In science classes, teachers must consider the need for explicit, systematic reading instruction for students with learning disabilities (LD) while navigating the constructivist and activity–oriented methods typically employed in science instruction. The complexity of scientific information conveyed through print may make reading science texts the greatest challenge that students with LD encounter in school. Fortunately, researchers have established that, by fostering students’ prior knowledge, providing text enhancements, and teaching reading comprehension strategies, students’ understanding of science text is improved. Effective instructional approaches and strategies for reading are reviewed and implications for teaching students with LD noted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
*Indicates study with science text reading
2.
AlexanderP. A., GrahamS, & HarrisK. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129–154.
3.
AlexanderP. A., & JettonT. L. (1996). The role of importance and interest in the processing of text. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 89–121.
4.
ArcherA., & HughesC. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching (What words for special–needs learners). New York : Guilford.
5.
ArmbrusterB., AndersonT., & OstertagJ. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text?Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 331–346.
6.
BakerL. (1985). How do we know when we don't understand? Standards for evaluating text comprehension. In Forrest–PressleyD. L., MacKinnonG. E., & WallerT. G. (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (pp. 155–205). Orlando, FL : Academic Press.
7.
BakerS., GertsenR., & ScanlonD. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 65–77.
8.
*BakkenJ. P., MastropieriM. A., & ScruggsT. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. Journal of Special Education, 31, 300–324.
9.
BakkenJ. P., & WhedonC. K. (2002). Teaching text structure to improve reading comprehension. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, 229–233.
10.
BerkeleyS., ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: A meta–analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 423–436.
11.
BiancarosaC., & SnowC. E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC : Alliance for Excellent Education.
12.
BorsukE. (2010). Examination of an administrator–read vocabulary–matching measure as an indicator of science achievement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 168–177.
13.
BrownA. L., & DayJ. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14.
14.
BryantD. P., VaughnS., Linan–ThompsonS., UgelN., HamffA., & HougenM. (2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without reading disabilities in general education middle–school content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 238–252.
15.
BulgrenJ. A., DeshlerD. D., & SchumakerJ. B. (1997). Use of recall enhancement routine and strategies in inclusive secondary classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 198–208.
16.
CarrS. C., & ThompsonB. (1996). The effects of prior knowledge and schema activation strategies on the inferential reading comprehension of children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 48–61.
17.
CraigM. T., & YoreL. D. (1996). Middle school students’ awareness of strategies for resolvingcomprehension difficulties in science reading. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29, 227–238.
18.
DaltonB., MoroccoC. C., TivnanT., & Rawson MeadP. L. (1997). Supported inquiry science: Teaching for conceptual change in urban and suburban science classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 670–684.
19.
DiehlV., & ReeseD. D. (2010). Elaborated metaphors support viable interferences about difficult science concepts. Educational Psychology, 30, 771–791.
20.
DornishM., SperlingR. A., & ZeruthJ. A. (2011). The effects of levels of elaboration on learners’ strategic processing of text. Instructional Science, 39, 1–26.
21.
DreherM. J., & SingerH. (1986). Friendly text and text–friendly teachers. Theory into Practice, 28, 98–104.
22.
EbbersS. M., & DentonC. A. (2008). A root awakening: Vocabulary instruction for older students with reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 90–102.
23.
EllisE. S., & GravesA. W. (1990). Teaching rural students with learning disabilities: A paraphrasing strategy to increase comprehension of main ideas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10, 2–10.
24.
EnglertC. S., & HeibertE. H. (1984). Children's development of text structures in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65–74.
25.
EnglertC. S., & MariageT. V. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading “POSSE. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 123–38.
26.
EspinC. A., & FoegenA. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting students’ performance on content–area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497–514.
27.
FangZ. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 491–520.
28.
GajriaM., JitendraA. K., SoodS., & SacksG. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–25.
29.
GajriaM., & SalviaJ. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 508–516.
30.
GerstenR., FuchsL. S., WilliamsJ. P., & BakerS. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.
31.
GraesserA. C., LeonJ. A., & OteroJ. (2002). Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In OteroJ., LeonJ. A., & GraesserA. C. (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (Ch. 1, pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
32.
GravesA. W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1, 90–100.
33.
GravesA. W., & LevinJ. R. (1989). Comparison of monitoring and mnemonic text–processing strategies in learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 12, 232–36
34.
HedinL. R., MasonL. H., & GaffneyJ. S. (2011). Comprehension strategies for two students with attention–related disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 55, 148–157.
35.
*HedinL. R., MasonL. H., & GaffneyJ. S. (2011). TWA plus prompted discourse: Effects on reading comprehension for students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 55, 148–157.
36.
HuckS. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research (3rd ed.). New York : Longman.
37.
JitendraA. K., HoppesM. K., & YinP. X. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self– monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 127–139.
38.
JitendraA. K., BurgessC., & GajriaM. (2011). Cognitive strategy instruction for improving expository text comprehension of students with learning disabilities: The quality of evidence. Exceptional Children, 77, 135–160.
39.
