Improving Adolscent Literacy Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices

8/9/2019 Improving Adolscent Literacy Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/improving-adolscent-literacy-effective-classroom-and-intervention-practices 1/65

Improving Adolescent Literacy:

Effective Classroom and

Intervention Practices


Effective Classroom and


IES PRACTICE GUIDE

NCEE 2008-4027

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE



The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) publishes practice guides in educationto bring the best available evidence and expertise to bear on the types o systemicchallenges that cannot currently be addressed by single interventions or programs.

Authors o practice guides seldom conduct the types o systematic literature searchesthat are the backbone o a meta-analysis, although they take advantage o such workwhen it is already published. Instead, authors use their expertise to identiy themost important research with respect to their recommendations, augmented by asearch o recent publications to ensure that research citations are up-to-date.

Unique to IES-sponsored practice guides is that they are subjected to rigorous exter-nal peer review through the same oce that is responsible or independent reviewo other IES publications. A critical task or peer reviewers o a practice guide is todetermine whether the evidence cited in support o particular recommendations isup-to-date and that studies o similar or better quality that point in a dierent di-

rection have not been ignored. Because practice guides depend on the expertise o their authors and their group decisionmaking, the content o a practice guide is notand should not be viewed as a set o recommendations that in every case dependson and ows inevitably rom scientifc research.

The goal o this practice guide is to ormulate specifc and coherent evidence-basedrecommendations that educators can use to improve literacy levels among adoles-cents in upper elementary, middle, and high schools. The target audience is teach-ers and other school personnel with direct contact with students, such as coaches,counselors, and principals. The guide includes specifc recommendations or edu-cators and the quality o evidence that supports these recommendations.



IES PRACTICE GUIDE


Eective Classroom and


August 2008

PanelMichael L. Kamil (Chair)

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Georey D. Borman

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN—MADISON

Janice Dole

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

Cathleen C. Kral

BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Terry Salinger

AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH

Joseph Torgesen

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

StaXinsheng “Cindy” Cai

Fiona Helsel

Yael Kidron

Elizabeth Spier

AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH

NCEE 2008-4027

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION



This report was prepared or the National Center or Education Evaluation and Re-gional Assistance, Institute o Education Sciences under Contract ED-02-CO-0022.

DisclaimerThe opinions and positions expressed in this practice guide are the authors’ and do

not necessarily represent the opinions and positions o the Institute o Education Sci-ences or the U.S. Department o Education. This practice guide should be reviewedand applied according to the specifc needs o the educators and education agencyusing it, and with ull realization that it represents the judgments o the reviewpanel regarding what constitutes sensible practice, based on the research that wasavailable at the time o publication. This practice guide should be used as a toolto assist in decisionmaking rather than as a “cookbook.” Any reerences within thedocument to specifc education products are illustrative and do not imply endorse-ment o these products to the exclusion o other products that are not reerenced.

U.S. Department of EducationMargaret SpellingsSecretary

Institute of Education SciencesGrover J. WhitehurstDirector

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional AssistancePhoebe CottinghamCommissioner

August 2008

This report is in the public domain. While permission to reprint this publication isnot necessary, the citation should be:

Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., and Torgesen, J. (2008).Improving adolescent literacy: Efective classroom and intervention practices: A Prac- tice Guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center or Education Evalu-ation and Regional Assistance, Institute o Education Sciences, U.S. Department o Education. Retrieved rom http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.

This report is available on the IES Web site at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.

Alternative FormatsOn request, this publication can be made available in alternative ormats, such asBraille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more inormation, call theAlternative Format Center at (202) 205–8113.



( iii )

Improving Adolescent Literacy:Eective Classroom and Intervention Practices

Contents

Introdction 1

Te Wat Wors Clearinose standards and teir relevance to tis ide 3

Improvin Adolescent Literacy: Eective Classroom and Intervention Practices 4

Overview 4

Scope o te practice ide 8

Ceclist or carryin ot te recommendations 9

Recommendation 1. Provide explicit vocablary instrction 11

Recommendation 2. Provide direct and explicit compreensionstratey instrction 16

Recommendation 3. Provide opportnities or extended discssion o textmeanin and interpretation 21

Recommendation 4. Increase stdent motivation and enaement in

literacy learnin 26

Recommendation 5. Mae available intensive and individalized interventionsor strlin readers tat can be provided by trained specialists 31

Conclsion 37

Appendix A. Postscript rom te Institte o Edcation Sciences 38

Appendix B. Abot te Ators 41

Appendix C. Disclosre o potential conicts o interest 42

Appendix D. Tecnical inormation on te stdies 43

Reerences 52



( i )

IMPROvIng ADOLESCEnT LITERACy: EffECTIvE CLASSROOM AnD InTERvEnTIOn PRACTICES

List o tables

1. Institte o Edcation Sciences levels o evidence or practice ides 2

2. Recommendations and correspondin levels o evidence to spport eac 7



( 1 )

Introduction

The goal o this practice guide is to present

specic and coherent evidence-based rec-

ommendations that educators can use to

improve literacy levels among adolescentsin upper elementary, middle, and high

schools. The panel purposeully included

students in 4th and 5th grades within the

realm o adolescents because their in-

structional needs related to literacy have

more in common with those o students

in middle and high school than they do

with students in early elementary grades.

Many students in grades 4 and up experi-

ence diculty acquiring the advanced lit-

eracy skills needed to read in the content

areas.1 The target audience or the practice

guide is teachers and other school person-

nel who have direct contact with students,

such as coaches, counselors, and princi-

pals. The practice guide includes specic

recommendations or educators along with

a discussion o the quality o evidence that

supports these recommendations.

We, the authors, are a small group with

expertise on this topic. The range o evi-

dence we considered in developing thisguide is vast, ranging rom experimental

studies in which reading was the depen-

dent variable, to trends in the National As-

sessment o Educational Progress (NAEP)

data, to correlational and longitudinal

studies, again with reading as the major

variable o interest. For questions about

what works best, high-quality experimen-

tal and quasi-experimental studies—such

as those meeting the criteria o the What

Works Clearinghouse (http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc)—have a privileged

position. In all cases we pay particular

attention to ndings that are replicated

across studies.

Although we draw on evidence about

the eectiveness o specic practices in

1. Biancarosa and Snow (2004); Heller and Green-

lea (2007).

reading instruction, we use this inorma-

tion to make broader points about im-

proving practice. In this guide we have

tried to take indings rom research or

practices recommended by experts and

describe how recommendations might ac-tually unold in school settings. In other

words, we aim to provide sucient detail

so that educators will have a clear sense

o the steps necessary to make use o the

recommendations.

A unique eature o practice guides is the

explicit and clear delineation o the qual-

ity—as well as quantity— o evidence that

supports each claim. To do this, we used

a semi-structured hierarchy suggested by

IES. This classication system uses both

the quality and the quantity o available

evidence to help determine the strength o

the evidence base grounding each recom-

mended practice (table 1).

Strong reers to consistent and generaliz-

able evidence that a practice causes bet-

ter outcomes or students in measures o

reading prociency.2

Moderate reers either to evidence romstudies that allow strong causal conclu-

sions but cannot be generalized with as-

surance to the population on which a rec-

ommendation is ocused (perhaps because

the ndings have not been widely repli-

cated) or to evidence rom studies that

are generalizable but have more causal

ambiguity than oered by experimental

designs (statistical models o correlational

data or group comparison designs or

which equivalence o the groups at pretestis uncertain).

Low reers to expert opinion based on rea-

sonable extrapolations rom research and

theory on other topics and evidence rom

2. Following What Works Clearinghouse guide-

lines, we consider a positive, statistically signi-

cant eect or large eect size (greater than 0.25)

as an indicator o positive eects.

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/








InTRODuCTIOn

( 2 )

Table 1. Institute o Education Sciences levels o evidence or practice guides

Strong

In general, characterization o the evidence or a recommendation as strong requires both studies with

high internal validity (i.e., studies whose designs can support causal conclusions) and studies with high

external validity (i.e., studies that in total include enough o the range o participants and settings on

which the recommendation is ocused to support the conclusion that the results can be generalized tothose participants and settings). Strong evidence or this practice guide is operationalized as:

A systematic review o research that generally meets the standards o the What Works Clearing-•

house (WWC) (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/) and supports the eectiveness o a program, prac-

tice, or approach with no contradictory evidence o similar quality; OR

Several well-designed, randomized controlled trials or well designed quasi-experiments that gen-•

erally meet the WWC standards and support the eectiveness o a program, practice, or approach,

with no contradictory evidence o similar quality; OR

One large, well-designed, randomized controlled, multisite trial that meets the WWC standards•

and supports the eectiveness o a program, practice, or approach, with no contradictory evi-

dence o similar quality; OR

For assessments, evidence o reliability and validity that meets the Standards or Educational and•

Psychological Testing.

a

Moderate

In general, characterization o the evidence or a recommendation as moderate requires studies with

high internal validity but moderate external validity, or studies with high external validity but mod-

erate internal validity. In other words, moderate evidence is derived rom studies that support strong

causal conclusions but where generalization is uncertain, or studies that support the generality o a

relationship but where the causality is uncertain. Moderate evidence or this practice guide is opera-

tionalized as:

Experiments or quasi-experiments generally meeting the WWC standards and supporting the e-•

ectiveness o a program, practice, or approach with small sample sizes and/or other conditions

o implementation or analysis that limit generalizability and no contrary evidence; OR

Comparison group studies that do not demonstrate equivalence o groups at pretest and there-•

ore do not meet the WWC standards but that (a) consistently show enhanced outcomes or par-

ticipants experiencing a particular program, practice, or approach and (b) have no major awsrelated to internal validity other than lack o demonstrated equivalence at pretest (e.g., only one

teacher or one class per condition, unequal amounts o instructional time, highly biased outcome

measures); OR

Correlational research with strong statistical controls or selection bias and or discerning inu-•

ence o endogenous actors and no contrary evidence; OR

For assessments, evidence o reliability that meets the Standards or Educational and Psychological•

Testingb but with evidence o validity rom samples not adequately representative o the popula-

tion on which the recommendation is ocused.

