The authors conducted an experimental study to examine the effects of collaborative strategic reading and metacognitive strategic learning on the reading comprehension of students in seventh- and eighth-grade English/language arts classes in two sites (Texas, Colorado) and in three school districts. Students were randomly assigned to classes and then classes were randomly assigned to treatment or business-as-usual comparison groups. If a teacher had an uneven number of classes, we assigned extra classes to treatment. The total number of classes randomized was 61, with 34 treatment and 27 comparison. Treatment students received a multicomponent reading comprehension instruction (collaborative strategic reading) from their English/language arts/reading teachers that included teaching students to apply comprehension strategies in collaborative groups for 18 weeks, with approximately two sessions per week. Findings indicated significant differences in favor of the treatment students on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test but not on reading fluency.
BiancarosaG.SnowC. E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
4.
BloomH. S.HillC. J.BlackA. R.LipseyM. W. (2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1, 289–328.
5.
BollenK. A.CurranP. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. New York, NY: John Wiley.
6.
BovairdJ. A. (2007). Multilevel structural equation models for contextual factors. In LittleT. D.BovairdJ. A.CardN. A. (Eds.), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies (pp. 149–182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
BryantD. P.VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.UgelN.HamffA.HougenM. (2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without reading disabilities in general education middle-school content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 238–252.
8.
CohenP. (1991). A source of bias in longitudinal investigations of change. In CollinsL. M.HornJ. L. (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change: Recent advances, unanswered questions, future directions (pp. 18–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
9.
De La PazS.MacArthurC. (2003). Knowing the how and why of history: Expectations for secondary students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 26, 142–154.
10.
DoleJ. A.DuffyG. G.RoehlerL. R.PearsonP. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239–264.
11.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC. K.CableA.TackettK. K.SchnakenbergJ. W. (2009). Synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–300.
12.
EndersC. K.BandalosD. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430–457.
13.
FlavellJ. H. (1992). Cognitive development (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.MathesP. G.LipseyM. W. (2000). Reading differences between low-achieving students with and without learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. In GerstenR.SchillerE. P.VaughnS. (Eds.), Contemporary special education research (pp. 81–104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
GajriaM.JitendraA. K.SoodS.SacksS. (2007). Comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.
16.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
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, 279–320.
19.
HarrisK. R.PressleyM. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392–404.
20.
HeilmanA. W.BlairT. R.RupleyW. H. (1998). Principles and practices of teaching reading (9th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
21.
HoweK. B.ShinnM. M. (2002). Standard reading assessment passages (RAPs) for use in general outcome measurement: A manual describing development and technical features. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
22.
James-BurdumyS.MansfieldW.DekeJ.CareyN.Lugo-GilJ.HersheyJ.. . . FaddisB. (2009). Effectiveness of selected supplemental reading comprehension interventions: Impacts on a first cohort of fifth-grade students (NCEE 2009-4032). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
23.
JenkinsJ. R.HeliotisJ.SteinM. L.HaynesM. (1987). Improving reading comprehension by using paragraph restatements. Exceptional Children, 54, 54–59.
24.
JiménezR. T.GarciaG. E.PearsonP. D. (1995). Three children, two languages, and strategic reading: Case studies in bilingual/monolingual reading. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 67–97.
25.
JiménezR. T.GarcíaG. E.PearsonP. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 90–112.
26.
KamilM. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
27.
KamilM. L.BormanG. D.DoleJ.KralC. C.SalingerT.TorgesenJ. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE No. 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/pdf/practiceguides/adlit_pg_082608.pdf
28.
KimA.-H.VaughnS.KlingnerJ. K.WoodruffA. L.KleinC.KouzekananiK. (2006). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students with disabilities through computer-Assisted collaborative strategic reading (CACSR). Remedial and Special Education, 27, 235–248.
29.
KimA.-H.VaughnS.WanzekJ.WeiS. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 105–118.
30.
