This article summarizes the findings of research studies designed to improve the comprehension of expository text for students with learning disabilities. Twenty-nine studies were located that met the inclusion criteria. Interventions gleaned from the review were categorized as content enhancement (i.e., advance and graphic organizers, visual displays, mnemonic illustrations, and computer-assisted instruction) or cognitive strategy instruction (i.e., text structure, main idea identification, summarization, questioning, cognitive mapping, reciprocal teaching). Treatment outcomes are discussed in relation to the various instructional approaches, student characteristics (e.g., grade, IQ), instructional features (e.g., materials, treatment length), methodological features, strategy maintenance, and generalization components. Implications for classroom practice and future research directions are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
References marked with an asterisk * refer to studies included in the meta-analysis.
2.
Abrahamsen, E.P., & Shelton, K.C. (1989). Reading comprehension in adolescents with learning disabilities: Semantic and syntactic effects. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 569—572.
3.
Armbruster, B.B. (1984). The problems of “inconsiderate” text. In G. G. Duffy, L. R. Roehler, & J. M. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 202—217). New York: Long-man.
4.
*Bakken, J.P., Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 300—324.
5.
Baumann, J.F. (1984). The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm for teaching main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly , 20, 93—115.
6.
Bergerud, D., Lovitt, T.C., & Horton, S. (1988). The effectiveness of textbook adaptations in life science for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 70—76.
7.
*Bos, C.S., & Anders, P.L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31—42.
8.
Bos, C.S., Anders, P.L., Filip, D., & Jaffe, L.E. (1985). Semantic feature analysis and long-term learning . National Reading Conference Yearbook, 34, 42—47.
9.
*Bos, C.S., Anders, P.L., Filip, D., & Jaffe, L.E. (1989). The effects of an interactive instructional strategy for enhancing reading comprehension and content area learning for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 22, 384—389.
10.
*Boyle, J.R. (1996). The effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities . Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 86—98.
11.
*Boyle, J.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.
12.
Boyle, J.R., & Weishaar, M. (1997). The effects of expert-generated versus student-generated cognitive organizers on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 12, 228—235.
13.
*Brigham, F.J., Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1995). Elaborative maps for enhanced learning of historical information: Uniting spatial, verbal, and imaginable information. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 440—460.
14.
Chan, L.K.S. (1991). Promoting strategy generalization through self-instructional training in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 427—433.
15.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York : Academic Press.
16.
Cooper, H.M., & Hedges, L.V. (1994). Research synthesis as a scientific enterprise . In F. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 3—14). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
17.
*Darch, C., & Carnine, D. (1986). Teaching content area material to learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 53, 240—246.
18.
*Darch, C., & Eaves, R. (1986). Visual displays to increase comprehension of high school learning-disabled students. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 309—318.
19.
*Darch, C., & Gersten, R. (1986). Direction-setting activities in reading comprehension: A comparison of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly , 9, 235—243.
20.
*Darch, C., & Kame'enui, E.J. (1987). Teaching LD students critical reading skills: A systematic replication. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 82—91.
21.
De La Paz, S., & MacArthur, C. (2003). Knowing the how and why of history: Expectations for secondary students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 142—154.
22.
*DiCecco, V.M., & Gleason, M.M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 35, 306—320.
23.
Elbaum, B.E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., & Moody, S.W. (1999). Grouping practices and reading outcomes for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 399— 415.
24.
*Ellis, E.S., & Graves, A.W. (1990). Teaching students with learning disabilities: A paraphrasing strategy to increase comprehension of main ideas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10(2), 2—10.
25.
*Englert, C.S., & Mariage, T.V. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading POSSE. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 123—138.
26.
Englert, C.S., & Thomas, C.C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: A comparison between learning disabled and non—learning disabled students . Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 93—105.
27.
*Gajria, M., & Salvia, J. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 508—516.
28.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279—320.
29.
Glaser, C.W., Reith, H.J., Kinzer, C.K., Colburn, L.K., & Peter, J. (1999). A description of the impact of multimedia anchored instruction on class interactions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14, 27—43.
30.
*Graves, A.W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research , 1, 90—100.
31.
*Graves, A.W., & Levin, J.R. (1989). Comparison of monitoring and mnemonic text-processing strategies in learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 232—236.
32.
*Griffin, C.C., Simmons, D.C., & Kame'enui, E.J. (1991). Investigating the effectiveness of graphic organizers instruction on the comprehension and recall of science content by students with learning disabilities. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7, 355—376.
33.
Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Lovitt, T.C. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 29, 402—412.
34.
Holmes, B.C. (1985). The effects of a strategy and sequenced materials on the inferential comprehension of disabled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 542—546.
35.
Horton, S.V., Boone, R.A., & Lovitt, T.C. (1990). Teaching social studies to learning disabled high school students: Effects of a hypertext study guide. British Journal of Educational Technology, 21, 118—131.
36.
Horton, S.V., & Lovitt, T.C. (1989). Using study guides with three classifications of secondary students. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 447—462.
37.
Horton, S.V., Lovitt, T.C., & Bergerud, D. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12—22.
38.
Horton, S.V., Lovitt, T.C., Givens, A., & Nelson, R. (1989). Teaching social studies to high school students with academic handicaps in a mainstreamed setting: Effects of a computerized study guide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 102—107.
39.