Low

In general, characterization o the evidence or a recommendation as low means that the recommenda-

tion is based on expert opinion derived rom strong ndings or theories in related areas and/or expert

opinion buttressed by direct evidence that does not rise to the moderate or strong levels. Low evidence

is operationalized as evidence not meeting the standards or the moderate or high levels.

a. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measure-

ment in Education (1999).

b. Ibid.



InTRODuCTIOn

( 3 )

studies that do not meet the standards or

moderate or strong evidence.

The What Works Clearinghousestandards and their relevance to

this guide

In terms o the levels o evidence indicated

in table 1, we rely on What Works Clearing-

house (WWC) evidence standards to assess

the quality o evidence supporting educa-

tional programs and practices. The WWC

addresses evidence or the causal validity

o instructional programs and practices

according to WWC standards. Inorma-

tion about these standards is available at

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc. The technical

quality o each study is rated and placed

into one o three categories:

Meets Evidence Standards • or random-

ized controlled trials and regression

discontinuity studies that provide the

strongest evidence o causal validity.

Meets Evidence Standards with Res- •

ervations or all quasi-experimental

studies with no design aws and ran-

domized controlled trials that have

problems with randomization, attri-

tion, or disruption.

Does Not Meet Evidence Screens •

orstudies that do not provide strong evi-

dence o causal validity.

Appendix D provides more technical in-

ormation about the studies and our de-

cisions regarding the level o evidence

or each recommendation. To illustrate

the types o studies reviewed, we de-

scribe one study or each recommenda-

tion. Our goal in doing this is to provide

interested readers with more detail about

the research designs, the intervention

components, and the way impact was

measured.

Dr. Michael Kamil

Dr. Georey D. Borman

Dr. Janice Dole

Cathleen C. Kral

Dr. Terry Salinger

Dr. Joseph Torgesen



( 4 )

Improving AdolescentLiteracy: EectiveClassroom andIntervention Practices

Overview

Data rom the 2007 National Assessment

o Educational Progress (NAEP) in read-

ing report that 69 percent o 8th grade

students all below the procient level in

their ability to comprehend the meaning

o text at their grade level.1 Equally alarm-

ing, 26 percent o students read below the

basic level, which means that they do not

have sucient reading ability to under-

stand and learn rom text at their grade

level. When these data are coupled with

reports showing that even high school

students with average reading ability are

currently unprepared or the literacy de-

mands o many workplace and postsec-

ondary educational settings, the need or

improved literacy instruction o adoles-

cents is apparent.2

Reading ability is a key predictor o achieve-ment in mathematics and science,3 and the

global inormation economy requires to-

day’s American youth to have ar more ad-

vanced literacy skills than those required

o any previous generation.4 However, as

long-term NAEP data5 and other studies

show,6 improvements in the literacy skills

o older students have not kept pace with

the increasing demands or literacy in the

workplace. These studies, and those men-

tioned earlier, suggest the need or serious

1. Lee, Griggs, and Donahue (2007).

2. Pennsylvania Department o Education (2004);

Williamson (2004).

3. ACT (2006).

4. Snow, Burns, and Grin (1998).

5. Perie and Moran (2005).

6. ACT (2006).

attention to the challenges o improving

reading instruction in upper elementary,

middle, and high school. Yet reading in-

struction as a ormal part o the curricu-

lum typically decreases as students move

beyond upper elementary grades.

To acquire the skills they need, students

must work hard to rene and build upon

their initial reading skills, and teachers

in upper elementary grades and in mid-

dle and high school classes should help

students acquire more advanced skills

once they understand the demands that

content area tasks actually present, es-

pecially to students who struggle with

reading.7 However, many teachers re-

port eeling unprepared to help their stu-

dents or do not think that teaching read-

ing skills in content-area classes is their

responsibility.8

For more than 50 years9 the realities o stu-

dent reading diculties and teacher lack

o preparation to address them have been

met by calls or more instruction in higher-

level reading skills or adolescents and

or proessional development in content-

area reading instruction or middle andhigh school teachers. Although the debate

about the role o content-area teachers in

reading instruction continues,10 the time

has come to consider seriously the support

that needs to be given to struggling read-

ers and the role that every teacher needs

to play in working toward higher levels o

literacy among all adolescents, regardless

o their reading abilities.

A signicant diculty in working towardhigher levels o literacy involves struc-

tural barriers at the middle and high

school levels that need to be overcome.

7. Heller and Greenlea (2007).


9. Artley (1944); Moore, Readence, and Rickman

(1983).




OvERvIEW

( 5 )

Researchers11 have ound that some teach-

ers circumvent the need or students to

read texts by adjusting their assignments

or methods o presenting content, rather

than helping students learn the discipline-

specic strategies needed or content-areawork. Another researcher12 ound that

content-area teachers expressed resis-

tance to the work o the high school read-

ing specialists, whose job is to provide

students with additional help outside their

regular class structure. And still others13

have suggested that teachers who strive

primarily to cover the content o their

disciplines are unaware that by increas-

ing students’ ability to read their assign-

ments they could actually increase the

depth and breadth o content that could

be covered eiciently. A inal barrier14

is that when schools actually institute

programs to help struggling adolescent

readers, they are housed within special

education programs and thus serve only

a small proportion o the students whom

they could benet.

In determining what to include in the ado-

lescent literacy practice guide, the panel

recognized that recommendations or in-structional strategies must be evidence-

based. That is, rigorous studies have

shown the practices to be associated with

improvements in students’ reading pro-

ciency. While ully understanding that

all aspects o literacy are important or

success in middle and high school, panel

members decided to ocus specically on

studies about reading, that is, studies in

which reading was a dependent variable.

Although aware o the challenges aced byEnglish language learners, we also ocused

on students whose irst language was

11. Schoenbach et al. (1999).

12. Darwin (2003).

13. Kingery (2000); O’Brien, Moje, and Stewart

(2001).

14. Barry (1997).

English.15 The search or sources ocused

only on studies o reading programs con-

ducted within a school or clinical setting

and excluded those oered in organized

ater school programs. These decisions

narrowed the number o empirical stud-ies rom which recommendations could

be drawn.

Finally, the research that met the crite-

ria or inclusion in this guide included

ew studies involving the use o com-

puter technology. Despite great inter-

est in and increasing use o sotware or

reading instruction in middle and high

schools, there is little experimental or

quasi-experimental research demonstrat-

ing the eectiveness o that work. Most

recently, the National Evaluation o Edu-

cational Technology16 assessed the e-

ectiveness o our sotware packages or

literacy instruction at the 4th grade level,

using an experimental design with a na-

tional sample o 45 schools, comprising

118 teachers and 2,265 students. Although

the individual products were not identi-

ed by specic results, none o the tested

sotware products produced statistically

signicant improvements in student read-ing achievement at the end o the rst o

two years o the study. At the same time,

the National Reading Panel suggested that

there is some promise in using computers

to supplement classroom instruction; how-

ever, these conclusions do not rise to the

level o a supported endorsement.

A major source or identiying strategies

that can have an immediate impact on

student reading achievement was the Re- port o the National Reading Panel ,17 es-

pecially its sections on comprehension

15. The Institute o Education Sciences has pub-

lished a practice guide on eective literacy in-

struction or English language learners, which

can be accessed at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee.

16. Dynarski et al. (2007).

17. National Reading Panel (2000a).



OvERvIEW

( 6 )

and vocabulary. What makes the National

Reading Panel evidence so important is

that the eligible research or vocabulary

consisted mostly o studies o students in

grades 3 and above, while the research on

comprehension involved mostly studentsin grades 4 and above. The analysis o

adolescent literacy practices presented in

summary orm in Reading Next: A Vision

or Action and Research in Middle and High

School Literacy 18 has also been inuential

in shaping discussions on adolescent lit-

eracy and has provided a starting point

or developing this guide.

