The purpose of this study was to complete a systematic review of the adolescent comprehension intervention research published between 2000 and 2020 to examine the presence of instructional practices to promote student engagement. Ninety-five studies were coded and indicated that 93% of the studies included at least one instructional practice and only 15% of studies actually measured engagement. Few studies (6%) examined the relationship between engagement and outcomes; studies that incorporated instructional practices to promote engagement demonstrated a statistically significant relation to engagement. Although student engagement is accepted as important in reading, it is rarely assessed within intervention efforts.
AlexanderP. A.JettonT. L. (1996). The role of importance and interest in the processing of text. Educational Psychology Review, 8(1), 89–121.
2.
*AlfassiM. (2004). Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy instruction on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 97(4), 171–185.
3.
*AlfassiM. (2009). The efficacy of a dialogic learning environment in fostering literacy. Reading Psychology, 30(6), 539–563.
4.
*AllinderR. M.DunseL.BrunkenC. D.Obermiller-KrolikowskiH. (2001). Improving fluency in at-risk readers and students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22(1), 48–54.
5.
BakerL.WigfieldA. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452–477.
6.
*BerkeleyS.MarshakL.MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2011). Improving student comprehension of social studies text: A self-questioning strategy for inclusive middle school classes. Remedial and Special Education, 32(2), 105–113.
7.
*BerkeleyS.MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2011). Reading comprehension strategy instruction and attribution retraining for secondary students with learning and other mild disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(1), 18–32.
8.
*BerkeleyS.RiccominiP. J. (2013). QRAC-the-code: A comprehension monitoring strategy for middle school social studies textbooks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(2), 154–165.
9.
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. Alliance for Excellent Education.
10.
*BiggsM. C.HomanS. P.DedrickR.MinickV.RasinskiT. (2008). Using an interactive singing software program: A comparative study of struggling middle school readers. Reading Psychology, 29(3), 195–213.
11.
BirchS. H.LaddG. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 61–79.
12.
*BoardmanA. G.KlingnerJ. K.BuckleyP.AnnammaS.LasserC. J. (2015). The efficacy of Collaborative Strategic Reading in middle school science and social studies classes. Reading and Writing, 28(9), 1257–1283.
13.
*BoyleJ. R. (2000). The effects of a Venn diagram strategy on the literal, inferential, and relational comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(1), 5–13.
14.
*BrooksG.MilesJ. N. V.TorgersonC. J.TorgersonD. J. (2006). Is an intervention using computer software effective in literacy learning? A randomized controlled trial. Educational Studies, 32(2), 133–143.
15.
*BurnsM. K.HodgsonJ.ParkerD. C.FremontK. (2011). Comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of text previewing and preteaching keywords as small-group reading comprehension strategies with middle-school students. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50(3), 241–252.
16.
*CalhoonM. B. (2005). Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program on reading skill acquisition for middle school students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 424–433.
17.
*CalhoonM. B.SandowA.HunterC. V. (2010). Reorganizing the instructional reading components: Could there be a better way to design remedial reading programs to maximize middle school students with reading disabilities’ response to treatment?Annals of Dyslexia, 60(1), 57–85.
18.
*CantrellS. C.AlmasiJ. F.CarterJ. C.RintamaaM.MaddenA. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257–280.
19.
*ChamberlainA.DanielsC.MaddenN. A.SlavinR. E. (2007). A randomized evaluation of the success for all middle school reading program. Middle Grades Research Journal, 2(1), 1–21.
20.
*ClarkeP. J.PaulS. A. S.SmithG.SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (2017). Reading intervention for poor readers at the transition to secondary school. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(5), 408–427.
21.
ConnellJ. P.WellbornJ. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In ConnellJ.WellbornJ.GunnarM.SrougeL. (Eds.), Self processes and development: The Minnesota symposia on child psychology (pp. 43–77). Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
*CromleyJ. G.BergeyB. W.FitzhughS.NewcombeN.WillsT. W.ShipleyT. F.TanakaJ. C. (2013). Effects of three diagram instruction methods on transfer of diagram comprehension skills: The critical role of inference while learning. Learning and Instruction, 26, 45–58.