Horton, S.V., Lovitt, T.C., & Slocum, T. (1988). Teaching geography to high school students with academic deficits: Effects of a computerized map tutorial. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 371—379.
40.
*Jitendra, A.K., Hoppes, M.K., & Xin, Y.P. (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.
41.
Jitendra, A.K., Nolet, V., Xin, Y.P., Gomez, O., Iskold, L., Renouf, K., et al. (2001). An analysis of middle school geography textbooks: Implications for students with learning problems. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 17, 151—174.
42.
Johnson, L., Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1997). The effects of goal setting and self-instructions on learning a reading comprehension strategy: A study with students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 80—91.
43.
Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 105—118.
44.
Klingner, J.K., & Vaughn, S. (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.
45.
*Klingner, J.K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M.E., Hughes, M.T., & Leftwich, S.A. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: “Real-world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291—302.
46.
Klingner, J.K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J.S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 3—22.
47.
*Labercane, G., & Battle, J. (1987). Cognitive processing strategies, self-esteem, and reading comprehension of learning disabled students. BC Journal of Special Education, 11, 167—185.
48.
*Lederer, J.M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 91—106.
49.
Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J.A., & Hudson, P. (1990). Content enhancement: A model for promoting the acquisition of content by individuals with learning disabilities. In T. E. Scruggs & B. L. Y. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 122—165). New York: Springer Verlag.
50.
Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. The American Psychologist, 48, 1181—1201.
51.
Lovitt, T., Rudsit, J., Jenkins, J., Pious, C., & Benedetti, D. (1986). Adapting science materials for regular and learning disabled seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 31—39.
52.
MacArthur, C.A., Ferretti, R.P., & Okolo, C.M. (2002). On defending controversial viewpoints: Debates of sixth graders about the desirability of early 20th-century American immigration . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 160—172.
53.
MacArthur, C.A., & Haynes, J.B. (1995). Student assistant for learning from text (SALT): A hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 150—159.
54.
Maccini, P., Gagnon, J.C., & Hughes, C.A. (2002). Technology-based practices for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly , 25, 247— 261.
55.
*Malone, L.D., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities . Exceptional Children, 58, 270—279.
56.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Peters, E.E. (1987). Increasing prose recall of learning disabled and reading disabled students via spatial organizers. The Journal of Educational Research, 8, 272—276.
57.
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Bakken, J.P., & Whedon, C. (1996). Reading comprehension: A synthesis of research in learning disabilities. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 10, Part B, pp. 210—227). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
58.
*Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Hamilton, L.S., Wolfe, S., Whedon, C., & Canevaro, A. (1996). Promoting thinking skills of students with learning disabilities: Effects on recall and comprehension of expository prose. Exceptionality, 6, 1—11.
59.
*Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., & Levin, J.R. (1987). Learning-disabled students' memory for expository prose: Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic pictures. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 505—519.
60.
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Spencer, V., & Fontana, J. (2003). Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 52—65.
61.
Mayer, R.E. (2001). What good is educational psychology? The case of cognition and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 36, 83—88.
62.
Murawski, W.W., & Swanson, H.L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where are the data?Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258—267.
63.
*Okolo, C.M., & Ferretti, R.P. (1996). Knowledge acquisition and technology-supported projects in the social studies for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 91—103.
64.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 771—777.
65.
Saenz, L.M., & Fuchs, L.S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 31—41.
66.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1989). Mnemonic instruction of LD students: A field-based evaluation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 119—125.
67.
*Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., Mc-Loone, B.B., Levin, J.R., & Morrison, C.R. (1987). Mnemonic facilitation of learning disabled students' memory for expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 27—34.
68.
*Simmonds, E.P.M. (1992). The effects of teacher training and implementation of two methods for improving the comprehension skills of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 7, 194—198.
69.
*Smith, P.L., & Friend, M. (1986). Training learning disabled adolescents in a strategy for using text structure to aid recall of instructional prose. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 38—44.
70.
Snow, C.E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
71.
Spring, C., & Prager, J. (1992). Teaching community-college students to follow the train of thought in expository texts. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 33—54.
72.
Strum, J.M., & Rankin-Erickson, J.L. (2002). Effects of hand-drawn and computer-generated concept mapping on the expository writing of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 124— 139.
73.
Swanson, H.L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 32, 504—532.
74.
Swanson, H.L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee , C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford .
75.
Talbott, E., Lloyd, J.W., & Tankersley, M. (1994). Effects of reading comprehension interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 223—232.
76.
Taylor, M.B., & Williams, J.P. (1983). Comprehension of learning-disabled readers: Task and text variations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 743—751.
77.
Torgesen, J.K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner . Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 45—52.
78.
Warren, L., & Fitzgerald, J. (1997). Helping parents to read expository literature to their children: Promoting main-idea and detail understanding . Reading Research and Instruction, 36, 341—360.
79.
Williams, J.P. (1993). Comprehension of students with or without learning disabilities: Identification of narrative themes and idiosyncratic text representations . Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 631— 641.
80.
Williams, J.P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 6—18.
81.
Wong, B.Y.L. (1994). Instructional parameters promoting transfer of learned strategies in students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 110—120.
82.
*Wong, B.Y.L., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228—240.
83.
Wong, B.Y.L., & Wilson, M. (1984). Investigating awareness of a teaching passage organization in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 77—82.
