This systematic review examines the effects of summarizing and main idea interventions on the reading comprehension outcomes of struggling readers in Grades 3 through 12. A comprehensive search identified 30 studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 1978 and 2016. Studies included struggling reader participants in Grades 3 through 12; targeted summarizing or main idea instruction; used an experimental, quasi-experimental, or single-case design; and included a reading comprehension outcome. A meta-analysis of 23 group design studies resulted in a statistically significant mean effect of 0.97. Group size, number of sessions, grade level, and publication year did not moderate treatment effect. Visual analysis of six single-case designs yielded strong evidence for retell measures and a range of evidence for short-answer comprehension measures. Findings suggest that main idea and summarizing instruction may improve struggling readers’ main idea identification and reading comprehension. Limitations include the lack of standardized measures and the unreported, changing description of the counterfactual.
AbdiH. (2007). Bonferroni and Šidák corrections for multiple comparisons. In SalkindN. J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (Vol. 3, pp. 103–107). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
2.
*BakkenJ. P.MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 300–324. doi:10.1177/002246699703100302
3.
BiancarosaC.SnowC. E. (2006). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
4.
BorkowskiJ. G.WeyhingR. S.CarrM. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 46–53. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.46
5.
*BoyleJ. R. (1996). The effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 86–98. doi:10.2307/1511250
6.
*BoyleJ. R.WeishaarM. (1997). The effects of expert-generated versus student-generated cognitive organizers on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 228–235.
7.
BrownA. L.DayJ. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(83)80002-4
8.
ChallJ. S. (1983). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
9.
*DiminoJ.GerstenR.CarnineD.BlakeG. (1990). Story grammar: An approach for promoting at-risk secondary students’ comprehension of literature. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 19–32. doi:10.1086/461635
10.
DukeN. K.PearsonP. D. (2008). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. The Journal of Education, 189(1/2), 107–122.
11.
DurkinD. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481–533.
12.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89–98. doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905
13.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC.CableA.TackettK. K.SchnakenbergJ. W. (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. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605–619. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.4.605
15.
*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.
16.
*Faggella-LubyM.WardwellM. (2011). RTI in a middle school: Findings and practical implications of a tier 2 reading comprehension study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 35–49. doi:10.1177/073194871103400103
*GajriaM.SalviaJ. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 508–516. doi:10.1177/001440299205800605
19.
*GalliniJ. K.SpiresH. A.TerryS.GleatonJ. (1993). The influence of macro and micro-level cognitive strategies training on text learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26, 164–178.
20.
GoldmanS. R. (2012). Adolescent literacy: Learning and understanding content. The Future of Children, 22, 89–106. doi:10.1353/foc.2012.0011
21.
*GravesA. W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1, 90–100.
22.
GwetK. (2001). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: How to estimate the level of agreement between two or multiple raters. Gaithersburg, MD: STATAXIS Publishing Company.
23.
*HagamanJ. L.CaseyK. J.ReidR. (2012). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of young students. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 110–123. doi:10.1177/0741932510364548
24.
*HagamanJ. L.CaseyK. J.ReidR. (2016). Paraphrasing strategy instruction for struggling readers. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60, 43–52. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2014.966802
25.
*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. doi:10.1177/0741932507311638
26.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
27.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 39–65. doi:10.1002/jrsm.5
*JenkinsJ. R.HeliotisJ. D.SteinM. L.HaynesM. C. (1987). Improving reading comprehension by using paragraph restatements. Exceptional Children, 54, 54–59.
30.
JitendraA. K.ChardD.HoppesM. K.RenoufK.GardillM. C. (2001). An evaluation of main idea strategy instruction in four commercial reading programs: Implications for students with learning problems. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17, 53–73. doi:10.1080/105735601455738
31.
*JitendraA. K.ColeC. L.HoppesM. K.WilsonB. (1998). Effects of a direct instruction main idea summarization program and self-monitoring on reading comprehension of middle school students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14, 379–396. doi:10.1080/1057356980140403
32.
*JitendraA. K.HoppesM. K.XinY. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 127–139. doi:10.1177/002246690003400302
33.
KamilM. L.BormanG. D.DoleJ.KralC. C.SalingerT.TorgesenJ. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc
34.
*KatimsD. S.HarrisS. (1997). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41, 116–123.
35.
KintschW.van DijkT. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ. H.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 26–38. doi:10.1177/0741932512452794
38.
*LauterbachS. L.BenderW. N. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction for reading comprehension: A success for high school freshmen. The High School Journal, 79, 58–64.