23.
*CuevasJ. A.RussellR. L.IrvingM. A. (2012). An examination of the effect of customized reading modules on diverse secondary students’ reading comprehension and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(3), 445–467.
24.
*DennerP. R.RickardsJ. P.AlbaneseA. J. (2003). The effect of story impressions preview on learning from narrative text. Journal of Experimental Education, 71(4), 313–332.
25.
*DentonC. A.WexlerJ.VaughnS.BryanD. (2008). Intervention provided to linguistically diverse middle school students with severe reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 79–89.
26.
*DiCeccoV. M.GleasonM. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 306–320.
27.
*DilibertoJ. A.BeattieJ. R.FlowersC. P.AlgozzineR. F. (2009). Effects of teaching syllable skills instruction on reading achievement in struggling middle school readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(1), 14–27.
28.
*DunnL. (2020). Using elements of a screenplay to promote visualization and increase reading comprehension in secondary students with high incidence disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1839611
29.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC.CableA.TackettK. K.SchnakenbergJ. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998
*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.
32.
*FallR.WebbN. M.ChudowskyN. (2000). Group discussion and large-scale language arts assessment: Effects on students’ comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 37(4), 911–941.
33.
*FarkasW.JangB. (2019). Designing, implementing, and evaluating a school-based literacy program for adolescent learners with reading difficulties: A mixed-methods study. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35(4), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1541770
34.
FlowerdayT.SchrawG. (2003). Effect of choice on cognitive and affective engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 207–215.
35.
*FogartyM.OslundE.SimmonsD.DavisJ.SimmonsL.AndersonL.. . . RobertsG. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of a multicomponent reading comprehension intervention in middle schools: A focus on treatment fidelity. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 425–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9270-6
36.
Fraumeni-McBrideJ. P. (2017). The effects of choice on reading engagement and comprehension for second- and third-grade students: An action research report. Journal of Montessori Research, 32(2), 19–38.
37.
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(59), 59–108.
38.
FredricksJ. A.McColskeyW. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In ChristensonS.ReschlyA.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763–782). Springer.
39.
FredricksJ. A.McColskeyW.MeliJ.MordicaJ.MontrosseB.MooneyK. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments (Issues & Answers, REL 2011-No. 098). Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.
40.
*GegnerJ. A.MackayD. H. J.MayerR. E. (2009). Computer-supported aids to making sense of scientific articles: Cognitive, motivational, and attitudinal effects. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(1), 79–97.
41.
*GivenB. K.WassermanJ. D.ChariS. A.BeattieK.EdenG. F. (2008). A randomized, controlled study of computer-based intervention in middle school struggling readers. Brain and Language, 106(2), 83–97.
42.
*GravesA. W.BrandonR.DuesberyL.McIntoshA.PyleN. B. (2011). The effects of tier 2 literacy instruction in sixth grade: Toward the development of a response-to-intervention model in middle school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 73–86.
43.
*GravesA. W.DuesberyL.PyleN. B.BrandonR. R.McIntoshA. S. (2011). Two studies of tier II literacy development: Throwing sixth graders a lifeline. Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 641–661.
44.
*GuastelloE. F.BeasleyT. M.SinatraR. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 356–365.
45.
GuthrieJ. T.CoxK. E. (2001). Classroom conditions for motivation and engagement in reading. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 283–302.
46.
GuthrieJ. T.DavisM. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 59–85.
47.
GuthrieJ. T.HumenickN. M. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. In McCardleP.ChhabraV. (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 329–354). Brookes.
48.
*GuthrieJ. T.KlaudaS. L.HoA. N. (2013). Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 9–26.
49.
