The Common Core State Standards and the continued inclusion of students with learning disabilities (LD) in Tier 1 classrooms are changing how close reading of texts occurs in English Language Arts classrooms. Therefore, understanding the potential impact of literacy–related evidence–based practices during Tier 1 instruction that includes students with reading–related disabilities is essential. This article reviews the research on story–structure instruction for students with LD and at–risk for failure. Findings across 16 studies indicate several features of strong methodological designs including random assignment and inclusion of students with LD. However, substantial limitations in the research base include contradictory outcomes, limited outcomes disaggregated for students with LD, reliance on researcher–developed measures, a lack of instructional features to support students with LD, and limited features of feasible implementation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoylesN. (2013). Closing in on close reading. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 36–41.
2.
BuehlD. (2009). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. International Reading Association.
3.
BuiY. N., & FaganY. M. (2013). The effects of an integrated reading comprehension strategy: A culturally responsive teaching approach for fifth–grade students’ reading comprehension. Preventing School Failure, 57(2), 59–69.
4.
BulgrenJ. A., MarquisJ. G., DeshlerD. D., SchumakerJ. B., LenzB. K., DavisB., & GrossenB. (2006). The instructional context of inclusive secondary general education classes: Teachers’ instructional roles and practices, curricular demands, and research–based practices and standards. Learning Disabilities – A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 39–65.
5.
CaccamiseD., & SnyderL. (2005). Theory and pedagogical practices of text comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 5–20.
6.
CarnineD., & KinderD. (1985). Teaching low–performing students to apply generative and schema strategies to narrative and expository material. Remedial and Special Education, 6(1), 20–30.
7.
CattsH., BridgesM., LittleT., & TomblinJ. (2008). Reading achievement growth in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 1569–1579.
8.
DeshlerD. D., & SchumakerJ. (Eds.). (2006). Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
9.
DiminoJ., GerstenR., CarnineD., & BlakeG. (1990). Story grammar: An approach for promoting at–risk secondary students’ comprehension of literature. The Elementary School Journal, 91(1), 19–32.
10.
DiminoJ. A., TaylorR. M., & GerstenR. M. (1995). Synthesis of the research on story grammar as a means to increase comprehension. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 11, 53–72.
11.
DukeN., PearsonP. D., StrachanS. & BillmanA. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In SamuelsS. J., & FarstrupA. E. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed.), (pp. 51–93). International Reading Association.
12.
EdmondsM. S., VaughnS., WexlerJ., ReutebuchC., CableA., Klingler TackettK., & Wick SchnakenbergJ. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300.
13.
Faggella–LubyM., & WardwellM. (2011). RtI in middle school: Findings and practical implications of a tier–2 reading comprehension study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 35–49.
14.
Faggella–LubyM., & DeshlerD. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know; What we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 70–78.
15.
Faggella–LubyM., GranerP., DeshlerD., & DrewS. S. (2012). Building a house on sand: Why disciplinary specific strategies are not sufficient to replace general strategies for adolescent learners who struggle with reading and writing. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 69–84.
16.
Faggella–LubyM., SchumakerJ. S., & DeshlerD. D. (2007). Embedded learning strategy instruction: Story–structure pedagogy in heterogeneous secondary literature classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 131–147.
FisherD., & FreyN. (2014). Close reading as an intervention for struggling middle school readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(5), 367–376.
19.
FitzgeraldJ. & SpiegelD. L. (1983). Enhancing children's reading comprehension through instruction in narrative structure. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 1–17.
20.
FrancisD. J., ShaywitzS. E., StuebingK. K., ShaywitzB. A., & FletcherJ. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3–17.
21.
FuchsD., & DeshlerD. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 129–136.
22.
GardillM. C., & JitendraA. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2–17.
GraesserA., GoldingJ. M., & LongD. L. (1991). Narrative representation and comprehension. In BarrR., PearsonP. D., MosenthalP., & KamilM. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp. 171–205). NY: Longman.
25.
GrahamS., & PerinD. (2007). A meta–analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.
26.
GranerP.S., Faggella–LubyM., & FritschmannN. S. (2005). An overview of responsiveness to intervention: What practitioners ought to know. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(2), 93–105.
27.
GreenwaldM. J., & RossingR. L. (1986). Short–term and long–term effects of story grammar and self–monitoring training on children's story comprehension. In NilesJ. & LalikR. (Eds.), Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers, and researchers (35th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 210–213) Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
28.
GriffeyQ. L.Jr., ZigmondN., & LeinhardtG. (1988). The effects of self–questioning and story structure training on the reading comprehension of poor readers. Learning Disabilities Research, 4(1), 45–51.
29.
GurneyD., GerstenR., DiminoJ., & CarnineD. (1990) Story grammar: Effective literature instruction for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(6), 333–343.
