Several components of specialized instruction have historically influenced text–based interventions for students with learning disabilities (LD). This article addresses the unique role of scaffolded instruction, focusing on supporting students with LD to help them to develop strategies that promote reading for understanding and writing in social studies. The article begins with a discussion of the historical and theoretical foundations of scaffolded instruction to promote reading comprehension. The authors then describe three effective interventions for which scaffolding cognitive strategies during social studies instruction have played a central role. Suggestions for using scaffolded instruction as a mechanism for improving social studies outcomes are included. Considerations for new research as well as professional development to promote scaffolded social studies instruction for students with LD are also described.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BillingsleyB. S., & WildmanT. M. (1990). Facilitating reading comprehension in learning disabled students metacognitive goals and instructional strategies. Remedial and Special Education, 11(2), 18–31.
2.
BoardmanA. G., ArgüellesM. E., VaughnS., HughesM. T., & KlingnerJ. (2005). Special education teachers’ views of research–based practices. The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 168–180.
3.
BoardmanA., VaughnS., BuckleyP., ReutebuchC., RobertsG., & KlingnerK. (2016). Collaborative strategic reading for students with learning disabilities in upper elementary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 82, 409–427.
4.
BrownA. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self–regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In WeinertF. & KluweR. (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and under–standing (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
BruningR. H., SchrawG. J., & RonningR. R. (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice–Hall.
6.
BulgrenJ. A., Sampson GranerP., & DeshlerD. D. (2013). Literacy challenges and opportunities for students with learning disabilities in social studies and history. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 17–27.
7.
De La PazS. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 139–156.
8.
De La PazS., MoralesP., & WinstonP. M. (2007). Source interpretation: teaching students with and without LD to read and write historically. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 134–144.
9.
De La PazS., & WissingerD. R. (2016). Improving the historical knowledge and writing of students with or at risk for LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, https://doi.org/0022219416659444
10.
DurkinD. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481–533.
GajriaM., JitendraA. K., SoodS., & SacksG. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: a research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210–225.
13.
GerstenR., DiminoJ., & JayanthiM. (2007). Towards the development of a nuanced classroom observational system for studying comprehension and vocabulary instruction. In TaylorB. & YsseldykeJ. (Eds.), Educational interventions for struggling readers (pp. 381–425). New York: Teachers College Press.
14.
GerstenR., & OkoloC. M. (2007). Teaching history – in all its splendid messiness – to students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 98–99.
15.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta–analysis of SRSD studies. In Lee SwansonH., HarrisKaren R., & GrahamSteve (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–344). New York: Guilford.
16.
HaagerD., DiminoJ., & WindmuellerM. P. (2014). Interventions for reading success (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
17.
HarrisK., & GrahamS. (in press). Self–Regulated Strategy Development: Theoretical bases, critical instructional elements, and future research. In FidalgoR. & OliveT. (Series Eds.) & FidalgoR., HarrisK. R., & BraaksmaM. (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. X, Design principles for teaching effective writing: Theoretical and empirical grounded principles (pp. TBD). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Editions.
18.
HitchcockJ., DiminoJ., KurkiA., WilkinsC., & GerstenR. (2010). The Impact of Collaborative Strategic Reading on the reading comprehension of Grade 5 students in linguistically diverse schools. (NCEE 2011–4001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
19.
HinchmanK. A., & MooreD. W. (2013). Close reading: A cautionary interpretation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(6), 441–450.
20.
James–BurdumyS., DekeJ., GerstenR., Lugo–GilJ., Newman–GoncharR., DiminoJ., et al. (2012). Effectiveness of four supplemental reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5(4), 345–383.
21.
KimA. H., VaughnS., KlingnerJ. K., WoodruffA. L., ReutebuchC. K., & KouzekananiK. (2006). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students with disabilities through computer–assisted collaborative strategic reading. Remedial and Special Education, 27(4), 235–249.
22.
KlingnerJ. K., & VaughnS. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 275–293.
23.
KlingnerJ. K., VaughnS., & SchummJ. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 1–22.
24.
KlingnerJ. K., VaughnS., DiminoJ. A., BryantD. P., & SchummJ. S. (2001). Collaborative strategic reading: Strategies for improving comprehension. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
25.
MacGinitieW. H., MacGinitieR. K., MariaK., & DreyerL. G. (2000). Gates–MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
26.
MasonL. H., DavisonM. D., HammerC. S., MillerC. A., & GluttingJ. J. (2013). Knowledge, writing, and language outcomes for a reading comprehension and writing intervention. Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1133–1158.
27.
MasonL. H., SnyderK. H., SukhramD. P., & KedemY. (2006). TWA+ PLANS strategies for expository reading and writing: effects for nine fourth–grade students. Exceptional Children, 73(1), 69–89.
28.
MasonL. H. (2004). Explicit self–regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 283–296.
29.
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The nation's report card: U.S. history 2010 (NCES 2011–468). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
30.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2016). The nation's report card. 2015: Mathematics and reading assessments. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education
31.
National Council for the Social Studies (2013). College, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS.
32.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
33.
PalincsarA. S., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension–fostering and comprehension–monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1: 117–175.
34.
PearsonP. D., & DoleJ. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: a review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88: 151–165.
35.
PintrichP. R., & De GrootE. V. (1990). Motivational and self–regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
36.
RaphaelT. E. (1984). Teaching learners about sources of information for answering comprehension questions. Journal of Reading, 27, 303–311.
ShanahanC., ShanahanT., & MisischiaC. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 393–429.
39.
SwansonE., HairrellA., KentS., CiulloS., WanzekJ. A., & VaughnS. (2014). A synthesis and meta–analysis of reading interventions using social studies content for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 178–195.
40.
SwansonH. L., & HoskynM. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 277–321.
41.
SwansonE., WanzekJ., McCulleyL., Stillman–SpisakS., VaughnS., SimmonsD., et al. (2016). Literacy and text reading in middle and high school social studies and English language arts classrooms. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32(3), 199–222.
42.
SwansonE., WanzekJ., VaughnS., RobertsG., & FallA. M. (2015). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge among middle school students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81(4), 426–442.
43.
VaughnS., GerstenR., & ChardD. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99–114.
44.
VaughnS., SwansonE. A., RobertsG., WanzekJ., Stillman–SpisakS. J., SolisM., et al. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 77–93.
45.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (ColeM., John–SteinerV., ScribnerS., & SoubermanE., Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
WineburgS. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87.
47.
WoodcockR. W. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery test – revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
