DeshlerD. D. (2005). The bridging strategy. Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
3.
CarnevaleA. P., & DesrochersD. M. (2003). Standards for what? The economic roots of K–12 reform. Princeton, NJ : Educational Testing Service.
4.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1994). The evolving self: A psychology for the third millennium. New York : HarperCollins.
5.
DeshlerD. D., & HockM. F. (2007). Adolescent literacy: Where we are, where we need to go. In PressleyM., BillmanA. K., PerryK. H., ReffittK. E., & ReynoldsJ. M. (Eds.), Shaping literacy achievement: Research we have, research we need (pp. 98–128). New York : Guilford.
6.
DeshlerD. D., & SchumakerJ. (Eds.). (2006). Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin.
7.
DeshlerR. T., DeshlerD. D., & BiancarosaG. (2007). School and district change to improve adolescent literacy. In DeshlerD., PalincsarA., BiancarosaG., & NairM. (Eds.), Informed choices for struggling adolescent readers. Newark, DE : International Reading Association.
8.
EdmondsM., VaughnS., HjelmJ., ReutebuchC., CableA., TackettK., . (in press). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research.
9.
EllisE., DeshlerD., LenzB., SchumakerJ., & ClarkF. (1991). An instructional model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(6), 1–24.
10.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disability by responsiveness–to–instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227.
11.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., MathesP., & SimmonsD. (1997). Peer–assisted learning strategies: Making classroom more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal (1), 34, 174–206.
12.
GerstenR. (2005). An idiosyncratic historical perspective on classroom observation. Washington, DC : Institute for Education Sciences Research Meeting.
13.
GerstenR., FuchsL., WilliamsJ., & BakerS. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.
14.
GoughP. B., & TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
15.
GranerP. S., Faggella–LubyM. N., & FritschmannN. S. (2005). An overview of responsiveness to intervention: What practitioners ought to know. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 93–105.
16.
GreshamF., MacMillanD., Beebe–FrankenbergerM., & BocianK. (2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: Do we really know how treatments are implemented?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 198–205.
17.
HellerR., & GreenleafC. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC : Alliance for Excellent Education.
18.
HooverW. A., & GoughP. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
19.
JitendraA., EdwardsL., SacksG., & JacobsenL. (2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322.
20.
KamilM. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC : Alliance for Excellent Education.
21.
KintschW. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294–303.
22.
KnightJ. (2007). Five key points to building a coaching program. Journal of Staff Development, 28, 26–31.
23.
LenzB. K., EhrenB., & DeshlerD. D. (2005). The content literacy continuum: A school reform framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(6), 60–63.
24.
LevyF., & MurnaneR. J. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market. New York : Russell Sage Foundation.
25.
MarrisP. (1975). Loss and change. New York : Anchor Press/Doubleday.
26.
MastropieriM., ScruggsT., & GraetzJ. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116.
27.
McCardleP., & ChhabraV. (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. New York : Brookes.
28.
MeyenE., & LehrD. (1980). Evolving practices in assessment and intervention for mildly handicapped adolescents: The case for intense instruction. Exceptional Education Quarterly: Special Issue on Special Education for Adolescents and Young Adults, 1(2), 19–26.
29.
National Academies. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter future. Washington, DC : Author.
30.
National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Washington, DC : Author.
31.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004). Learning for the 21st century: A report and mile guide for 21st century skills. New York : Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
32.
PerieM., GriggW., & DonahueP. (2005). The nation's report card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006–451). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
33.
RosenshineB. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 262–268.
34.
SpillaneJ., ReiserB., & ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431.
35.
SwansonH. L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta–analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504–532.
36.
SwansonH. L., & HoskynM. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 277–321.
37.
SwansonH. L., & HoskynM. (2001). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: A component and composite analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 109–119.
38.
SwansonH. L., HoskynM., & LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities. New York : Guilford.
39.
TorgesenJ. K., HoustonD., RissmanL., DeckerS., RobertsG., VaughnS., . (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, NH : RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
40.
TorgesenJ. K., RashotteC. A., & AlexanderA. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In WolfM. (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 334–355). Parkton, MD : York Press.
41.
VaughnS., GerstenR., & ChardD. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 67, 99–114.
