The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of teaching eight secondary students with disabilities, including seven with learning disabilities, a strategy for answering a variety of inferential questions. A multiple-baseline across-subjects design was employed. Outcome measures included scores on researcher-devised comprehension quizzes, a standardized test of reading comprehension, a strategy use test, a strategy knowledge test, and a reading satisfaction measure. Fidelity of implementation, instructional time, and maintenance of skills were also measured. Results suggest that students with disabilities can learn to use a strategy to answer a variety of inferential questions, and mastery of its use can result in improved scores on criterion-based and standardized measures of reading comprehension. In addition, students' satisfaction with their reading improved.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AfflerbachP. P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(1), 31–46.
2.
American Institute for Research. (2005, Spring). Reading framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, prepublication edition. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/pubs.html
3.
BulgrenJ. A.MarquisJ. G.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B.LenzB. K. (2006). Instructional context of inclusive secondary general education classes: Teachers' instructional roles and practices, curricular demands, and research-based practices and standards. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 39–66.
4.
BulgrenJ. A.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 3–17.
5.
CainK.OakhillJ. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(5), 489–503.
6.
CattsH. W.FeyM. E.TomblinJ. B.ZhangX. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1142–1157.
7.
Center on Educational Policy. (2005). High school exit exams. Policy brief 1, December. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from http://www.cep-dc.org/highschoolexit
8.
DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (2006). Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum. New York: Corwin Press.
9.
DewitzP.CarrE.PatbergJ. (1987). Effects of inference training on comprehension and comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(1), 99–121.
10.
FisherJ. B.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (2002). Improving the reading comprehension of at-risk adolescents. In BlockC. C.PressleyM. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 351–364), New York: Guilford.
11.
FritschmannN. S. (2006). The effects of instruction in an inference strategy on the reading comprehension skills of adolescents with learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
12.
FritschmannN. S.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (in preparation). INFER: The inference strategy instructors manual.
13.
GajriaM.SalviaJ. (1992). The effects of summarization instructions on text comprehension of students. Exceptional Children, 58(6), 508–520.
14.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.WilliamsJ. P.BakerS. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279–320.
15.
HansenJ.PearsonP. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 821–829.
HornerR. D.BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 189–196.
18.
HughesC. A.DeshlerD. D.RuhlK. L.SchumakerJ. B. (1993). Test-taking strategy instruction for adolescents with behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1(3), 188–199.
19.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.GraetzJ. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 103–116.
22.
McConnachiG.CarrE. G. (1997). The effects of child behavior problems on maintenance of intervention fidelity. Behavior Modification, 97(2), 123–158.
23.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Learning for the 21st century. A report and mile guide for 21st century skills. Retrieved March 29, 2006, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org.
24.
PressleyM. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Volume II (pp. 545–562). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
25.
ReschlyD. J.HospJ. L.SchmiedC. M. (2005). And miles to go …: State SLD requirements and authoritative recommendations. Retrieved July 31, 2007, from www.nrcld.org/research/states/index.shtml
26.
SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (2006). Teaching adolescents to be strategic learners. In DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum (pp. 121–156). New York: Corwin Press.
27.
SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D.BuiY.VernonS. (2006). High schools and adolescents with disabilities: Challenges at every turn. In DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum (pp. 1–34). New York: Corwin Press.
28.
SiegelS.CastellanJ. N. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
29.
SimmondsE.P.M. (1992). The effects of teacher training and implementation of two methods of improving the comprehension skills of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7(4), 194–198.
30.
SnowC. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
31.
SpargoE. (1998). Timed readings in literature - Jamestown Series. Providence, RI: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill of McGraw-Hill Education.
32.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford.
33.
WagnerM.MarderC.BlackorbyJ.CamentoR.NewmanL.LevineP.Davis-MercierE.ChorostM.GarzaN.GuzmanA.SumiC.). (2003). The achievements of youth with disabilities during secondary school. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved April 3, 2006, from http://www.nlts2.org
34.
WarnerM. M.SchumakerJ. B.AlleyG. R.DeshlerD. D. (1980). Learning disabled adolescents in the public schools: Are they different from other low achievers?Exceptional Education Quarterly, 1(2), 27–35.
35.
WilliamsK. T. (2001). GRADE: Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. Shoreview, MN: Pearson AGS Globe.
36.
YuillN.JoscelyneT. (1988). Effect of organizational cues and strategies on good and poor comprehenders' story understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 152–158.
