We examined the efficacy of a content acquisition and reading comprehension intervention implemented in eighth-grade social studies classrooms. Using a within-teacher randomized control design, 18 eighth-grade teachers’ social studies classes were randomly assigned to a treatment or comparison condition. Teachers taught all their classes (treatment and comparison) using the same content; however, in the treatment classes, teachers used instructional practices that included comprehension canopy, essential words, knowledge acquisition, and team-based learning. Students with reading comprehension difficulties in the treatment classes (n = 359) outperformed students with reading comprehension difficulties in the comparison classes (n = 331) on measures of content knowledge acquisition and content reading comprehension but not general reading comprehension. In addition, the proportion of students with reading comprehension difficulties in classes moderated outcomes for content knowledge acquisition and content reading comprehension.
AhmedY.FrancisD. J.YorkM.FletcherJ. M.BarnesM.KuleszP. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in Grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44, 68–82.
2.
AmmermuellerA.PischkeJ. S. (2009). Peer effects in European primary schools: Evidence from the progress in international reading literacy study. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(3), 315–348.
3.
AngristJ. D.LangK. (2004). Does school integration generate peer effects? Evidence from Boston’s Metco program. American Economic Review, 94(5), 1613–1634. doi:10.1257/000282804305216
4.
AttewellP.LavinD.DominaT.LeveyT. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886–924.
5.
AugustD.Branum-MartinL.Cardenas-HaganE.FrancisD. J. (2009). The impact of an instructional intervention on the science and language learning of middle grade English language learners. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 345–376. doi:10.1080/19345740903217623
6.
BakerS.LesauxN.JayanthiM.DiminoJ.ProctorC. P.MorrisJ.. . . Newman-GoncharR. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx
7.
BauerD. J.CurranP. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(3), 373–400. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_5
8.
CallahanR. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305–328. doi:10.3102/00028312042002305
9.
CattsH. W.ComptonD.TomblinJ. B.BridgesM. S. (2012). Prevalence and nature of late-emerging poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 166–181.
10.
ChenX. (2016). Remedial coursetaking at U.S. public 2- and 4-year institutions: Scope, experiences, and outcomes (NCES 2016-405). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
11.
DarY.ReshN. (1986). Classroom intellectual composition and academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 357–374.
12.
DouglasK. M.AlbroE. R. (2014). The progress and promise of the Reading for Understanding research initiative. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 341–355. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9278-y
13.
DreebenR.BarrR. (1988). The formation and instruction of ability groups. American Journal of Education, 97(1), 34–64.
FrancisD. J.RiveraM.LesauxN.KiefferM.RiveraH. (2007). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Research_Roundup/2007/RR2007v24n1a4.pdf
16.
GoodT.MarshallS. (1984). Do students learn more in heterogeneous or homogeneous groups? In PetersonP.WilkinsonL.HallinanM. (Eds.), Student diversity and the organization, process, and use of instructional groups in the classroom (pp. 15–38). New York, NY: Academic Press.
17.
GottfriedM. A. (2014). Classmates with disabilities and students’ noncognitive outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(1), 20–43. doi:10.3102/0162373713493130
18.
HallinanM. T. (1988). School composition and learning: A critique of the Dreeben-Barr model. Sociology of Education, 61(3), 143–146.
19.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.MarkmanJ. M.RivkinS. G. (2003). Does peer ability affect student achievement?Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(5), 527–544. doi:10.1002/jae.741
20.
KiefferM. J. (2014). Morphological awareness and reading difficulties in adolescent Spanish-speaking language minority learners and their classmates. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 44–53.
21.
LesauxN. K.KeifferM. 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. doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3
22.
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. doi:10.3102/0002831214532165
23.
MacGinitieW. H.MacGinitieR. K.MariaK.DreyerL. G.HughesK. E. (2006). Gates–MacGinitie reading test (4th ed.). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
24.
Mancilla-MartinezJ.KiefferM. J.BiancarosaG.ChristodoulouJ. A.SnowC. E. (2011). Investigating English reading comprehension growth in adolescent language minority learners: Some insights from the simple view. Reading and Writing, 24, 339–354. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9215-5
NobleJ. P.RobertsW. L.SawyerR. L. (2006). Student achievement, behavior, perceptions, and other factors affecting ACT scores. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510477.pdf
30.
PallasA. M.EntwisleD. R.AlexanderK. L.StlukaM. F. (1994). Ability-group effects: Instructional, social, or institutional?Sociology of Education, 67(1), 27–46.
31.
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG. J.ChoE.WilliamsK. J.RobertsG.VaughnS. R.CarrollM. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in Grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 756–800.
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. doi:10.1177/0014402914563704
34.
VaughnS.MartinezL. R.WanzekJ.RobertsG.SwansonE.FallA.-M. (2017). Improving content knowledge and comprehension for English language learners: Findings from a randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 22–34. doi:10.1037/edu0000069
35.
VaughnS.RobertsG.SwansonE. A.WanzekJ.FallA.-M.Stillman-SpisakS. J. (2015). Improving middle-school students’ knowledge and comprehension in social studies: A replication. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 31–50. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9274-2
36.
VaughnS.SwansonE. A.RobertsG.WanzekJ.Stillman-SpisakS. J.SolisM.SimmonsD. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 77–93. doi:10.1002/rrq.039
37.
WanzekJ.KentS.VaughnS.SwansonE. A.RobertsG.HaynesM. (in press). Implementing team-based learning in middle school social studies classes. Journal of Educational Research.