KlingnerJ. K.ArguellesM. E.HughesM. T.VaughnS. (2001). Examining the schoolwide “spread” of research-based practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 221–234.
31.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS. (1999). Promoting reading comprehension, content learning, and English acquisition through collaborative strategic reading (CSR). The Reading Teacher, 52, 738–747.
32.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS.ArgüellesM. E.HughesM. T.AhweeS. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: “Real world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291–302.
33.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS.BoardmanA. (2007). Teaching reading comprehension to students with learning difficulties. New York, NY: Guilford.
34.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS.SchummJ. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99, 3–21.
35.
LonbergerR. B. (1988). The effects of training in a self-generated learning strategy on the prose-processing abilities of fourth and sixth graders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York, Buffalo.
36.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C.HughesC. A. (2002). Technology-based interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 247–262.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.BakkenJ. P.WhedonC. (1996). Reading comprehension: A synthesis of research in learning disabilities. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 10, 201–227.
39.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.GraetzJ. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 26(2), 103–116.
40.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L.BlakeR. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 218–253.
41.
MehtaP. D.NealeM. C. (2005). People are variables too: Multilevel structural equations models. Psychological Methods, 10, 259–284.
42.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the sub-groups. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Health.
43.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). The reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
44.
ParisA. H.LipsonM. Y.WixsonK. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316.
45.
ParisA. H.WasikB. A.TurnerJ. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalB. P.PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 609–640). London: Routledge.
46.
PerezB. (1998). Sociocultural contexts of language and literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
PressleyM.AfflerbachP. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48.
RaphaelT. E. (1982). Question-answering strategies for children. Reading Teacher, 36, 186–190.
49.
RaudenbushS. W. (1997). Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials. Psychological Methods, 2, 173–185.
50.
RossiP. H.LipseyM. W.FreemanH. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
ScammaccaN.RobertsG.VaughnS.EdmondsM. S.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC. K.TorgesenJ. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Meta-analysis%20Struggling%20Readers1.pdf
52.
SchmittM. C. (1988). The effects of an elaborated directed activity on the metacomprehension skills of third graders. In ReadenceJ. E.BaldwinR. S. (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research. (pp. 167–189). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
53.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcome. New York, NY: Guilford.
54.
SwansonH. L.KehlerP.JermanO. (2010). Working memory, strategy knowledge, and strategy instruction in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 24–27.
55.
TalbottE.LloydJ. W.TankersleyM. (1994). Effects of reading comprehension interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 223–232.
56.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). The Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
57.
VaughnS.ChardD. J.BryantD. P.ColemanM.TylerB.Linan-ThompsonS.KouzekananiK. (2000). Fluency and comprehension interventions for third-grade students. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 325–335.
58.
VaughnS.CirinoP. T.WanzekJ.WexlerJ.FletcherJ. M.DentonS.. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 3–21.
59.
VaughnS.GerstenR.ChardD. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99–114.
60.
VaughnS.HughesM. T.SchummJ. S.KlingnerJ. K. (1998). A collaborative effort to enhance reading and writing instruction in inclusion classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 57–74.
61.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.WoodruffT.Linan-ThompsonS. (in press). Three-tier model for effective interventions. In HaagerD.VaughnS.KlingnerJ. K. (Eds.), Response to intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
62.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
WagnerR. C.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.PearsonN. A. (2010). Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension. Austin, TX: Pro Ed.
64.
WilliamsJ. P. (1998). Improving comprehension of disabled readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 213–238.
65.
WilliamsJ. P. (2000). Strategic processing of text: Improving reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities (Report No. EDO-EC-00-8). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 449596)
66.
WilsonV. L.RupleyW. H. (1997). A structural equation model for reading comprehension based on background, phonemic, and strategy knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 45–63.
67.
WongB. Y. L.JonesW. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questing training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–240.
68.
YoonK. S.DuncanT.LeeS. W.ScarlossB.ShapleyK. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues and Answers REL 33). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
