Requirements for reading and ascertaining information from text increase as students advance through the educational system, especially in content-rich classes; hence, monitoring comprehension is especially important. However, this is a particularly challenging skill for many students who struggle with reading comprehension, including students with learning disabilities. A randomized pre–post experimental design was employed to investigate the effectiveness of a comprehension monitoring strategy (QRAC-the-Code) for improving the reading comprehension of 323 students in Grades 6 and 7 in inclusive social studies classes. Findings indicated that both general education students and students with learning disabilities who were taught a simple comprehension monitoring strategy improved their comprehension of textbook content compared to students who read independently and noted important points. In addition, students in the comprehension monitoring condition reported using more reading strategies after the intervention. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
BakkenJ. P.MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science materials and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. Journal of Special Education, 31, 300–325.
2.
BartonM. L. (1997). Addressing the literacy crisis: Teaching reading in the content areas. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 81, 22–30. doi:10.1177/019263659708158705
3.
BerkeleyS.BenderW. N.PeasterL. G.SaundersL. (2009). A snapshot of progress toward implementation of responsiveness to intervention (RTI) throughout the United States. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95. doi:10.1177/0022219408326214
4.
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, 105-113.
5.
BerkeleyS.MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2011). Reading comprehension strategy instruction and attribution retraining for secondary students with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 18-32.
6.
BerkeleyS.ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 423–436.
7.
BryantD. P.Linan-ThompsonS.UgelN.HamffA.HougenM. (2001). The effects of professional development for middle school general and special education teachers on implementation of reading strategies in inclusive content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 251–265.
8.
CarnineD. (1997). Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Exceptional Children, 63, 513–521.
9.
DentonC. A.VaughnS.FletcherJ. M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 201–211.
10.
DurkinD. (1978–1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 481–553.
11.
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.
12.
Fagella-LubyM. N.DeshlerD. D. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know, what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 70–78.
13.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 14–20.
14.
GajriaM.SalviaJ. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 508–516.
15.
GarnerR.AlexanderP. A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologists, 24, 143–158.
16.
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, 279–321.
17.
GravesA. W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1, 90–100.
18.
GravesA. W.LevinJ. R. (1989). Comparison of monitoring and mnemonic text-processing strategies in learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 232–236.
19.
HockM. F.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (1999). Closing the gap to success in secondary schools: A model for cognitive apprenticeship. In GrahamS.HarrisK. R.PressleyM. (Series Eds.), DeshlerD. D.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Vol. Eds.), Advances in teaching and learning, teaching every child every day: Learning in diverse middle and high school classrooms (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
20.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
21.
JitendraA. K.ColeC. L.HoppesM. K.WilsonB. (1998). Effects of a direct instruction main idea summarization program and self-monitoring on reading comprehension of middle school students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14, 379–396.
22.
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, 127–139.
23.
JitendraA. K.NoletV.XinY. P.GomezO.IskoldL.RenoufK.DaCostaJ. (2001). An analysis of middle school geography textbooks: Implications for students with learning problems. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17, 151–174.
24.
KatimsD. S.HarrisS. (1997). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41, 116–123.
25.
MaloneL. D.MastropieriM. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 270–279.
26.
Manset-WilliamsonG.NelsonJ. M. (2005). Balanced, strategic reading instruction for upper-elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities: A comparative study of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 59–74.
27.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.GraetzJ. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116.
28.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
29.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 104-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
30.
PressleyM.GhatalaE. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25, 19–33.
31.
PressleyM.Wharton-McDonaldR.Mistretta-HamptonJ.EchevarriaM. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth-and fifth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159–194.
32.
RobertsG.TorgensonJ. K.BoardmanA.ScammaccaN.(2008). Evidenced-based strategies for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 63–69.
33.
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.
34.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.BerkeleyS.GraetzJ. (2010). Do special education interventions improve learning of secondary content? A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 437-449.
35.
ShekR.BursteinS. R. (2006). Holt social studies: World history. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
36.
SmithP. L.FriendM. (1986). Training learning disabled adolescents in a strategy for using text structure to aid recall of instructional prose. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 38–44.
37.
SwansonH. L. (1999). Reading research for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504–532.
38.
TorgensonJ. K. (2005). Recent discoveries from research on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. In SnowlingM.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading (pp. 521–537). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
39.
VaughnS.GerstenR.ChardD. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 67, 99–114.
40.
VaughnS.KlingerJ.HughesM. (2000). Sustainability of research based practices. Exceptional Children, 66, 163–171.
41.
WileyJ.GriffinT. D.ThiedeK. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 408–428.
42.
WongB. Y. L.JonesW. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–240.
