Students with mild to moderate disabilities, English language learners, and other at-risk groups frequently struggle academically in general education science and social studies classrooms. In this article, the research surrounding preteaching as an academic intervention for content area instruction is reviewed. General suggestions for preteaching science and social studies content to students from upper elementary to high school levels are given based on the theoretical and empirical literature. Subsequently, suggestions for implementing three types of preteaching are described in detail: vocabulary preteaching, preteaching with advance organizers, and preteaching targeting background knowledge. Conclusions are drawn regarding the utility of preteaching and the need for further research investigating preteaching interventions.
AndersP. L.BosC. S. (1986). Semantic feature analysis: An interactive strategy for vocabulary development and text comprehension. Journal of Reading, 29, 610–616.
2.
AusubelD. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272. doi:10.1037/h0046669
3.
BosC. S.AndersP. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31–42.
4.
BosC. S.AndersP. L.FilipD.JaffeL. E. (1989). The effects of an interactive instructional strategy for enhancing reading comprehension and content area learning for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 384–390.
5.
BosC. S.VaughnS. (2006). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
6.
BulgrenJ.DeshlerD. D.LenzB. K. (2007). Engaging adolescents with LD in higher order thinking about history concepts using integrated content enhancement routines. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 121–133.
7.
CantrellR. J.FusaroJ. A.DoughertyE. A. (2000). Exploring the effectiveness of journal writing on learning social studies: A comparative study. Reading Psychology, 21, 1–11. doi:10.1080/027027100278310
8.
CarnineD. W.SilbertJ.Kame’enuiE. J.TarverS. G. (2010). Direct instruction reading (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Merrill.
9.
CawleyJ.HaydenS.CadeE.Baker-KroczynskiS. (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 423–435.
10.
ChristenW. L.MurphyT. J. (1991). Increasing comprehension by activating prior knowledge. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED328885)
11.
DarchC.CarnineD. (1986). Teaching content area material to learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 53, 240–246.
12.
DarchC. B.CarnineD. W.KameenuiE. J. (1986). The role of graphic organizers and social structure in content area instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 275–295.
13.
DarchC.GerstenR. (1986). Direction-setting activities in reading comprehension: A comparison of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 235–243.
14.
DufreneB. A.HeningtonC.TownsendA. E. (2006). Peer tutoring for reading fluency: Student implementation and effects on reading fluency. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 7(2), 118–137.
15.
FernstromP.GoodniteB. (2000). 20 ways to accommodate student diversity in the general education social studies classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35, 244–245.
16.
GarijaM.JitendraA. K.SoodS.SacksG. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.
17.
GravesM. F.CookeC. L.LabergeM. J. (1983). Effects of previewing difficult short stories on low ability junior high school students’ comprehension, recall, and attitudes. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 262–276. doi:10.2307/747388
18.
HartleyJ.DaviesI. K. (1976). Preinstructional strategies: The role of pretests, behavioral objectives, overviews and advance organizers. Review of Educational Research, 46, 239–265.
19.
HawkinsR. O.HaleA. D.SheeleyW.LingS. (2011). Repeated reading and vocabulary-previewing interventions to improve fluency and comprehension for struggling high-school readers. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 59–77. doi:10.1002/pits.20545
20.
HawkinsR. O.Musti-RaoS.HaleA. D.McGuireS.HailleyJ. (2010). Examining listening previewing as a classwide strategy to promote reading comprehension and vocabulary. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 903–916. doi:10.1002/pits.20513
21.
HealyV. C. (1989). The effects of advance organizer and prerequisite knowledge passages on the learning and retention of science concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 627–642. doi:10.1002/tea.3660260707
22.
HeverlyJ. (2011). Why I no longer teach vocabulary. English Journal, 100(4), 98–100.
23.
HudsonP. (1996). Using a learning set to increase the test performance of students with learning disabilities in social studies classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11(2), 78–85.
24.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
25.
JitendraA. K.EdwardsL. L.SacksG.JacobsonL. A. (2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322.
26.
LenzB. K.AdamsG. L.BulgrenJ. A.PouliotN.LarauxM. (2007). Effects of curriculum maps and guiding questions on the test performance of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 235–244.
27.
LenzB. K.AlleyG. R.SchumakerJ. B. (1987). Activating the inactive learner: Advance organizers in the secondary content classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 53–67.
28.
ManzoA. V.ManzoU. C.EstesT. H. (2001). Content area literacy: Interactive teaching for active learning (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
29.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2000). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
30.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.GraetzJ. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116.
31.
MunkJ. H.GibbG. S.CaldarellaP. (2010). Collaborative preteaching of students at risk for academic failure. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 177–185.
32.
NeumanS. B. (1988). Enhancing children’s comprehension through previewing. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 37, 219–224.
33.
O’DonnellP.WeberK. P.McLaughlinT. F. (2003). Improving correct and error rate and reading comprehension using key words and previewing: A case report with a language minority student. Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 237–254.
34.
RuddellR. B. (2002). Teaching children to read and write: Becoming an effective literacy teacher (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
35.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.BerkeleyS.GraetzJ. E. (2010). Do special education interventions improve learning of secondary content? A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 437–449.
36.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.McDuffieK. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive settings: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.
37.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s report card. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/