Adolescent literacy is a complex concept

because it entails more than the scores

that students achieve on standardized

reading tests. It also entails reading to

learn in subjects that present their ideas

and content in dierent ways. Students

need to be able to build knowledge by

comprehending dierent kinds o texts,

mastering new vocabulary, and sharing

ideas with others. Although causal links

have not been empirically established

between improvements in reading and

increases in course grades and scores on

subject-based tests, students’ reading di-culties will obviously impede their ability

to master content-area coursework ully.

Test score data and research continually

conrm that many adolescents rst need

to improve their reading comprehension

skills beore they can take ull advantage

o content-area instruction.

In determining what to include in this

practice guide, panel members also recog-

nized that recommendations must be prac-tical. Teachers must perceive the value o

each recommendation so that they envi-

sion themselves integrating the recom-

mendations into their instruction to make

content-area reading assignments acces-

sible to all students—those who are learn-

ing to make sense o new and unamiliar

academic areas, those whose skills are

18. Biancarosa and Snow (2004).

marginal at best, and also those who strug-

gle with reading. The rst two recommen-

dations ocus on strategies or vocabulary

and comprehension instruction: Provide

explicit vocabulary instruction (Level o

evidence: Strong) and provide direct andexplicit comprehension strategy instruc-

tion (Level o evidence: Strong) (table 2).

Although its research base is not as strong

as that or vocabulary and comprehension,

the third recommendation concerns dis-

cussion o and about texts. Most, i not all,

the studies that examined instruction in

comprehension strategies indicated the im-

portance o practicing those strategies in

the context o discussions about the mean-

ing o texts. Further, there is evidence that

encouraging high-quality discussion about

texts, even in the absence o explicit in-

struction in reading comprehension strate-

gies, can have a positive impact on reading

comprehension skills. Small- and large-

group discussions also provide teachers

with an important window into students’

thinking that can inorm uture instruc-

tion. Thereore, the third recommendation

ocuses on the use o discussion in improv-

ing the reading outcomes o students: Pro-vide opportunities or extended discussion

o text meaning and interpretation (Level

o evidence: Moderate).

The ourth recommendation concerns stu-

dent motivation and engagement. These

two actors are widely recognized as im-

portant moderators or learning, but there

is limited scientiic evidence that links

these actors directly to student achieve-

ment in reading. Nonetheless, all teacherscan recognize the importance o bolster-

ing students’ motivation and nding ways

to increase students’ engagement with

the material they are asked to read. The

recommendation provided in this prac-

tice guide ties motivation and engage-

ment speciically to literacy outcomes:

Increase student motivation and engage-

ment in literacy learning (Level o evi-

dence: Moderate).



OvERvIEW

( 7 )

Panel members also recognized that some

students need more intense help to im-

prove literacy skills than classroom teach-

ers can provide. Because o this, our th

recommendation concerns struggling read-ers, those students who probably score well

below their peers on state reading tests and

whose reading decits hinder successul

perormance in their coursework. Under

normal classroom instructional conditions,

these students are unable to make needed

improvements in their reading skills, so

they typically cannot meet grade-level

standards in literacy throughout middle

and high schools. They need additional

help that the classroom teacher cannotbe expected to provide. Unless their read-

ing growth is dramatically accelerated by

strong and ocused instruction, they will

continue to struggle to make sense o the

materials assigned to them in their course-

work, and they are at serious risk o being

unable to use literacy skills successully intheir postsecondary lives. However, i they

are identied rom among their peers as

being struggling readers and i their weak-

nesses in reading are careully assessed by

trained specialists using measures that de-

tect strengths and weaknesses, and this as-

sessment is ollowed by intensive interven-

tions that are ocused on their particular

needs, they will have more opportunities to

improve their literacy skills substantially.

This improvement should then translateinto gains in content-area achievement

(Level o evidence: Strong).

Table 2. Recommendations and corresponding levels o evidence tosupport each

Recommendation Level o evidence

Provide explicit vocabulary instruction.1. Strong

Provide direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruction.2. Strong

Provide opportunities or extended discussion o text meaning and3.

interpretation.Moderate

Increase student motivation and engagement in literacy learning.4. Moderate

Make available intensive and individualized interventions or strug-5.

gling readers that can be provided by trained specialists.Strong



( 8 )

Scope o thepractice guide

This practice guide provides ve recom-

mendations or increasing the readingability o adolescents. The rst three rec-

ommendations are strategies that class-

room teachers can incorporate into their

instruction to help students gain more

rom their reading tasks in content-area

classes. The ourth recommendation oers

teachers strategies or improving students’

motivation or and engagement with learn-

ing. Together, the recommendations oer

a coherent statement: specic strategies

are available or classroom teachers and

specialists to address the literacy needs o

all adolescent learners. The th recom-

mendation reers specically to adolescent

struggling readers, those students whose

poor literacy skills weaken their ability to

make sense o written material.

Although not an exhaustive list, the rec-

ommendations are representative o panel

members’ thinking about methods that

have the strongest research support and

those that are appropriate or use withadolescents. The rst our recommenda-

tions can be implemented easily by class-

room teachers within their regular in-

struction, regardless o the content areas

they teach. Recommendations or teaching

students about the discourse patterns o

specic subjects that adolescents study

(or example, dierent ways o present-

ing inormation, creating arguments, or

evaluating evidence in science compared

with history) are not included in this guide

because the ormal evidence base or these

methods is not yet suciently developed.

The th recommendation reers to read-

ing interventions that in many cases must

be provided by reading specialists or spe-

cially trained teachers.

In oering these recommendations, we re-

mind the reader that adolescent literacy is

complex. There are many reasons why ad-

olescents have diculty making sense o

texts, and there are many maniestations

o these diculties. Addressing students’

needs oten requires coordinated eorts

rom teachers and specialists.

Readers should also note that appropri-

ate proessional development in read-

ing has been shown to produce higher

achievement in students.19 Providing pro-

essional development to content-area

teachers ocused on instructional tech-

niques they can use to meet the literacy

needs o all their students, including those

who struggle, is highly recommended in

this practice guide. Proessional develop-

ment also needs to address the specic

literacy demands o dierent disciplines.

One attempt at speciying these demandsdescribes specic skills in mathematics,

science, social studies, and English.20 Fo-

cusing on these skills would be an ideal

starting point or proessional develop-

ment or content-area teachers who want

to incorporate elements o literacy instruc-

tion in their content area instruction.


20. International Reading Association (2006).



( 9 )

Checklist or carrying out therecommendations

Recommendation 1.Provide explicit vocabulary instruction

Dedicate a portion o relar classroom

lessons to explicit vocablary instrction.

Provide repeated exposre to new words

in mltiple contexts, and allow sfcient

practice sessions in vocablary instrction.

give sfcient opportnities to se new

vocablary in a variety o contexts tro

activities sc as discssion, writin, and

extended readin.

Provide stdents wit strateies to mae

tem independent vocablary learners.

Recommendation 2.Provide direct and explicitcomprehension strategy instruction

Select carelly te text to se wen

beinnin to teac a iven stratey.

Sow stdents ow to apply te strate-ies tey are learnin to dierent texts.

Mae sre tat te text is appropriate

or te readin level o stdents.

use a direct and explicit instrction les-

son plan or teacin stdents ow to se

compreension strateies.

Provide te appropriate amont o

ided practice dependin on te difcltylevel o te strateies tat stdents are

learnin.

Tal abot compreension strateies

wile teacin tem.

Recommendation 3.Provide opportunities or extendeddiscussion o text meaning andinterpretation

Carelly prepare or te discssion byselectin enain materials and developin

stimlatin qestions.

As ollow-p qestions tat elp pro-

vide continity and extend te discssion.

Provide a tas or discssion ormat tat

stdents can ollow wen tey discss text

in small rops.

Develop and practice te se o a spe-

cifc “discssion protocol.”

Recommendation 4.Increase student motivation andengagement in literacy learning

Establis meaninl and enain

content learnin oals arond te essential

ideas o a discipline as well as arond te

specifc learnin processes sed to access

tose ideas.

Provide a positive learnin environ-

ment tat promotes stdent atonomy in

learnin.

Mae literacy experiences more relevant

to stdent interests, everyday lie, or impor-

tant crrent events.

Bild classroom conditions to promote

ier readin enaement and conceptal

learnin tro sc strateies as oal set-tin, sel-directed learnin, and collaborative

learnin.



ChECkLIST fOR CARRyIng OuT ThE RECOMMEnDATIOnS

( 10 )

Recommendation 5. Make availableintensive individualized interventionsor struggling readers that can beprovided by qualied specialists

use reliable screenin assessments toidentiy stdents wit readin difclties

and ollow p wit ormal and inormal as-

sessments to pinpoint eac stdent’s instrc-

tional needs.

Select an intervention tat provides an

explicit instrctional ocs to meet eac st-

dent’s identifed learnin needs.

Provide interventions were intensive-ness matces stdent needs: te reater

te instrctional need, te more intensive

te intervention. Assmin a i level o

instrctional qality, te intensity o inter-

ventions is related most directly to te size

o instrctional rops and amont o in-

strctional time.



( 11 )

Recommendation 1.Provide explicitvocabulary instruction

Teacers sold provide stdentswit explicit vocablary instrctionbot as part o readin and lanaearts classes and as part o content-area classes sc as science and socialstdies. By ivin stdents explicitinstrction in vocablary, teacers elptem learn te meanin o new wordsand strenten teir independent sillso constrctin te meanin o text.

