We examined 48 studies of interventions designed to affect the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities and coded their characteristics and effect sizes. Our analyses revealed that students who received the researchers' experimental methods obtained reading comprehension scores that were higher than those of 87% of students in comparison groups. Strong effects were more likely when students' performance was assessed on lower level comprehension measures, when the study author delivered the interventions, and when the experimental students' performance was compared to that of students who did not receive any special intervention. These results indicate that although effective reading comprehension interventions exist, there are gaps between their use in research and practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BillingsleyB.S.WildmanT.M. (1988). The effects of pre-reading activities on the comprehension monitoring of learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 36–44.
2.
BosC.S.AndersP.L. (1990a). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31–42.
3.
BosC.S.AndersP.L. (1990b). Interactive practices for teaching content and strategic knowledge. In ScruggsT.E.WongB.Y.L. (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 116–185). New York: Springer-Verlag.
4.
BosC.S.AndersP.L.FilipD.JaffeL.E. (1989). 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. (1988). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
6.
BrailsfordA.SnartF.DasJ.P. (1984). Strategy training and reading comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 287–290.
7.
ChanL.K.S. (1991). Promoting strategy generalization through self-instructional training in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 427–433.
8.
CosdenM.PearlR.BryanT. (1985). The effects of cooperative and individual goal structures on learning disabled and nondisabled students. Exceptional Children, 52 (2), 103–114.
9.
DurkinD. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 482–533.
10.
EngelmannS.BeckerW.C.CarnineD.GerstenR. (1988). The Direct Instruction follow-through model: Designs and outcomes. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 303–317.
11.
FitzgeraldJ.SpiegelD.L. (1983). Enhancing children's reading comprehension through instruction in narrative structure. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 1–18.
12.
GlassG.V.McGawB.SmithM.L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
13.
GravesA.W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1 (2), 90–100.
14.
HortonS.V.LovittT.C.GivensA.NelsonR. (1989). Teaching social studies to high school students with academic handicaps in a mainstreamed setting: Effects of a computerized study guide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 102–107.
15.
JenkinsJ.R.LarsonK.FleisherL.A. (1983). Effects of oral reading error corrections on word recognition and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 139–145.
16.
KavaleK.A. (1990). Variances and verities in learning disability interventions. In ScruggsT.E.WongB.Y.L. (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 3–33). New York: Springer-Verlag.
17.
KavaleK.A.GlassG.V. (1981). Meta-analysis and the integration of research in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 531–538.
18.
LenzB.K.BulgrenJ.HudsonP. (1990). Content enhancement: A model for promoting the acquisition of content by individuals with learning disabilities. In ScruggsT.E.WongB.Y.L. (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 122–165). New York: Springer-Verlag.
19.
LloydJ.W.TankersleyM.TalbottE. (1994). Using single-subject research methodology to study learning disabilities. In VaughnS.BosC. (Eds.), Research issues in learning disabilities: Theory, methodology, assessment, and ethics (pp. 163–177). New York: Springer-Verlag.
20.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E. (1987). Effective instruction for special education. Boston: Little-Brown.
21.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E. (1988). Increasing content area learning of learning disabled students: Research implementation. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 17–25.
22.
NevilleD.D.SearlsE.F. (1991). A meta-analytic review of the effect of sentence combining on reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 31, 63–76.
23.
PalinscarA.S.BrownA.L. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self-regulation comprehension. In BrophyJ. (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 1, pp. 35–71). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
24.
PanyD.JenkinsJ.R. (1978). Learning word meanings: A comparison of instructional procedures and effects on measures of reading comprehension with learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 21–32.
25.
PanyD.JenkinsJ.R.SchreckJ. (1982). Vocabulary instruction: Effects on word knowledge and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 202–215.
26.
ParisS.G.CrossD.R.LipsonM.Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1239–1252.
27.
PerfettiC.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
RosenthalR. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
29.
RyanE.B. (1981). Identifying and remediating failures in reading comprehension: Toward an instructional approach for poor comprehenders. In MacKinnonG.E.WallerT.G. (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 3, pp. 240–265). New York: Academic Press.
30.
SachsA. (1983). The effects of three pre-reading activities on learning disabled students' reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6 (3), 248–251.
31.
SchumakerJ.B.DeshlerD.D.AlleyG.R.WarnerM.M.DentonP. (1982). Multipass: A learning strategy for improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 409–414.
32.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (1989). Mnemonic instruction of learning disabled students: A field-based evaluation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 119–125.
33.
SearlsE.F.NevilleD.D. (1988). An exploratory review of sentence-combining research related to reading. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21, 1–15.
34.
SmithR.J.BarrettT.C. (1974). Teaching reading in the middle grades. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
35.
StockW.A. (1994). Systematic coding for research synthesis. In HedgesL.V.CooperH.M. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 125–138). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
36.
WeisbergR. (1988). 1980s: A change in the focus of reading comprehension research: A review of reading/learning disabilities research based on an interactive model of reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 149–159.
37.
WilliamsJ.A. (1990). The use of schema in research on the problem solving of learning disabled adolescents. In ScruggsT.E.WongB.Y.L. (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 304–321). New York: Springer-Verlag.
38.
WongB.Y.L.JonesW. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–240.
39.
YsseldykeJ.E.ThurlowM.L.O'SullivanP.ChristensonS.L. (1989). Teaching structures and tasks in reading instruction for students with mild handicaps. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 78–86.
