Reading comprehension is an important component of academic success and a skill required for many activities in school. However, little is known about effective reading comprehension interventions for younger students. This study investigated the effects of the paraphrasing strategy taught using the self-regulated strategy development model. Participants were six third grade students identified as fluent readers who experienced difficulty with comprehension. All instruction for the six participants was one on one. Results indicate that the use of the RAP paraphrasing strategy increased reading comprehension as measured by the percentage of text recall and short-answer questions (RAP is a three-step strategy: Read a paragraph, Ask myself “What was the main idea and two details?” and Put it into my own words). Ideas for future research and implications are discussed.
AlfassiM. (2004). Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy instruction on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 171–184.
2.
BestR. M.RoweM.OzuruY.McNamaraD. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 65–83.
3.
BoulineauT.ForeC.Hagan-BurkeS.BurkeM. (2004). Use of story-mapping to increase the story-grammar text comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 105–121.
4.
CaccamiseD.SnyderL. (2005). Theory and pedagogical practices of text comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 5–20.
5.
CaseL. P.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (1992). Improving the mathematical problem solving skills of students with learning disabilities: Self-regulated strategy development. Journal of Special Education, 26, 1–19.
6.
ChardD. J.VaughnS.TylerB. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406.
7.
DaaneM. C.CampbellJ. R.GriggW. S.GoodmanM. J.OranjeA. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading (U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics 2006–469). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
8.
De La PazS. (2001). Teaching writing to students with attention deficit disorders and specific language impairment: Effects from the self-regulated strategy development model. Journal of Educational Research95, 37–47.
9.
DukeN.PressleyM.HildenK. (2004). Difficulties with reading comprehension. In StoneC. A.SillimanE.EhrenB.ApelK.(Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 501–520). New York: Guilford.
10.
EllisE. S.GravesA. W. (1990). Teaching rural students with learning disabilities: A paraphrasing strategy to increase comprehension of main ideas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10, 2–10.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.SpeeceD. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–45.
12.
GloverJ. A.PlakeB. S.RobertsB.ZimmerJ. W.PalmereM. (1981). Distinctiveness of encoding: The effects of paraphrasing and drawing inferences on memory from prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 736–744.
13.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Availablefrom http://dibels.uoregon.edu/
14.
GrahamL.BellertA. (2004). Difficulties in reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities. In WongB. (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 251–279). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
15.
GrahamS.HarrisK. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–344). New York: Guilford.
HagamanJ. L.ReidR. (2008). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of middle-school students at-risk for failure in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 222–234.
18.
HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
19.
HarrisK.GrahamS.MasonL. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 15, 1–16.
20.
HarrisK.GrahamS.MasonL. (2005). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Story and opinion essay writing for students with disabilities or severe difficulties in the early elementary grades. Nashville, TN: Center for Accelerated Student Learning. Retrieved September 20, 2005, from http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/casl/srsd.html
21.
HarrisK. R.ReidR.GrahamS. (2004). Self-regulation among children with LD and ADHD. In WongB. (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 167–195). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
22.
JenkinsJ. R.FuchsL. S.van den BroekP.EspinC.DenoS. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719–729.
23.
KatimsD. S.HarrisS. (1997). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 41, 116–123.
24.
KazdinA. E. (1982). Single case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
LauterbachS. L.BenderW. M. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction for reading comprehension: A success for high school freshmen. High School Journal, 79, 58–64.
LiangL. A.PetersonC.GravesM. F. (2005). Investigating two approaches to fostering children’s comprehension of literature. Reading Psychology, 26, 387–400.
28.
LienemannT. O.ReidR. (2008). Using self-regulated strategy development to improve expository writing with students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 74, 471–486.
29.
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.
30.
MeisingerE. B.BradleyB. A.SchwanenflugelP. J.KuhnM. R.MorrisR. D. (2009). Myth and reality of the word caller: The relation between teacher nominations and prevalence among elementary school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 147–159.
31.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Report on National Assessment of Educational Progress. The nation’s report card: Reading highlights 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
32.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and U.S. Department of Education.
33.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
34.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.BrownL. (2009). The improvement rate difference for single case research. Exceptional Children, 75, 135–150.
ReidR. (1996). Self-monitoring for students with learning disabilities: The present, the prospects, the pitfalls. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 317–331.
37.
ReidR.LienemannT. O. (2006). Strategy instruction for children with learning disabilities.New York: Guildford.
38.
ReidR.TroutA.SchartzM. (2005). Self-regulation interventions for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 71, 361–377.
39.
RobertsG.GoodR.CorcoranS. (2005). Story retell: A fluency-based indicator of reading comprehension. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 304–317.
40.
RogersL.GrahamS. (2008). A meta-analysis of single-subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906.
41.
RogevichM.PerinD. (2008). Effects on science summarization of a reading comprehension intervention for adolescents with behavior and attention disorders. Exceptional Children, 74, 135–154.
42.
SchumakerJ. B.DentonP. H.DeshlerD. D. (1984). The paraphrasing strategy.Lawrence: University of Kansas.
43.
SchunkD. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, 71–86.
44.
ShankweilerD.LundquistE.DreyerL. G.DickinsonC. C. (1996). Reading and spelling difficulties in high school students: Causes and consequences. Reading and Writing, 8, 267–294.
SwansonH. L. (1996). Information processing: An introduction. In ReidD. K.HreskoW.SwansonH. L. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to learning disabilities (pp. 251–285). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
47.
UnderwoodT.PearsonP. D. (2004). Teaching struggling adolescent readers to comprehend what they read. In JettonT. L.DoleJ. A. (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 35–61). New York: Guilford.
48.
WilliamsJ. P. (2002). Reading comprehension strategies and teacher preparation. In FarstrupA.SamuelsJ. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 243–260). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
49.
WilliamsJ. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. Journal of Special Education, 39, 6–18.