Level o evidence: Strong

The panel considers the level o evidence

supporting this recommendation to be

strong , based on six randomized con-

trolled experimental studies and three

well designed quasi-experiments that dem-

onstrated group equivalence at pretest.1

An additional six studies with weaker de-

signs provided direct evidence to support

this recommendation.2 A single subject de-

sign study also provided evidence aboutthe eect o vocabulary instruction on stu-

dents’ outcomes.3 The research supporting

explicit vocabulary instruction includes

students in upper elementary, middle,

and high schools rom diverse geographic

regions and socioeconomic backgrounds

and addresses a wide variety o strategies

o vocabulary instruction.

1. Barron and Melnik (1973); Baumann et al. (2002);

Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990);Brett, Rothlein, and Hurley (1996); Lieberman

(1967); Margosein, Pascarella, and Paum (1982);

Nelson and Stage (2007); Xin and Reith (2001).

2. Beck, Peretti, and McKeown (1982); Jenkins,

Matlock, and Slocum (1989); Koury (1996); Rud-

dell and Shearer (2002); Stump et al. (1992); Ter-

rill, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (2004).

3. Malone and McLaughlin (1997). The standards

or judging the quality o a single subject design

study are currently being developed.

One caveat is critical to interpreting the

research on vocabulary instruction. While

all o these studies show eects on vo-

cabulary learning, only some show that

explicit vocabulary instruction has eects

on standardized measures o reading com-prehension. Although reading comprehen-

sion is clearly the ultimate goal o reading

instruction, it is important to note that the

construct o comprehension includes, but

is not limited to, vocabulary. While it is

likely that the cumulative eects o learn-

ing vocabulary would eventually show

eects on reading comprehension, we be-

lieve additional research is necessary to

demonstrate this relationship.

Brie summary o evidence tosupport the recommendation

In the early stages o reading most o the

words in grade-level texts are amiliar to

students as part o their oral vocabulary.

However, as students progress through

the grades, print vocabulary increasingly

contains words that are rarely part o oral

vocabulary. This is particularly the case

or content-area material. In many content-

area texts it is the vocabulary that carries alarge share o the meaning through special-

ized vocabulary, jargon, and discipline-re-

lated concepts. Learning these specialized

vocabularies contributes to the success o

reading among adolescent students. Re-

search has shown that integrating explicit

vocabulary instruction into the existing

curriculum o subject areas such as science

or social studies enhances students’ ability

to acquire textbook vocabulary.4

Children oten learn new words inciden-

tally rom context. However, according

to a meta-analysis o the literature, the

probability that they will learn new words

while reading is relatively low—about 15

percent.5 Thereore, although incidental

4. Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990).

5. Swanborn and de Glopper (1999).



1. PROvIDE ExPLICIT vOCABuLARy InSTRuCTIOn

( 12 )

learning helps students develop their vo-

cabulary, additional explicit instructional

support needs to be provided as part o

the curriculum to ensure that all students

acquire the necessary print vocabulary or

academic success. In many academic texts,students may use context clues within the

text, combined with their existing seman-

tic and syntactic knowledge to iner the

meaning o unamiliar words.6 Explicit

vocabulary instruction may be essential

to this development o these types o in-

erence skills.

Words are best learned through repeated

exposure in multiple contexts and do-

mains. Many content-area texts, such as

those in biology and physics, however,

include specialized vocabulary, jargon,

and discipline-related concepts that stu-

dents may not encounter outside their

textbooks. This aspect o presenting

content-area material limits the amount

o exposure students will have with these

unamiliar terms. I students encounter

unknown words in almost every sen-

tence in a textbook, learning the content

becomes daunting and discouraging. Ex-

plicit instruction in specialized vocabu-laries is an important way to contribute

to successul reading among adolescent

students.7

Research has shown that integrating ex-

plicit vocabulary instruction into the ex-

isting content-area curriculum in content

areas such as science or social studies

enhances students’ ability to acquire text-

book vocabulary.8 Additional studies that

examined students’ scores on the vocab-ulary subtests o standardized reading

tests demonstrated that explicit vocabu-

lary instruction had a substantial eect

on students’ vocabulary acquisition in the

context o a variety o texts, including

6. Swanborn and de Glopper (1999).

7. Beck et al. (1982).

8. Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990)

prose, expository texts, and specialized

word lists.9

Explicit vocabulary instruction is a name

or a amily o strategies that can be di-

vided into two major approaches: direct in-struction in word meaning and instruction

in strategies to promote independent vo-

cabulary acquisition skills. Direct instruc-

tion in word meaning includes helping stu-

dents look up denitions in dictionaries

and glossaries, read the words and their

denitions, match words and their deni-

tions, participate in oral recitation, memo-

rize denitions, and use graphic displays

o the relationships among words and con-

cepts such as semantic maps. Strategies to

promote independent vocabulary acqui-

sition skills include analyzing semantic,

syntactic, or context clues to derive the

meaning o words by using prior knowl-

edge and the context in which the word is

presented. Research shows that both ap-

proaches can eectively promote students’

vocabulary.10 The rst approach can add

to students’ ability to learn a given set o

words, whereas the second approach has

the added value o helping students gen-

eralize their skills to a variety o new textsin multiple contexts. In that respect, the

two approaches are complementary rather

than conicting.

Some students acquire words best rom

reading and writing activities, whereas

other students benet more rom visual

and physical experiences.11 For exam-

ple, short documentary videos may help

students learn new concepts and terms

because they provide a vivid picture o how the object looks in the context o its

9. Barron and Melnik (1973); Baumann et al.

(2002); Beck et al. (1982); Brett et al. (1996); Nel-

son and Stage (2007)

10. Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990);

Jenkins et al. (1989)

11. Barron and Melnik (1973); Xin and Reith

(2001).




( 13 )

environment or specialized use.12 Using

computer sotware to teach vocabulary is

an eective way to leverage instructional

time and provide a variety o practice

modes—oral, print, and even multimedia

elaborations o words and concepts. Pro-grams that allow students to engage in

independent practice can ree teachers to

work with other students in other instruc-

tional modes.

Other studies have shown that students

also learn vocabulary through rich discus-

sions o texts (see recommendation 3). For

instance, one study showed that discus-

sion improved knowledge o word mean-

ings and relationships or students reading

biology texts.13 Discussion was also used

in another study as part o the interven-

tion.14 Discussion seems to have its eects

by allowing students to participate as both

speakers and listeners. While this is not

explicit instruction, it does have some

additional benets. For example, discus-

sion might orce students to organize vo-

cabulary as they participate, even testing

whether or not the vocabulary is used ap-

propriately. It also presents opportunities

or repeated exposure to words, shown tobe a necessary condition or vocabulary

learning. Vocabulary learning in these

cases did not result rom explicit instruc-

tion, but teachers who recognize potential

o this kind o learning can supplement

these interactions with new vocabulary

with brie, ocused explicit instruction

to ensure that students share a common

understanding o unamiliar words and

terms and have an opportunity to practice

new vocabulary.

Although the research noted so ar dem-

onstrates the positive eects o explicit

vocabulary instruction on vocabulary

acquisition, there are mixed results with

12. Xin and Reith (2001).

13. Barron and Melnik (1973).

14. Xin and Reith (2001).

respect to the eects o such instruction

on general measures o comprehension.

Only a small number o the studies on

explicit vocabulary instruction included

comprehension outcome measures and

ound meaningul increases in students’reading comprehension. It may be that

whereas limited vocabulary intereres

with comprehension, additional literacy

skills are needed or successul reading

comprehension.

How to carry out therecommendation

1. Dedicate a portion o te relar class-

room lesson to explicit vocablary instrc-

tion. Te amont o time will be dictated by

te vocablary load o te text to be read

and te stdents’ prior nowlede o te

vocablary. Main certain tat stdents

are amiliar wit te vocablary tey will

enconter in readin selections can elp

mae te readin tas easier. Compter in-

strction can be an eective way to provide

practice on vocablary and leverae class-

room time.

2. use repeated exposre to new words inmltiple oral and written contexts and allow

sfcient practice sessions.15 Words are s-

ally learned only ater tey appear several

times. In act, researcers16 estimate tat it

cold tae as many as 17 exposres or a

stdent to learn a new word. Repeated ex-

posre cold be in te same lesson or pas-

sae, bt te exposres will be most eec-

tive i tey appear over an extended period

o time.17 Words tat appear only once or

twice in a text are typically not words tatsold be tareted or explicit instrction

becase tere may never be eno prac-

tice to learn te word completely. Stdents

sold be provided wit te defnitions o

tese inreqent words.

15. Jenkins et al. (1989).

16. Ausubel and Yousse (1965).

17. Ausubel and Yousse (1965).




( 14 )

3. give sfcient opportnities to se new

vocablary in a variety o contexts tro

activities sc as discssion, writin, and

extended readin. Tis will ensre tat st-

dents bein to acqire a rane o prodctive

meanins or te words tey are learninand te correct way to se tose words in

addition to simply bein able to reconize

tem in print.