GuthrieJ. T.WigfieldA.KlaudaS. L. (2012). Adolescents’ engagement in academic literacy. Bentham Science.
50.
GuthrieJ. T.WigfieldA.YouW. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and achievement in reading. In ChristensonS.ReschlyA.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 601–634). Springer.
51.
*Gutierrez de BlumeA. P.KatzA.BassJ. (2020). Impact of literacy across content on middle school students’ reading comprehension in a rural context. Journal of Research in Reading, 44, 284–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12334
52.
*HasselbringT. S.GoinL. I. (2004). Literacy instruction for older struggling readers: What is the role of technology?Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20(2), 123–144.
53.
HektnerJ. M.SchmidtJ. A.CsikszentmihalyiM. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. SAGE.
54.
HelmeS.ClarkeD. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 133–153.
55.
*JeffesB. (2016). Raising the reading skills of secondary-age students with severe and persistent reading difficulties: Evaluation of the efficacy and implementation of a phonics-based intervention programme. Educational Psychology in Practice, 32(1), 73–84.
56.
*JitendraA. K.HoppesM. K.XinY. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 127–139.
57.
KamilM. L.BormanG. D.DoleJ.KralC. C.SalingerT.TorgesenJ.. . . SpierE. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4027). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=WWC20084027
58.
*KeehnS.HarmonJ.ShohoA. (2008). A study of readers theater in eighth grade: Issues of fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24(4), 335–362.
59.
*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.
60.
*KimJ.HemphillL.TroyerM.ThomsonJ.JonesS.LaRussoM.DonovanS. (2016). Engaging struggling adolescent readers to improve reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(3), 357–382.
61.
KimY. S. G. (2020). Hierarchical and dynamic relations of language and cognitive skills to reading comprehension: Testing the direct and indirect effects model of reading (DIER). Journal of Educational Psychology, 112, 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000407
62.
KlaudaS. L.GuthrieJ. T. (2015). Comparing relations of motivation, engagement, and achievement among struggling and advanced adolescent readers. Reading and Writing, 28(2), 239–269.
63.
*LangL.TorgesenJ.VogelW.ChanterC.LefskyE.PetscherY. (2009). Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(2), 149–175.
64.
*LangeA. A.McPhillipsM.MulhernG.WylieJ. (2006). Assistive software tools for secondary-level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 13–22.
65.
*LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J.FallerS. E.KelleyJ. G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196–228.
66.
*LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J.KelleyJ. G.HarrisJ. R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159–1194.
67.
*LiangL. A. (2011). Scaffolding middle school students’ comprehension and response to short stories. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 34(8), 1–16.
68.
*LombardiA. R.IzzoM. V.RifenbarkG. G.MurrayA.BuckA.MonahanJ.GelbarN. (2017). The impact of an online transition curriculum on secondary student reading: A multilevel examination. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(1), 15–24.
69.
*LovettM. W.LacerenzaL.De PalmaM.FrijtersJ. C. (2012). Evaluating the efficacy of remediation for struggling readers in high school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 151–169.
70.
*MacarusoP.RodmanA. (2009). Benefits of computer-assisted instruction for struggling readers in middle school. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(1), 103–113.
71.
*ManingerR. M. (2006). Successful technology integration: Student test scores improved in an English literature course through the use of supportive devices. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 50(5), 37–45.
72.
*MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.MohlerL. J.BeranekM. L.SpencerV.BoonR. T.TalbottE. (2001). Can middle school students with serious reading difficulties help each other and learn anything?Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16(1), 18–27.
73.
*McCallumR. S.KrohnK. R.SkinnerC. H.Hilton-PrillhartA.HopkinsM.WallerS.PoliteF. (2011). Improving reading comprehension of at-risk high-school students: The ART of reading program. Psychology in the Schools, 48(1), 78–86.
74.
*McNamaraD. S.O’ReillyT. P.BestR. M.OzuruY. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 147–171.
75.