*MaloneL. D.MastropieriM. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 270–279. doi:10.1177/001440299105800309
41.
*MasonL. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283–296. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.283
42.
*MasonL. H. (2013). Teaching students who struggle with learning to think before, while, and after reading: Effects of self-regulated strategy development instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29, 124–144. doi:10.1080/10573569.2013.758561
43.
*MasonL. H.SnyderK. H.SukhramD. P.KedemY. (2006). TWA + PLANS strategies for expository reading and writing: Effects for nine fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children, 73, 69–89. doi:10.1177/001440290607300104
44.
*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
45.
MeyerB. J. F.BrandtD. M.BluthG. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103. doi:10.2307/747349
46.
*MillerC. A.DarchC. B.FloresM. M.ShippenM. E.HintonV. (2011). Main idea identification with students with mild intellectual disabilities and specific learning disabilities: A comparison of explicit and basal instructional approaches. Journal of Direct Instruction, 11, 15–29.
47.
MoeyaertM.MagginD.VerkuilenJ. (2016). Reliability, validity, and usability of data extraction programs for single-case research designs. Behavior Modification, 40, 874–900. doi:10.1177/0145445516645763
48.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(6), e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
49.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The nation’s report card: Trends in academic progress 2015 (NCES 2015–136). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
50.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards English language arts. Washington, DC: Author.
51.
NewmanL.WagnerM.HuangT.ShaverD.KnokeyA.-M.YuJ.. . . CametoR. (2011). Secondary school programs and performance of students with disabilities: A special topic report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2012–3000). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Special Education Research.
52.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. (2009). An improved effect size for single-case research: Nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40, 357–367. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006
53.
ParkerR. I.VannestK.DavisJ. (2014). Non-overlap analysis for single-case research. In KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. (Eds.), Single-case intervention research (pp. 127–151). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
RappD. N.van den BroekP.McMasterK. L.KendeouP.EspinC. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 289–312. doi:10.1080/10888430701530417
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG.VaughnS.StuebingK. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390. doi:10.1177/0022219413504995
58.
SchumakerJ. B.DentonP. H.DeshlerD. D. (1994). The paraphrasing strategy: Instructor’s manual. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
59.
*SchunkD. H.RiceJ. M. (1992). Influence of reading-comprehension strategy information on children’s achievement outcomes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 51–64. doi:10.2307/1510565
60.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1998). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22, 221–242. doi:10.1177/01454455980223001
61.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.CastoG. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24–33. doi:10.1177/074193258700800206
62.
SolisM.CiulloS.VaughnS.PyleN.HassaramB.LerouxA. (2012). Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of 30 years of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 327–340. doi:10.1177/0022219411402691
63.
TaylorK. K. (1986). Summary writing by young children. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 193–208. doi:10.2307/747845
64.
TiptonE. (2013). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with binary dependent effects. Research Synthesis Methods, 4, 169–187. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1070
65.
ValentineJ. C.CooperH. (2008). A systematic and transparent approach for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effectiveness research: The Study Design and Implementation Assessment Device (Study DIAD). Psychological Methods, 13, 130–149. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.13.2.130
66.
VaughnS.ElbaumB. E.WanzekJ.ScammaccaN.WalkerM. A. (2014). Code sheet and guide for education-related intervention study syntheses. Austin, TX: Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk.
67.
VaughnS.KlingnerJ. K.SwansonE. A.BoardmanA. G.RobertsG.MohammedS. S.. . . Stillman-SpisakS. J. (2011). Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading with middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 938–964. doi:10.3102/0002831211410305
68.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.WexlerJ.BarthA.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ.. . . FrancisD. (2010). The relative effects of group size on reading progress of older students with reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 23, 931–956. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9183-9
69.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.ScammaccaN. K.MetzK.MurrayC. S.RobertsG.DanielsonL. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83, 163–195. doi:10.3102/0034654313477212
70.
WatsonS. M. R.GableR. A.GearS. B.HughesK. C. (2012). Evidence-based strategies for improving the reading comprehension of secondary students: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 79–89. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00353.x
71.
*WeisbergR.BalajthyE. (1989). Transfer effects of instructing poor readers to recognize expository text structure. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 38, 279–286.
72.
*WeisbergR. K.BalajthyE. (1990). Development of disabled readers’ metacomprehension ability through summarization training using expository text: Results of three studies. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 6, 117–136. doi:10.1080/0748763900060204
73.
WilliamsJ. P. (2006). Stories, studies, and suggestions about reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 121–142. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1002_1
74.
*WongB. Y.JonesW. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–240. doi:10.2307/1510290
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