4. Provide stdents wit strateies to mae

tem independent vocablary learners. One

way is to ive tem strateies to se com-

ponents (prefxes, roots, sfxes) o words

to derive te meanin o namiliar words;

anoter is to mae se o reerence ma-

terial sc as lossaries inclded in teir

textboos.18

Potential roadblocks and solutions

1. Stdents may vary in teir response to

dierent vocablary instrction strateies.

or example, some stdents respond better

to sensory inormation tan to verbal inor-

mation abot word meanin. Teacers need

to combine mltiple approaces in provid-

in explicit vocablary instrction.19 or in-

stance, as described above, it is elpl toexpose stdents to vocablary nmeros

times eiter in one lesson or over a series o

lessons. It is also elpl to combine tis re-

peated exposre wit a nmber o dierent

explicit instrction strateies, sc as sin

direct instrction tecniqes (ettin st-

dents to loo p defnitions in dictionaries),

elpin promote stdents to independently

acqire vocablary sills (sin context cles

to derive meanin), oerin stdents te

opportnity to wor on te compter sinvarios sotware, and allowin stdents to

discss wat tey ave read.

2. Teacers may not now ow to select

words to teac, especially in content areas.

18. Baumann et al. (2002); Baumann et al.

(2003).

19. Lieberman (1967).

Content-area textboos are loaded wit too

mc specialized vocablary and jaron.

Teacers need to select carelly te most

important words to teac explicitly eac

day. Several poplar metods o selectin

words or vocablary instrction are avail-able. Two metods seem important or ado-

lescent readers:

One method uses as a criterion the•

requency o the words in instruc-

tional materials.20 This, again, is more

important or elementary materials

where the vocabulary is selected rom

a relatively constrained set o instruc-

tional materials. For most adolescents,

this constraint on vocabulary in in-

structional materials diminishes over

time, making the requency method o

selecting words less useul or teach-

ing adolescent students reading con-

tent. However, or adolescent students

who have limited vocabularies, select-

ing high-requency, unknown words

remains an important instructional

strategy.

Another method uses three categories•

o words: Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III.This concept has been applied most

eectively or literary texts with stu-

dents at elementary levels. Tier I words

are those typically in readers’ vocab-

ularies and should not be the ocus

o instruction. These high-requency

words are usually acquired very early.

Tier III words are rare words that are

recommended or instruction only

when they are encountered in a text.

That leaves Tier II words as the ocuso explicit vocabulary instruction prior

to reading a text. The criteria or what

constitutes membership in each tier

are not sharply dened, but are loosely

based on requency and the utility or

uture reading.21

20. Biemiller (2005); Hiebert (2005).

21. Beck et al. (1982).




( 15 )

For adolescent readers o content mate-•

rials, vocabulary should be selected on

the basis o how important the words

are or learning in the particular disci-

pline, rather than the tier in which the

word is located. For example, in a 9th-grade biology text, the word “cytoskel-

eton” might be a target or prereading

instruction in a chapter on cell biology,

even though it would generally be con-

sidered a Tier III word because it al-

most never appears in general reading

or conversation. Most o the words or

adolescent readers should be selected

on the basis o how important they are

to understanding the content that stu-

dents are expected to read. For much

content material, the words that carry

the burden o the meaning o the text

are rare words, except in texts and ma-

terials related to a specic discipline.

Despite the rarity o the words, they are

oten critical to learning the discipline

content and thus should be the subject

o explicit instruction, which is almost

the only way they can be learned.

3. Teacers may perceive tat tey do not

ave time to teac vocablary. Teacers are

oten ocsed on te actal aspect o st-

dents’ content-area learnin and fnd little

time to ocs on oter isses in readin.

Wenever readin is part o a lesson, a ewmintes spent on explicit vocablary in-

strction will pay sbstantial dividends or

stdent learnin. Some eort in teacin

stdents to become independent vocab-

lary learners will lessen te amont o time

reqired by teacers as part o te lesson.22

Main stdents even slitly more inde-

pendent vocablary learners will eventally

increase te amont o content-area instrc-

tional time.

Using computers can give teachers the op-

portunity to provide independent practice

on learning vocabulary. Teachers will be

able to leverage instructional time by hav-

ing students work independently, either

beore or ater reading texts.

22. Baumann et al. (2002); Baumann et al.

(2003).



( 16 )

Recommendation 2.Provide direct andexplicit comprehensionstrategy instruction

Teacers sold provide adolescentswit direct and explicit instrction incompreension strateies to improvestdents’ readin compreension.Compreension strateies arerotines and procedres tat readersse to elp tem mae sense o texts. Tese strateies inclde, btare not limited to, smmarizin,asin and answerin qestions,paraprasin, and fndin te mainidea. Compreension strateyinstrction can also inclde specifcteacer activities tat ave beendemonstrated to improve stdents’compreension o texts. Asinstdents qestions and sin rapicoranizers are examples o scstrateies. Direct and explicit teacininvolves a teacer modelin andprovidin explanations o te specifc

strateies stdents are learnin, ivinided practice and eedbac on tese o te strateies, and promotinindependent practice to apply testrateies.23 An important part o compreension stratey instrctionis te active participation o stdentsin te compreension process. Inaddition, explicit instrction involvesprovidin a sfcient amont o spport, or scaoldin, to stdents

as tey learn te strateies to ensresccess.24

23. Brown, Campione, and Day (1981); Dole

et al. (1991); Kame’enui et al. (1997); Pearson

and Dole (1987); Pressley, Snyder, and Cariglia-

Bull (1987).

24. Brown et al. (1981); Palincsar and Brown

(1984); Pearson and Gallagher (1983).




strong , on the basis o ve randomized

experimental studies25

and additional evi-dence rom a single subject design study26

that examined the eects o teaching main

idea summarization on adolescents’ com-

prehension o narrative and inormational

texts. In addition, this body o research

is supported by numerous other studies

that vary in research design and quality

and by additional substantive reviews o

the research.27


Approaches or teaching reading com-

prehension to adolescents are a common

concern among middle and high school

teachers because many adolescent stu-

dents have a hard time comprehending

their content-area textbooks.28 Thereore,

helping students comprehend these texts

should be a high priority or upper elemen-

tary, middle, and high school teachers.

Using comprehension strategies may bea new idea or many teachers. However,

comprehension strategy instruction has

been around or some time and is the topic

o a number o resource books available

25. Hansen and Pearson (1983); Katims and Har-

ris (1997); Margosein et al. (1982); Peverly and

Wood (2001); Raphael and McKinney (1983).

26. Jitendra et al. (1998). The standards or judg-

ing the quality o a single subject design study

are currently being developed.

27. Dole et al. (1991); Gersten et al. (2001); Na-

tional Reading Panel (2000b); Paris, Lipson, and

Wixson (1983); Paris, Wasik, and Turner (1991);

Pearson and Fielding (1991); Pressley, Johnson

et al. (1989); Pressley, Symons et al. (1989); Rosen-

shine and Meister (1994); Rosenshine, Meis-

ter, and Chapman (1996); Weinstein and Mayer

(1986).

28. Biancarosa and Snow (2006); Chall and Con-

rad (1991); Kamil (2003); Moore et al. (1999).



2. PROvIDE DIRECT AnD ExPLICIT COMPREhEnSIOn STRATEgy InSTRuCTIOn

( 17 )

to help teachers teach strategies to their

students.29 Four ideas about teaching com-

prehension strategies that are important

or teachers to understand can be gleaned

rom the research:

The eectiveness o a number o dierent

strategies has been demonstrated in the

small set o experimental studies meet-

ing the WWC standards. These strategies

included having students summarize main

ideas both within paragraphs and across

texts, asking themselves questions about

what they have read, paraphrasing what

they have read, drawing inerences that

are based on text inormation and prior

knowledge, answering questions at di-

erent points in the text, using graphic or-

ganizers, and thinking about the types o

questions they are being asked to answer.

It appears that teaching these speciic

strategies is particularly powerul. How-

ever, other strategies have been evaluated

in the literature and demonstrated to be

useul as well.30 The point here is that it

may not be the particular strategies that

make the dierence in terms o student

comprehension. Many researchers think

that it is not the specic strategy taught,but rather the active participation o stu-

dents in the comprehension process that

makes the most dierence on students’

comprehension.31 The strategies listed

above might be particularly useul or

middle and high school teachers students

who are passive readers. These students’

eyes sometimes glaze over the words on

29. Blanchowicz and Ogle (2001); Harvey and

Goudvis (2000); Keene (2006); Keene and Zim-merman (1997); McLaughlin and Allen (2001);

Oczkus (2004); Outsen and Yulga (2002); Stebick

and Dain (2007); Tovani (2004); Wilhelm (2001);

Zwiers (2004).

30. Brown et al. (1996); Cross and Paris (1988);

Dewitz, Carr, and Patberg (1987); Idol (1987);

Klingner, Vaughn, and Schumm (1998); Paris,

Cross, and Lipson (1984); Pressley (1976); Re-

utzel (1985).

