Reading comprehension expectations in content areas have increased for students during the past decade. Many secondary students, including students with learning disabilities, improve their reading proficiency of grade-level text when they receive explicit instruction. The authors propose a self-questioning strategy routine designed to enhance secondary students’ comprehension of expository text and to increase student engagement in content classes. The routine includes explicit, teacher-directed instruction and incorporates before-, during-, and after-reading activities using modeling and guided practice. A scenario of a secondary teacher implementing the proposed self-questioning strategy routine in a social studies course is presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
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(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510361261
2.
CantrellS. C.AlmasiJ. F.RintamaaM.CarterJ. C.PenningtonJ.BuckmanD. M. (2014). The impact of supplemental instruction on low-achieving adolescents reading engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 107, 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.753859
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC.CableA.TackettK. T.SchnakenbergJ. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998
5.
GuthrieJ. T.KlaudaS. T.HoA. N. (2013). Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.035
6.
JosephL. M.Alber-MorganS.CullenJ.RouseC. (2016). The effects of self-questioning on reading comprehension: A literature review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32(2), 152–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2014.891449
7.
KamilM. L.BormanG. D.DoleJ.KralC. C.SalingerT.TorgesenJ. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE No. 2008-4027). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
8.
KimW.Linan-ThompsonS.MisquittaR. (2012). Critical factors in reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(2), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00352.x
9.
KimA. H.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. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370020201
10.
KoT.TejeroM. (2015). Reading comprehension for adolescents with learning disabilities: A reality check. Education Sciences, 5, 413–439. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci5040413
11.
KosanovichM. L.ReedD. K.MillerD. H. (2010). Bringing literacy strategies into content instruction: Professional learning for secondary-level teachers. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
12.
LenskiS. (2012). What RTI means for content area teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(4), 276–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00034
13.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2015). The nation’s report card: Reading 2015. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
14.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2019). The nation’s report card: Reading 2019. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
15.
National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2010b). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects: Appendix A. Washington, DC: Authors. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf
16.
National Reading Panel & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). 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. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
17.
O’BrienD. G.StewartR. A.MojeE. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 442–463. https://www.jstor.org/stable/747625
18.
PalinscarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
RosenshineB.MeisterC.ChapmanS. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A Review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066002181
23.
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, 756–800. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316652942
24.
TorgesenJ. K.HoustonD. D.RissmanL. M.DeckerS. M.RobertsG.VaughnS.LesauxN. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
25.
WexlerJ.KearnsD. M.LemonsC. J.MitchelM.ClancyE.DavidsonK. A.SinclairA. C.WeiY (2018). Reading comprehension and co-teaching practices in middle school English language arts classrooms. Exceptional Children, 84(4), 384–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918771543
26.
WexlerJ.ReedD. KPyleN.MitchellM.BartonE. (2015). A synthesis of peer-mediated academic interventions for secondary struggling learners. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504997
