A synthesis and meta-analysis of the extant research on the effects of reading interventions delivered using social studies content for students with learning disabilities in kindergarten through Grade 12 is provided. A total of 27 studies met criteria for the synthesis, with 16 studies providing sufficient data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Reading interventions implemented within the context of social studies have employed the use of graphic organizers, mnemonics, reading and answering questions, guided notes, and multicomponent comprehension instruction. The overall mean effect size for interventions included in the meta-analysis was 1.02, indicating that reading interventions delivered using social studies content have a substantial positive effect on outcomes among students with learning disabilities.
BoonR. T.ForeC.AyersK.SpencerV. G. (2005). The effects of cognitive organizers to facilitate content-area learning for students with mild disabilities: A pilot study. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32, 101–117.
2.
BosC. S.AndersP. L. (1992). Using interactive teaching and learning strategies to promote text comprehension and content learning for students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability, 39(3), 225–238. doi:10.1080/0156655920390305
3.
BosC. S.AndersP. L.FilipD.JaffeL. 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(6), 384–390. doi:10.1177/002221948902200611
4.
BrighamF. J.ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1995). Elaborative maps for enhanced learning of historical information: Uniting spatial, verbal, and imaginal information. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 440–460.
5.
BulgrenJ.DeshlerD.LenzK. (2007). Engaging adolescents with LD in higher order thinking about history concepts using integrated content enhancement routines. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 121–133. doi:10.1177/00222194070400020301
6.
CervettiG. N.JaynesC. A.HiebertE. H. (2009). Increasing opportunities to acquire knowledge through reading. In HiebertE. H. (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: Guilford.
7.
ColonM.AndersonG. C. (1990). Three methods of random assignment: Comparison of balance achieved on potentially confounding variables. Nursing Research, 39(6), 376–379.
8.
ConcatoJ.ShahN.HorowitzR. I. (2006). Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. New England Journal of Medicine, 342(25), 1887–1892.
9.
CooperH. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
D’AlonzoB. J.ZuckerS. H. (1982). Comprehension scores of learning disabled high school students on aurally presented content. Exceptional Children, 48(4), 375–376.
11.
DiCeccoV. M.GleasonM. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 306–320.
12.
DochyF.SegersM.BuehlM. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145–186. doi:10.3102/00346543069002145
13.
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, 262–300. doi:10.3102/0034654308325998
14.
ElbaumB.VaughnS.HughesM.MoodyS. W. (1999). Grouping practices and reading outcomes for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 399–415.
15.
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. doi:10.1177/00222194070400030301
16.
GerstenR.BakerS. K.Smith-JohnsonJ.DiminoJ.PetersonA. (2006). Eyes on the prize: Teaching complex historical content to middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(3), 264–280.
17.
GerstenR.OkoloC. M. (2007). Teaching history—in all its splendid messiness—to students with LD: Contemporary research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 98–99. doi:10.1177/00222194070400021001
18.
HigginsK.BooneR. (1990). Hypertext computer study guides and the social studies achievement of students with learning disabilities, remedial students, and regular education students. Journal of learning Disabilities, 23(9), 529–540. doi:10.1177/002221949002300902
19.
HortonS. V.LovittT. C.SlocumT. (1988). Teaching geography to high school students with academic deficits: Effects of a computerized map tutorial. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 371–379.
20.
HortonS. V.LovittT. C.ChristensenC. C. (1991). Notetaking from textbooks: Effects of a columnar format on three categories of secondary students. Exceptionality, 2(1), 18–41.
21.
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), 165–179.
22.
HortonS. V.LovittT. C.GivensA.NelsonR. (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(2), 102–107. doi:10.1177/002221948902200205
23.
HoxJ. J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
HudsonP. (1996). Using a learning set to increase the test performance of students with learning disabilities in social studies classes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(2), 78–85.
25.
KalaianH. A.RaudenbushS. W. (1996). A multivariate mixed linear model for meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 227–235. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.3.227
26.
KimA.VaughnS.WanzekJ.WeiS. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105–118. doi:10.1177/00222194040370020201
27.
LazarusB. D. (1993). Guided notes: Effects with secondary and postsecondary students with mild disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 16(3), 272–289.
28.
LedererJ. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(1), 91–106.
29.
MaloneL. D.MastropieriM. A. (1991). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(3), 270–280.
30.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (1989). Mnemoinc social studies instruction: Classroom applications. Remedial and Special Education, 10(3), 40–46.
31.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.SpencerV.FontanaJ. (2003). Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 52–65. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00057
32.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.BakkenJ. P.BrighamF. J. (1992). A complex mnemonic strategy for teaching states and their capitals: Comparing forward and backward associations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 96–103.
33.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.WhedonC. (1997). Using mnemonic strategies to teach information about U. S. presidents: A classroom-based investigation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 13–21.
34.
McCormickS.CooperJ. O. (1991). Can SQ3R facilitate secondary learning disabled students’ literal comprehension of expository text? Three experiments. Reading Psychology, 12(3), 239–271. doi:10.1080/0270271910120304
35.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards initiative. Washington, DC: Author.
36.
OkoloC. M.EnglertC. S.BouckE. C.HeutscheA. M. (2007). Web-based history learning environments: Helping all students learn and like history. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(1), 3–11. doi:10.1177/10534512070430010101
37.
RaudenbushS. (2005). Learning from attempts to improve schooling: The contribution of methodological diversity. Educational Researcher, 34(5), 25–31. doi:10.3102/0013189X034005025
38.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S.CheongY. F.CongdonR. T.du ToitM. (2011). HLM 7: Linear and non-linear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
40.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1989a). Reconstructive elaborations: A model for content area learning. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 311–327. doi:10.3102/00028312026002311
41.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1989b). Mnemonic instruction of LD students: A field-based evaluation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(2), 119–125.
42.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2003). Science and social studies. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 364–379). New York, NY: Guilford.
43.
ShadishW. (2002). Revisiting field experimentation: Field notes for the future. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 3–18. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.3
44.
SwansonH. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(6), 504–532. doi:10.1177/002221949903200605
45.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561.
46.
Ward-LonerganJ. M.LilesB. Z.AndersonA. M. (1999). Verbal retelling abilities in adolescents with and without language-learning disabilities for social studies lectures. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(3), 213-223.
47.
WanzekJ.WexlerJ.VaughnS.CiulloS. (2010). Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 889–912.
48.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2003). Design and implementation assessment device. Washington, DC: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
49.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2008). Design and implementation assessment device. Washington, DC: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
50.
WinchesterK.DarchC.EavesR. C.ShippenM. E.ErnG.BellB. (2009). An evaluation of two methods for teaching United States history to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Direct Instruction, 9(1), 57-73.