31. Gersten et al. (2001); Pressley et al. (1987).

the page because they are not actively

processing the meaning o what they are

reading. Instruction in the application o

comprehension strategies may help these

students become active readers.

Most o the research studies compared

the use o one or more strategies against

a control condition that typically included

traditional, or “business as usual” instruc-

tion. So, it is really not possible to compare

one or more strategies against another.

We cannot say that paraphrasing is more

powerul than main-idea summarizing,

or that drawing inerences on the basis o

text inormation and prior knowledge is

better than answering questions at dier-

ent points in the text. Very little research

tells us that. We can say that it appears

that asking and answering questions, sum-

marizing, and using graphic organizers

are particularly powerul strategies. But

even with these strategies we cannot say

which ones are the best or better than

others or which students and or which

classrooms.

It appears that multiple-strategy training

results in better comprehension than sin-gle-strategy training. All the strong stud-

ies that support this recommendation in-

clude teaching more than one strategy to

the same group o students. For example,

one study used nding the main ideas and

summarizing to help students compre-

hend texts better.32 Another study taught

students to make connections between

new text inormation and prior knowledge,

make predictions about the content o the

text, and draw inerences.33

This ndingis consistent with those rom the National

Reading Panel, which also ound benets

rom teaching students to use more than

one strategy to improve their reading com-

prehension skills.34

32. Katims and Harris (1997).

33. Hansen and Pearson (1983).





( 18 )

Direct and explicit instruction is a power-

ul delivery system or teaching compre-

hension strategies. This inding comes

rom one o the ve strong studies and

rom a number o other studies.35 Direct

and explicit instruction involves a serieso steps that include explaining and mod-

eling the strategy, using the strategy or

guided practice, and using the strategy

or independent practice. Explaining and

modeling include deining each o the

strategies or students and showing them

how to use those strategies when reading

a text. Guided practice involves the teacher

and students working together to apply the

strategies to texts they are reading. This

may involve extensive interaction between

the teacher and students when students

are applying the strategies to see how

well they understand the particular text

they are reading. Or, it may involve having

students practice applying the strategies

to various texts in small groups. Indepen-

dent practice occurs once the teacher is

convinced that students can use the strat-

egies on their own. At that point, students

independently practice applying the strat-

egies to a new text.


Upper elementary, middle, and second-

ary school teachers can take several ac-

tion steps to implement explicit strategy

instruction, which involves helping stu-

dents actively engage in the texts they

read. A number o dierent strategies can

be taught directly and explicitly to stu-

dents and applied to content-area textsthey read. Assisting students in learn-

ing how to apply these strategies to their

texts will empower them and give them

more control over their reading and un-

derstanding. Speciically, to implement

explicit strategy instruction, teachers can

do the ollowing:

35. Duy et al. (1987); Fuchs et al. (1997); Kling-

ner et al. (1998); Schumaker and Deshler (1992).

1. Select carelly te text to se wen frst

beinnin to teac a iven stratey. Alto

strateies can be applied to many dierent

texts, tey cannot be applied blindly to all

texts. or example, sin main-idea smma-

rizin is difclt to do wit narrative textsbecase narrative texts do not ave clear

main ideas. Main-idea smmarizin sold

be sed wit inormational texts, sc as a

content-area textboo or a nonfction trade

boo. Similarly, asin qestions abot a

text is more easily applied to some texts

tan to oters.

2. Sow stdents ow to apply te strate-

ies tey are learnin to dierent texts, not

jst to one text. Applyin te strateies to

dierent texts encoraes stdents to learn

to se te strateies exibly.36 It also allows

stdents to learn wen and were to apply

te strateies and wen and were te strat-

eies are inappropriate.37

3. Ensre tat te text is appropriate or te

readin level o stdents. A text tat is too

difclt to read maes sin te stratey

diiclt becase stdents are strlin

wit te text itsel. Liewise, a text tat is

too easy eliminates te need or strateiesin te frst place. Bein teacin strateies

by sin a sinle text ollowed by stdents’

applyin tem to appropriate texts at teir

readin level.

4. use direct and explicit instrction or

teacin stdents ow to se compreen-

sion strateies. As te lesson beins, it is

important or teacers to tell stdents spe-

cifcally wat strateies tey are oin to

learn, tell tem wy it is important or temto learn te strateies,38 model ow to se

te strateies by tinin alod wit a text,39

provide ided practice wit eedbac so

tat stdents ave opportnities to practice

36. Pressley and Aferbach (1995).

37. Duy (2002); Paris et al. (1983).

38. Brown et al. (1981)

39. Bereiter and Bird (1985)




( 19 )

sin te strateies, provide independent

practice sin te strateies, and discss

wit stdents wen and were tey sold

apply te strateies wen tey read and

te importance o avin te will to se te

strateies alon wit te sill. Even i st-dents now ow to se strateies as tey

read, researc demonstrates tat tey ave

to mae te eort to actally se tem wen

tey read on teir own.40

5. Provide te appropriate amont o ided

practice dependin on te difclty level o

te strateies tat te stdents are learn-

in. or example, te stratey o predict-

in can be demonstrated briey and wit

a ew examples. however, smmarizin a

pararap or a passae may reqire several

steps witin ided practice. irst, provide

spport or stdents in cooperative learnin

rops. As stdents wor in tese rops,

assist tem directly i necessary by modelin

ow to se a iven stratey aain or by as-

in qestions to enerate ideas abot ow

tey wold se it. I necessary, ive stdents

direct answers and ave tem repeat tose

answers. Second, as stdents become better

at sin te strateies, radally redce te

spport, peraps by asin tem to breate cooperative learnin rops into pairs

so tey ave ewer peers to rely on. Tird,

redce spport rter by asin stdents

to se te strateies on teir own wit texts

tey read independently.41

6. Wen teacin compreension strateies,

mae sre stdents nderstand tat te oal

is to nderstand te content o te text. Too

mc ocs on te process o learnin te

strateies can tae away rom stdents’ n-derstandin o te text itsel.42 Instead, sow

stdents ow sin te strateies can elp

tem nderstand te text tey are readin.

Te oal sold always be compreendin

texts—not sin strateies.

40. Paris et al. (1991); Pressley et al. (1987)

41. Brown et al. (1981)

42. Pearson and Dole (1987)


1. Most teacers lac te sills to provide di-

rect and explicit compreension stratey in-

strction. Most teacer edcation prorams

do not prepare preservice teacers to teacstrateies. In addition, teacers may fnd it

particlarly callenin to model teir own

tinin by providin tinalod o ow

tey se strateies as tey read. Many teac-

ers se varios strateies atomatically as

tey read and are not aware o ow tey

se te strateies tey are teacin. Proes-

sional development in direct and explicit in-

strction o compreension strateies will

assist all teacers, incldin lanae arts

and content-area teacers, in learnin ow

to teac strateies. One component o pro-

essional development sold be coacin

teacers in te classroom as tey teac. In

addition, it is oten elpl or teacers to

practice tinin alod on teir own. Tey

can tae a text and practice explainin ow

tey wold o abot smmarizin te text

or fndin te main idea. Teacers will need

to become conscios o many o te readin

processes tat are atomatic or tem.

2. Content-area teacers may believe tat teyare not responsible or teacin compreen-

sion strateies to teir stdents. Tey may

also believe tat tey do not ave eno

time to teac tese strateies becase tey

ave to cover te content presented in teir

crriclm ides and textboos. Becase

teacin compreension strateies improves

stdents’ ability to compreend teir text-

boos, it is a valable classroom activity or

content-area teacers, not jst lanae arts

teacers. Teacin compreension strateiessold expand stdents’ lon-term learnin

abilities. Alto it may tae a sort time

to teac several strateies, tat time sold

pay o in te lon term by elpin stdents

learn more independently rom teir text-

boos and oter sorce material tey are

ased to read in teir classrooms. Ater all,

te oal o sin compreension strateies

is improved compreension—o all text ma-

terials tat stdents read.




( 20 )

3. Some teacers and stdents may “lose te

orest or te trees.” Teacers may misnder-

stand or misinterpret te researc on teac-

in compreension strateies, sc tat tey

tin teacin compreension is all abot

teacin a specifc seqence o compreen-sion strateies, one ater te oter. Liewise,

stdents too may misnderstand and misin-

terpret teacers’ empasis on strateies, sc

tat tey inappropriately apply strateies to

te texts tey are readin. Teacers and st-

dents may miss te larer point o te strate-

ies, tat is, active compreension.

A critically important part o proessional

development is the ocus on the end goal

o comprehension. As teachers learn how

to teach the various strategies, they need

to keep this goal in mind. Likewise, teach-

ers need to emphasize to students the ideathat the end goal o strategy use is compre-

hension, not just the use o many strate-

gies. It is important or teachers to ensure

that students understand that using strat-

egies is a way to accomplish the goal o

comprehension.



