Content-Specific and General Reading Disabilities of Secondary-Level Students

Abstract

The purposes of this study were (a) to examine the diagnostic utility of reading from text for distinguishing students with general reading disabilities from those whose reading deficits are related to background knowledge in specific content areas, and (b) to establish the educational utility of these two subgroups. Participants were 121 students (71 male and 50 female) in the 10th grade who were participating in a larger study to examine the contribution of reading to the academic success of secondary students. Students first completed a background-knowledge vocabulary test. Then they read aloud from English and science texts, studied and answered multiple-choice questions based on the selected texts, and finally read aloud from the texts again. The discrepancy between student performance in reading aloud from the prestudy English and science texts was utilized to formulate two subgroups: students with general reading deficits defined by low reading scores in both English and science, and students with content-specific deficits defined by reading scores in English that were substantially higher than in science. Results of the discrepancy analysis yielded a group of 33 students with general deficits and 6 students with content-specific deficits. To examine the educational utility of these groups, content-specific and matched general-deficit groups were compared on their poststudy reading performances of the science passage. Poststudy reading scores for the content-specific group were significantly higher than for the general-deficit group, suggesting that students in the content-specific group benefited more from study of the text than did students in the general-deficit group. Additional analyses supported the hypothesis that the content-specific deficits were due to a lack of background knowledge. Results lend support to the possibility that reading from text can be used by teachers as a diagnostic tool to identify educationally relevant subtypes of students with learning difficulties in the content areas.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alley, G. R. , & Deshler, D. D. (1979). Teaching the learning disabled adolescent: Strategies and methods. Denver: Love Publishing.

Anderson, R. C. , Wilkinson, I.A.G. , & Mason, J. M. (1991). A microanalysis of the small-group, guided reading lesson: Effects of an emphasis on global story meaning. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 417–441.

Arter, J. A. , & Jenkins, J. R. (1979). Differential diagnosis-prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49, 517–555.

Dale, E. , & Chall, J. S. (1948a). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27, 11–20.

Dale, E. , & Chall, J. S. (1948b). A formula for predicting readability: Instructions. Educational Research Bulletin, 27, 37–54.

Davies, P. (Ed.). (1970). The American heritage dictionary of the English language. New York: Dell.

de Bettencourt, L. U. , & Zigmond, N. (1990). The learning disabled secondary school dropout: What teachers should know. What teachers can do. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13, 17–20.

de Bettencourt, L. U. , Zigmond, N. , & Thornton, H. (1989). Follow-up of postsecondaryage rural learning disabled graduates and dropouts. Exceptional Children, 56, 40–49.

Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.

10.

Deno, S. L. , & Fuchs, L. S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8), 1–16.

11.

Deno, S. L. , Mirkin, P. K. , & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36–45.

12.

Deshler, D. D. , Schumaker, J. B. , & Lenz, B. K. (1984). Academic and cognitive interventions for LD adolescents: Part II. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 170–179.

13.

Edgar, E. (1988). Employment as an outcome for mildly handicapped students: Current status and future directions. Focus on Exceptional Children, 21(1), 1–8.

14.

Espin, C. A. (1990). Reading aloud from text as an indicator of achievement in the content areas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

15.

Espin, C. A. , & Deno, S. L. (in press). The validity of curriculum-based measures at the secondary level: Relation between basic reading skills and academic success. Remedial and Special Education.

16.

Fuchs, L. S. , Fuchs, D. , & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–29.

17.

Hodgins, F. , & Silverman, K. (1985). Adventures in American literature ( Heritage ed. rev.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

18.

Kavale, K. A. , & Forness, S. R. (1987). The far side of heterogeneity: A critical analysis of empirical subtyping research in learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 374–382.

19.

Levin, E. K. , Zigmond, N. , & Birch, J. W. (1985). A followup study of 52 learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 2–7.

20.

Mercer, C. D. , & Mercer, A. R. (1989). Teaching students with learning problems (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

21.

Miller, S. E. , Leinhardt, G. , & Zigmond, N. (1988). Influencing engagement through accommodation: An ethnographic study of at-risk students. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 465–487.

22.

Minskoff, E. H. , Sheldon, K. L. , Steidle, E. F. , & Baker, D. P. (1988). A comparison of learning disabled adults and high school students. Learning Disabilities Research, 3, 115–123.

23.

Pearson, P. D. , & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

24.

Raphael, T. E. , & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students' awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 217–235.

25.

Salvia, J. , & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1991). Assessment (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

26.

Scannell, D. P. , Haugh, O. M. , Schild, A. H. , & Ulmer, G. (1986). Tests of achievement and proficiency. Chicago: Riverside.

27.

Scuccimarra, D. J. , & Speece, D. L. (1990). Employment outcomes and social integration of students with mild handicaps: The quality of life 2 years after high school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 213–219.

28.

Shinn, M. R. , Good, R. H. , Knutson, N. , Tilly, W. D. , & Collins, V. L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459–479.

29.

Towle, A. (1989). Modern biology. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

30.

Wagner, M. (1990). The school programs and school performance of secondary students classified as learning disabled: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.

31.

Zetlin, A. G. , & Hosseinin, A. (1989). Six post-school case studies of mildly learning handicapped young adults. Exceptional Children, 55, 405–411.

32.

Zigmond, N. (1990). Rethinking secondary school programs for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(1), 1–24.