*MercerC. D.CampbellK. U.MillerM. D.MercerK. D.LaneH. B. (2000). Effects of a reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 15(4), 179–189.
76.
*MoroccoC. C.HindinA.Mata-AguilarC.Clark-ChiarelliN. (2001). Building a deep understanding of literature with middle-grade students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(1), 47–58.
*NokesJ. D.DoleJ. A.HackerD. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 492–504.
79.
*O’ConnorR.BeachK.SanchezV.BocianK.FlynnL. (2015). Building BRIDGES: A design experiment to improve reading and United States history knowledge of poor readers in eighth grade. Exceptional Children, 81(4), 399–425.
*PenneyC. G. (2002). Teaching decoding skills to poor readers in high school. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(1), 99–118.
82.
*RadcliffeR.CaverlyD.HandJ.FrankeD. (2008). Improving reading in a middle school science classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(5), 398–408.
83.
*RedfordJ. S.ThiedeK. W.WileyJ.GriffinT. D. (2012). Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 262–270.
84.
*ReglinG.CameronH.Losike-SedimoN. (2012). Effects of a parent support reading intervention on seventh-grade at-risk students’ reading comprehension scores. Reading Improvement, 49(1), 17–27.
85.
ReschlyA. L.ChristensonS. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In ChristensonS.ReschlyA.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). Springer.
86.
*RobertsG.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.BarthA. E.VaughnS. (2013). Treatment effects for adolescent struggling readers: An application of moderated mediation. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 10–21.
87.
*RobertsG.VaughnS.FletcherJ.StuebingK.BarthA. (2013). Effects of a response-based, tiered framework for intervening with struggling readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 237–254.
88.
*RogevichM. E.PerinD. (2008). Effects on science summarization of a reading comprehension intervention for adolescents with behavior and attention disorders. Exceptional Children, 74(2), 135–154.
89.
RosenholtzS. J.SimpsonC. (1984). The formation of ability conceptions: Developmental trend or social construction?Review of Educational Research, 54(1), 31–63.
90.
RussellM.BebellD.HigginsJ. (2004). Laptop learning: A comparison of teaching and learning in upper elementary classrooms equipped with shared carts of laptops and permanent 1:1 laptops. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 313–330.
91.
*SchorzmanE. M.CheekE. H. (2004). Structured strategy instruction: Investigating an intervention for improving sixth-graders’ reading comprehension. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 25(1), 37–60.
92.
*ShapleyK.SheehanD.MaloneyC.Caranikas-WalkerF. (2011). Effects of technology immersion on middle school students’ learning opportunities and achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 299–315.
93.
*ShippenM. E.HouchinsD. E.CalhoonM. B.FurlowC. F.SartorD. L. (2006). The effects of comprehensive school reform models in reading for urban middle school students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 27(6), 322–328.
94.
*ShippenM. E.HouchinsD. E.SteventonC.SartorD. (2005). A comparison of two direct instruction reading programs for urban middle school students. Remedial and Special Education, 26(3), 175–182.
95.
*SilvaJ. P.WhiteG. P.YoshidaR. K. (2011). The direct effects of principal-student discussions on eighth grade students’ gains in reading achievement: An experimental study. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 772–793.
96.
SimmonsD. (2015). Instructional engineering principles to frame the future of reading intervention research and practice. Remedial and Special Education, 36(1), 45–51.
97.
*SimmonsD.FogartyM.OslundE. L.SimmonsL.HairrellA.DavisJ.. . . FallA. (2014). Integrating content knowledge-building and student-regulated comprehension practices in secondary English language arts classes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(4), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.836766
98.
xSkinnerE. A.BelmontM. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.
99.
SkinnerE. A.FurrerC.MarchandG.KindermannT. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic?Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–784.
100.
*SnowC. E.LawrenceJ. F.WhiteC. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325–344.
101.
*SolísM.VaughnS.ScammaccaN. (2015). The effects of an intensive reading intervention for ninth graders with very low reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(3), 104–113.