( 21 )

Recommendation 3.Provide opportunitiesor extended discussiono text meaning andinterpretation

Teacers sold provide opportnitiesor stdents to enae in i-qality discssions o te meaninand interpretation o texts in varioscontent areas as one important way toimprove teir readin compreension.Tese discssions can occr in woleclassroom rops or in small stdentrops nder te eneral idanceo te teacer. Discssions tat areparticlarly eective in promotinstdents’ compreension o complex textare tose tat ocs on bildin a deepernderstandin o te ator’s meaninor critically analyzin and perapscallenin te ator’s conclsionstro reasonin or applyinpersonal experiences and nowlede.In eective discssions stdents ave

te opportnity to ave sstainedexcanes wit te teacer or oterstdents, present and deend individalinterpretations and points o view, setext content, bacrond nowlede,and reasonin to spport interpretationsand conclsions, and listen to te pointso view and reasoned arments o oters participatin in te discssion.

Level o evidence: Moderate


or this recommendation to be moderate, on

the basis o our small quasi-experimental

studies43 and one large correlational

study.44 A potential limitation in one o

43. Bird (1984); Heinl (1988); Reznitskaya et al.

(2001); Yeazell (1982).

44. Applebee et al. (2003).

the quasi-experimental studies45 as well

as the large correlational study is that the

quality o written responses to writing

prompts was the outcome assessment,

rather than a more direct standardized

test o reading comprehension. Among theour quasi-experimental studies, one used

rigorous design that demonstrated pretest

group equivalence46 and the other three

used less rigorous designs with low inter-

nal validity. 47 The small body o research

identied to directly support this recom-

mendation is supplemented by a recently

completed meta-analysis o 43 studies

that used slightly more lenient inclusion

criteria than the literature search or this

practice guide,48 as well as a large descrip-

tive study o middle and high schools that

were selected because they were “beating

the odds” in terms o their student literacy

outcomes.49


Arguably the most important goal or lit-

eracy instruction with adolescents is to

increase their ability to comprehend com-

plex text. Further, the goal is not simplyto enable students to obtain acts or lit-

eral meaning rom text (although that is

clearly desirable), but also to make deeper

interpretations, generalizations, and con-

clusions. Most state and national literacy

standards require middle and high school

students to go considerably beyond literal

comprehension to be considered procient

readers. For example, the revised rame-

work or the NAEP indicates that 8th grad-

ers who read at the procient level shouldbe able to “summarize major ideas, pro-

vide evidence in support o an argument,

45. Reznitskaya et al. (2001).


47. Bird (1984); Heinl (1988); Yeazell (1982).

48. Murphy et al. (2007).

49. Langer (2001).



3. PROvIDE OPPORTunITIES fOR ExTEnDED DISCuSSIOn Of TExT MEAnIng AnD InTERPRETATIOn

( 22 )

and analyze and interpret implicit causal

relations.”50 They should also be able to

“analyze character motivation, make in-

erences…, and identiy similarities across

texts.”51

The theory underpinning discussion-

based approaches to improve reading

comprehension rests on the idea that stu-

dents can, and will, internalize thinking

processes experienced repeatedly during

discussions. In high-quality discussions

students have the opportunity to express

their own interpretations o text and to

have those positions challenged by others.

They also have the opportunity to deend

their positions and to listen as others de-

end dierent positions. Good discussions

give students opportunities to identiy

specic text material that supports their

position and to listen as other students do

the same. In the course o an eective dis-

cussion students are presented with mul-

tiple examples o how meaning can be con-

structed rom text. Thus, or teachers one

key to improving comprehension through

discussion is to ensure that students expe-

rience productive ways o thinking about

text that can serve as models or them touse during their own reading.

A challenge to nding empirical research

to demonstrate the unique value o high-

quality discussions in improving compre-

hension is that in instructional research,

discussion is oten combined with strategy

instruction. Most successul applications

o strategy instruction involve extended

opportunities or discussing texts while

students are learning to independentlyapply such strategies as summarizing,

making predictions, generating and an-

swering questions, and linking text to pre-

vious experience and knowledge. In eect,

50. National Assessment Governing Board (2007,

p. 46).

51. National Assessment Governing Board (2007,

p. 46).

students’ interactions with one another,

and with the teacher as they apply various

strategies give students multiple opportu-

nities to discover new ways o interpreting

and constructing the meaning o text. One

brie study o strategy instruction with adiverse group o 4th graders mentioned

explicitly that the assignment to practice

making predictions, clariying conusions,

and paraphrasing in small groups was a

very useul way to stimulate high-quality

discussions o the meaning o texts.52

The most convincing evidence or the

eectiveness o discussion-oriented ap-

proaches to improve reading comprehen-

sion comes rom studies that ocused on

developing interpretations o text events

or content or on a critical analysis o text

content.53 Within these general guidelines,

one eature o eective discussions is that

they involve sustained interactions that

explore a topic or an idea in some depth

rather than quick question and answer

exchanges between the teacher and stu-

dents.54 One large study o the extent o

this type o sustained discussion in lan-

guage arts classes in middle and high

schools ound, on average, only 1.7 min-utes out o 60 devoted to this type o ex-

change, with classrooms varying between

0 and slightly more than 14 minutes. Class-

rooms that were more discussion-oriented

produced higher literacy growth during

the year than those in which sustained

discussions were less requent.55

Another characteristic o high-quality dis-

cussions is that they are usually based on

text that is specically selected to stimu-

52. Klingner et al. (1998).


54. Applebee et al. (2003); Reznitskaya et al.

(2001).





( 23 )

late an engaging discussion.56 Questions

that lead to good discussions are re-

quently described as “authentic” in that

they ask a real question that may be open

to multiple points o view, such as “Did

the way John treat Alex in this story seemair to you?” or “What is the author trying

to say here?” or “How does that inorma-

tion connect with what the author wrote

beore?”57 Very dierent rom questions

asked primarily to test student knowledge,

this type o question is designed to pro-

vide an opportunity or exploration and

discussion. Although it should be possible

to identiy expository texts that could be

the basis or productive discussion, most

experimental studies o discussion-based

approaches thus ar have used narrative

texts, a limitation in the research base at

present.

Discussions that have an impact on stu-

dent reading comprehension eature ex-

changes between teachers and students

or among students, where students are

asked to deend their statements either by

reasoning or by reerring to inormation

in the text.58 In a large-scale investigation

o classrooms that produced strong liter-acy outcomes, it was noted that teachers

provided many opportunities or student

to work together to “sharpen their under-

standings with, against, and rom each

other.”59


To engage students in high-quality discus-

sions o text meaning and interpretation,teachers can:


(2001); Yeazell (1982).

57. Applebee et al. (2003); Bird (1984); Heinl

(1988); Reznitskaya et al. (2001); Yeazell (1982).


(2001); Yeazell (1982).

59. Langer (2001, p. 872).

1. Carelly prepare or te discssion. In

classes were a coice o readin selections

is possible, loo or selections tat are en-

ain or stdents and describe sitations

or content tat can stimlate and ave ml-

tiple interpretations. In content-area classestat depend on a textboo, teacers can

identiy in advance te isses or content tat

mit be difclt or misnderstood or sec-

tions tat mit be ambios or sbject to

mltiple interpretations. Alternatively, brie

selections rom te Internet or oter sorces

tat contain similar content bt positions

tat allow or critical analysis or controversy

can also be sed as a stimls or extended

discssions.

Another orm o preparation involves se-

lecting and developing questions that can

stimulate students to think relectively

about the text and make high-level connec-

tions or inerences. These are questions

that an intelligent reader might actually

wonder about—they are not the kind o

questions that teachers oten ask to de-

termine what students have learned rom

the text. Further, the types o discussion

questions appropriate or history texts

would probably be dierent rom thoseor science texts, as would those or social

studies texts or novels. Because part o the

goal o discussion-based approaches is

to model or students the ways that good

readers construct meaning rom texts, it

seems reasonable to suggest that discus-

sions o history texts might be ramed di-

erently rom those o science texts.

2. As ollow-p qestions tat elp pro-

vide continity and extend te discssion. Qestions tat are sed to rame discssions

are typically ollowed by oter qestions

abot a dierent interpretation, an expla-

nation o reasonin, or an identifcation o

te content rom te text tat spports te

stdent’s position. In a sstained discssion

initial qestions are liely to be ollowed

by oter qestions tat respond to te st-

dent’s answer and lead to rter tinin

and elaboration.




( 24 )

I the reading comprehension standards

that students are expected to meet in-

volve making inerences or connections

across dierent parts o a text or using

background knowledge and experience

to evaluate conclusions, students shouldroutinely have the opportunity to discuss

answers to these types o questions in all

their reading and content-area classes.

3. Provide a tas, or a discssion ormat, tat

stdents can ollow wen tey discss texts

toeter in small rops. or example, as-

sin stdents to read selections toeter and

practice sin te compreension strateies

tat ave been tat and demonstrated. In

tese rops stdents can tae trns playin

varios roles, sc as leadin te discssion,

predictin wat te section mit be abot,

identiyin words tat are consin, and

smmarizin. As tese roles are completed,

oter stdents can ten respond wit oter

predictions, oter tins tat are consin,

or dierent ways o smmarizin te main

idea. Wile stdents are worin toeter,

te teacer sold actively circlate amon

te rops to redirect discssions tat ave

one astray, model tinin strateies, or

as stdents additional qestions to probete meanin o te text at deeper levels.