KirchS. A., BargerhuffM. E., CowanH., & WheatleyM. (2007). Reflections of educators in pursuit of inclusive science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 663–692.
40.
LenzB. A., BulgrenJ. A., SchumakerJ. B., DeshlerD. D., & BoudahD. A. (1994). The unit– organizer routine. Lawrence, KS : Edge Enterprises.
41.
MariageT. V. (1995). Why students learn: The nature of teacher talk during reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18(3), 214–234.
42.
*MasonL. (2004). Explicit self–regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283–96.
43.
*MasonL. H. (2007). Effects of self–regulated strategy development instruction on reading and writing for 5th grade students who struggle with learning: A longitudinal study. Presentation at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
44.
*MasonL. H. (2011). Explicit instruction for strategy development in two multi–component expository reading interventions: Effects for students who struggle with comprehension. Manuscript submitted for publication.
45.
MasonL. H. (in press). Teaching students who struggle with learning to think before, while, and after reading: Effects of SRSD instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly.
46.
*MasonL. H., DavisonM., HammerC. & MillerC. (2011). Effects of expository reading comprehension and writing instruction on language outcomes for fourth–grade students who struggle with learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.
47.
*MasonL. H., Hickey SnyderK., SukhramD. P., & KedemY. (2006). Self–regulated strategy development for expository reading comprehension and informative writing: Effects for nine 4th–grade students who struggle with learning. Exceptional Children, 73, 69–89.
48.
MastropieriM. A., & ScruggsT. E. (1994). Text versus hands–on science curriculum. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 72–86.
49.
MastropieriM. A., & ScruggsT. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities: 1976 to 1996. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 197–213.
50.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., & GraetzJ. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction in secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116.
51.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., & MagnusenM. (1999). Activities–oriented science instruction for students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 224–249.
52.
*McArthurC. A., & HaynesJ. B. (1995). Student assistant learning from text (SALT): A hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 150–159.
53.
McCormickS. (1992). Disabled readers’ erroneous responses to inferential comprehension questions: Description and analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 55–78.
54.
McCrayA. D., VaughnS., & NealL. I. (2001). Not all students read by third grade: Middle school students speak out about their reading disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 35, 17–30.
55.
MooreD. W., BeanT. W., BirdyshawD., & RycikJ. A. (2000). Adolescent literacy: A position statement. Newark, DE : International Reading Association.
56.
NohS. R., ShakeM. C., ParisiJ. M., JonchichA. D., MorrowD. G., & Stine–MorrowE. A. L. (2007). Age differences in learning from text: The effects of content preexposure on reading. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 133–148.
57.
OteroJ. (2002). Noticing and fixing difficulties while understanding science texts. In OteroJ., LeonJ. A., & GraesserA. C. (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (Ch. 12, pp. 281–308). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
58.
PalincsarA. S., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension–fostering and comprehension–monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
59.
PalincsarA. S., CollinsK. M., MaranoN. L., & MagnussonS. J. (2000). Investigating the engagement and learning of students with learning disabilities in guided inquiry science teaching. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 251.
60.
RobertsG., TorgesenJ. K., BoardmanA., & ScammaccaN. (2008). Evidence–based strategies for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 63–69.
61.
RogevichM. E., & PerinD. (2008). Effects of science summarization of a reading comprehension intervention for adolescents with behavior and attention disorders. Exceptional Children, 74, 135–54.
62.
SaenzL. M., & FuchsL. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 31–41.
63.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (2000). The effectiveness of mnemonic instruction for students with learning disabilities and behavior problems: An update and research synthesis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 163–173.
64.
ScruggsT. E., MastropieriM. A., BerkeleyS. L., & MarshakL. (2010). Mnemonic strategies: Evidence–based practice and practice–based evidence. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 79–86.
65.
SimpkinsP. M., MastropieriM. A., & ScruggsT. E. (2009). Differentiated curriculum enhancements in inclusive fifth–grade science classes. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 300–308.
66.
SpenceD. J., YoreL. D., & WilliamsR. L. (1999). The effects of explicit science reading instruction on selected grade 7 students’ metacognition and comprehension of specific science text. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11, 15–30.
SwansonH. L., & DeshlerD. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta–analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 124–135.
69.
TerrillC., ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (2004). SAT vocabulary instruction for high school students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39, 288–294.
70.
ThurlowM., RogersC., & ChristensonL. (2010). Science assessment for students with disabilities in school year 2006–2007: What we know about participation, performance, and accommodations (Synthesis Report 77). Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes.
71.
WilliamsJ. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary grade students: A focus on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 6–18.
72.
WilliamsJ. P., HallK. M., & LauerK. D. (2004). Teaching expository text structure to young at– risk learners: Building the basics of comprehension instruction. Exceptionality, 12, 129–144.
73.
WilliamsJ. P., HallK. M., LauerK. D., StaffordK. B., DesistoL. A., & deCaniJ. S. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 538–550.
74.
WongB. Y. L., & JonesW. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self–questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–240.