102.
*SolísM.VaughnS.Stillman-SpisakS.ChoE. (2018). Effects of reading comprehension and vocabulary intervention on comprehension-related outcomes for ninth graders with low reading comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34(6), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1499059
103.
*SpencerS. A.ManisF. R. (2010). The effects of a fluency intervention program on the fluency and comprehension outcomes of middle-school students with severe reading deficits. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(2), 76–86.
104.
*SrivastavaP.GrayS. (2012). Computer-based and paper-based reading comprehension in adolescents with typical language development and language-learning disabilities. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43(4), 424–437.
105.
*SwansonE.WanzekJ.VaughnS.RobertsG.FallA. (2015). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge among middle school students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81(4), 426–442.
106.
*SwansonT. J.HodsonB. W.Schommer-AikinsM. (2005). An examination of phonological awareness treatment outcomes for seventh-grade poor readers from a bilingual community. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(4), 336–345.
107.
*TwymanT.TindalG. (2006). Using a computer-adapted, conceptually based history text to increase comprehension and problem-solving skills of students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 5–16.
108.
*VaughnS.CirinoP. T.WanzekJ.WexlerJ.FletcherJ. M.DentonC. D.. . . FrancisD. J. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 3–21.
109.
*VaughnS.KlingnerJ. K.SwansonE. A.BoardmanA. G.RobertsG.MohammedS. S.Stillman-SpisakS. (2011). Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading with middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 938–964.
110.
*VaughnS.RobertsG.KlingnerJ. K.SwansonE. A.BoardmanA.Stillman-SpisakS.. . . LerouxA. J. (2013). Collaborative strategic reading: Findings from experienced implementers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(2), 137–163.
111.
*VaughnS.RobertsG.SchnakenbergJ. B.FallA. M.VaughnM. G.WexlerJ. (2015). Improving reading comprehension for high school students with disabilities: Effects for comprehension and school retention. Exceptional Children, 82(1), 117–131.
112.
*VaughnS.SwansonE. A.RobertsG.WanzekJ.Stillman-SpisakS.SolisM.SimmonsD. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 77–93.
113.
*VaughnS.WanzekJ.WexlerJ.BarthA.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ.. . . FrancisD. (2010). The relative effects of group size on reading progress of older students with reading difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(8), 931–956.
114.
*VaughnS.WexlerJ.LerouxA.RobertsG.DentonC.BarthA.FletcherJ. (2012). Effects of intensive reading intervention for eighth-grade students with persistently inadequate response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(6), 515–525.
115.
*VaughnS.WexlerJ.RobertsG.BarthA. A.CirinoP. T.RomainM. A.. . . DentonC. A. (2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77(4), 391–407.
116.
*WanzekJ.VaughnS.RobertsG.FletcherJ. M. (2011). Efficacy of a reading intervention for middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 73–87.
117.
*Warren-KringB.RutledgeV. C. (2011). Adolescents’ comprehension and content area education students’ perceptions: Benefits from one-on-one tutoring. Teacher Educator, 46(3), 244–261.
118.
*WexlerJ.VaughnS.RobertsG.DentonC. A. (2010). The efficacy of repeated reading and wide reading practice for high school students with severe reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(1), 2–10.
119.
WigfieldA.EcclesJ. S.RodriguezD. (1998). The development of children’s motivation in school contexts. Review of Research in Education, 23, 73–118.
120.
WigfieldA.GuthrieJ. T.PerencevichK. C.TaboadaA.KlaudaS. L.McRaeA.BarbosaP. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 432–445.
121.
*WijekumarK.MeyerB.LeiP. (2017). Web-based text structure strategy instruction improves seventh graders’ content area reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 741–760.
122.
*WilderA. A.WilliamsJ. P. (2001). Students with severe learning disabilities can learn higher order comprehension skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 268–278.