30.
HornerR. H., CarrE. G., HalleJ., McGeeG., OdomS., & WoleryM. (2005). The use of single–subject research to identify evidence–based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165.
31.
IdolL. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(4), 196–205.
32.
IdolL., & CrollV. J. (1987). Story mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 214–229.
33.
KamilM. L., BormanG. D., DoleJ., KralC. C., SalingerT., & TorgesenJ. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008–4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.
34.
KiuharaS., GrahamS., & HawkenL. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136–160.
35.
MandlerJ. M., & JohnsonN. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 111–151.
36.
MastropieriM., ScruggsT., & GraetzJ. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 103–116.
MillerJ., WoodK., & Cardenas de DwyerC. (1991). The United States in literature. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
39.
MontagueM., MadduxC. D., & DereshiwskyM. I. (1990). Story grammar and comprehension and production of narrative prose by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 190–197.
40.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). The nation's report card: Reading 2013 (NCES 2014–087). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
41.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author.
42.
OlsonM. W., & GeeT. C. (1988). Understanding narrative: A review of story grammar research. Childhood Education, 64(5), 302–306.
PaulR., & ElderL. (2003). Critical thinking and the art of close reading (Part I). Journal of Developmental Education, 27(2), 36–39.
45.
PradlG. (1984). Narratology: The study of story structure. ERIC Digest, 1–2.
46.
Prentice Hall. (1996). Literature Gold (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
47.
PressleyM., & AfflerbachP. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48.
PressleyM., HildenK., & ShanklandR. (2005). An evaluation of end–grade–3 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Speed reading without comprehension, predicting little (Tech. Rep.). East Lansing: Literacy Achievement Research Center, Michigan State University.
49.
PuckettD. (2008). A to Z literacy strategies” Best practices for teaching reading and writing across middle grade content areas. Chicago, IL: Incentive Publications.
50.
RandM. K. (1984). Story schema: Theory, research and practice. The Reading Teacher, 37(4), 377–382.
51.
RederL. (1980). A short survey of the research on text and story comprehension and retention. In KamilM., & MoeA. J. (Eds.), Perspectives on Reading Research Instruction. Rochester, NY: Twenty–Ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 1980.
52.
ReutzalD. R. (1985). Story maps improve comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 38(4), 400–404.
53.
RosenblattL. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
54.
SansostiF. J., & NoltemeyerA. (Annual 2008). Viewing response–to–intervention through an educational change paradigm: What can we learn?The California School Psychologist, 55–67.
55.
ScottiJ. R., EvansI. M., MeyerL. H., & WalkerP. (1991). A meta–analysis of intervention research with problem behavior: Treatment validity and standards of practice. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 233–256.
56.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (2013). PND at 25: Past, present, and future trends in summarizing single–subject research. Remedial And Special Education, 34(1), 9–19.
57.
ShoresC., & ChesterK. (2008). Using RTI for school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
58.
ShortE. J., & RyanE. B. (1984). Metacognitive differences between skilled and less skilled readers: Remediating deficits through story grammar and attribution training. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 225–35.
59.
ShortE. J., YeatesK. O., & FeagansL. V. (1992). The generalizability of story grammar training across setting and tasks. Journal Of Behavioral Education, 2(2), 105–120.
60.
SingerH., & DonlanD. (1982). Active comprehension: Problem–solving schema with question generation for comprehension of complex short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 166–185.
61.
StaglianoC., & BoonR. (2009). The effects of a story–mapping procedure to improve the comprehension skills of expository text passages for elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 7(2), 35–58.
62.
SteinN. L., & GlennC. G. (1978). An analysis of story composition on elementary school children. In Friedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing, Volume 2, (pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
63.
StetterM., & HughesM. (2010). Using story grammar to assist students with learning disabilities and reading difficulties improve their comprehension. Education & Treatment of Children, 33(1), 115–151.
64.
SwansonE. (2008). Observing reading instruction for students with learning disabilities: A synthesis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(3), 115–133.
65.
SwansonH. L. (1999). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instructional method. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(3), 129–140.
66.
TorgesenJ. K., HoustonD. D., RissmanL. M., DeckerS. M., RobertsG., VaughnS., WexlerJ.FrancisD. J, RiveraM. O., LesauxN. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
67.
van DijkT. A., & KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
68.
VaughnS., LevyS., ColemanM., & BosC. (2002). Reading instruction for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 2–13.
69.
WeaverP. A., & DickinsonD. K. (1982). Scratching below the surface structure: Exploring the usefulness of story grammars. Discourse Processes, 5(3), 225–243.
70.
WhaleyJ. F. (1981). Readers’ expectations for story structures. Reading Research Quarterly, 1(9), 107–111.