4. Develop and practice te se o a specifc

“discssion protocol.” Becase it is callen-

in to lead te type o discssion tat as an

impact on stdents’ readin compreension,

it may be elpl or teacers to identiy a

specifc set o steps rom te researc or best

practice literatre.60 Tis cold be done ei-

ter individally or collaboratively in rade-

level or sbject-area teams. An example o a discssion protocol is provided in one o

te researc stdies sed to spport tis

recommendation.61 In tis stdy teacers

were trained to ollow fve idelines: as

qestions tat reqire stdents to explain

60. Adler and Rougle (2005); Beck and McKeown

(2006).


teir positions and te reasonin beind

tem, model reasonin processes by tin-

in ot lod, propose conter arments or

positions, reconize ood reasonin wen

it occrs, and smmarize te ow and main

ideas o a discssion as it draws to a close.To be eective tese types o discssions

do not need to reac consenss; tey jst

need to ive stdents te opportnity to

tin more deeply abot te meanin o

wat tey are readin.


1. Stdents do not readily contribte teir

ideas drin discssions becase tey are

eiter not enaed by te topic or araid o

ettin neative eedbac rom te teacer

or oter stdents. Stdents mit not ac-

tively participate in text-based discssions

or a nmber o reasons, bt tese two are

te most important. One stratey to deal

wit te frst problem is to create opport-

nities or discssion by sin text tat as

a very i interest level or stdents in te

class bt may only be tanentially related to

te topic o te class. or example, a news-

paper article on te problem o teen pre-

nancy mit be interated in a bioloy class,one on racial proflin in a social stdies

class, or one on cild labor practices in a is-

tory class. Stdents typically fnd discssion

and interaction rewardin, and once a ood

pattern is establised, it can be eneralized

to more standard textboo content.

It is also important to establish a non-

threatening and supportive environment

rom the rst class meeting. As part o this

supportive environment, it is importantto model and encourage acceptance o di-

verse viewpoints and discourage criticism

and negative eedback on ideas. Teachers

can help students participate by calling

on students who may not otherwise con-

tribute, while asking questions they know

these students can answer.

Student-led discussions in small groups

can be another solution or students who




( 25 )

are hesitant to engage in whole-classroom

discussions. As mentioned beore, the

quality o these discussions can be in-

creased, and student participation broad-

ened, i teachers provide an organizing

task or activity that students can ocus onas discuss the content o a text.

2. Discssions tae classroom time, and too

mc time spent on an extended discssion

o a sinle topic may interere wit cover-

ae o all te content in te crriclm. Tis

problem may reqire district- or state-level

intervention. I crriclm standards reqire

sallow coverae o a very wide rane o

content, te pressre teacers eel to teac

te crriclm may limit opportnities or

extended discssion o particlar isses.

Pressre to cover a very broad crriclm

cold also limit teacers’ reedom to brin

in additional material on a specifc topic tat

mit elp stimlate more enain discs-

sions. however, i literacy standards reqire

stdents to tin deeply (tat is, to mae

connections, criticize conclsions, and draw

inerences), many stdents will reqire te

opportnity to acqire tese sills by bein

able to observe models o tis type o tin-

in drin discssions. In te absence o ad- jstments to te crriclm, teacers sold

carelly identiy a ew o te most impor-

tant ideas in teir content area or deeper

consideration tro extended classroom

discssion tat ocses on bildin mean-

in rom text.

3. Teacers lac te sills in beavior man-

aement, discssion tecniqes, or critical

tinin to ide prodctive discssion and

analysis o text meanins. Leadin instrc-tive discssions reqires a set o teacin

sills tat is dierent rom te sills reqired

to present a lectre or qestion stdents in

a typical recitation ormat. It is also tre tat

discssions can create callenes or class-

room control tat may not occr in oter in-

strctional ormats. Most teacers will need

some orm o proessional development to

bild teir sills as discssion leaders or

oranizers. Witin scools, it cold be veryelpl or content-area teacers to experi-

ence tese inds o discssions temselves

as a way o learnin wat it eels lie to par-

ticipate in eective, open discssions. Also, a

nmber o sel boos on tis topic can be

te basis or teacer boo stdy rops. Te

ollowin resorces provide elpl inorma-

tion and strateies related to improvin te

qality o discssions abot te meanin

and interpretation o texts:

Adler, M., & Rougle, E. (2005).• Building

literacy through classroom discussion:

Research-based strategies or devel-

oping critical readers and thoughtul

writers in middle school . New York:

Scholastic.

Applebee, A. N. (1996).• Curriculum as

conversation: Transorming traditions

o teaching and learning. Chicago: Uni-

versity o Chicago Press.

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2006).• Im-

proving comprehension with Question-

ing the Author: A resh and expanded

view o a powerul approach. New York:

Guilord.

Beers, K. (2003).• When kids can’t

read—what teachers can do : A guide

or teachers 6–12 . Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Langer, J. A. (1995).• Envisioning litera-

ture: Literary understanding and liter-

ature instruction. New York: Teachers

College Press.



( 26 )

Recommendation 4.Increase studentmotivation andengagement inliteracy learning

To oster improvement in adolescentliteracy, teacers sold se strateiesto enance stdents’ motivation toread and enaement in te learninprocess. Teacers sold elp stdentsbild confdence in teir ability tocompreend and learn rom content-area texts. Tey sold provide aspportive environment tat viewsmistaes as rowt opportnities,encoraes sel-determination, andprovides inormational eedbac abotte selness o readin strateiesand ow te strateies can bemodifed to ft varios tass. Teacerssold also mae literacy experiencesmore relevant to stdents’ interests,everyday lie, or important crrentevents.


The panel considers the level o evidence to

support this recommendation to be moder-

ate, on the basis o two experiments62 and

one quasi-experimental study that had no

major aws to internal validity other that

lack o demonstrated baseline equiva-

lence.63 Three studies o weaker design,64

six experimental and quasi-experimental

studies with low external validity,65

and

62. Schunk and Rice (1992). This article contains

two studies.

63. Guthrie et al. (1999).

64. Graham and Golan (1991); Grolnick and Ryan

(1987); Guthrie, Wigeld, and VonSecker (2000).

65. Mueller and Dweck (1998). The external valid-

ity o the six studies detailed in this article was

two meta-analyses66 also provided addi-

tional evidence to support this recommen-

dation.67 The recommendation to improve

adolescent literacy through classroom in-

structional practices that promote motiva-

tion and engagement is urther supportedby substantial theoretical support or the

role o motivation and engagement to sup-

port long-term growth in complex literacy

skills.68


Although the words motivation and en-

gagement are oten used interchangeably,

they are not always synonymous. Whereas

motivation reers to the desire, reason, or

predisposition to become involved in a

task or activity, engagement reers to the

degree to which a student processes text

deeply through the use o active strategies

and thought processes and prior knowl-

edge. It is possible to be motivated to

complete a task without being engaged be-

cause the task is either too easy or too di-

cult. Research shows that the messages

teachers communicate to students—inten-

tionally or unintentionally—can aect stu-dents’ learning goals and outcomes.69

Correlational evidence suggests that moti-

vation to read school-related texts declines

as students progress rom elementary to

considered low because the reasoning measures

included did not directly measure literacy skills.

66. Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999); Tang and

Hall (1995). The meta-analyses described in thesetwo articles were considered to have low exter-

nal validity because they ocused on the general

psychological concept o the motivation to learn

rather than the motivation to read or improve-

ment in literacy skills.


(1987); Guthrie et al. (2000).

68. See, or example, Sweet, Guthrie, and Ng

(1998).

69. Graham and Golan (1991).



4. InCREASE STuDEnT MOTIvATIOn AnD EngAgEMEnT In LITERACy LEARnIng

( 27 )

middle school.70 The strongest decline is

observed among struggling students.71 To

promote students’ motivation to engage in

literacy activities, teachers should use in-

structional strategies that spark students’

interest. Initial curiosity (or “situationalinterest”) can then serve as a hook to cre-

ate long-term, personal interest (or “gen-

erative interest”).

Teachers may believe that they can en-

courage students’ learning by emphasiz-

ing external incentives and reminding stu-

dents o the impact o learning on grades.

However, research has suggested that this

strategy actually has detrimental eects

on students’ motivation and engagement.

When teachers put pressure on students

to work hard to achieve good grades, stu-

dents’ levels o text recall and reading

comprehension are lower than when teach-

ers note that they are interested in the

amount o inormation that students can

remember and understand and that it is

up to students to determine how much

they would like to engage in learning.72

Two meta-analyses o the literature have

shown that providing extrinsic rewards

to students may increase students’ initialmotivation to read as well as their plea-

sure and interest in learning about the

world.73 Earning tangible rewards, such

as toys, ood, and prizes, and avoiding

punishments were ound to have more

detrimental eects than receiving verbal

rewards.74

Verbal rewards or praises or student edu-

cational perormance can be categorized

by ocus: ability or eort. Praising stu-dents or being smart, ast, or knowledge-

able can lead to students’ perception that

70. Gottried (1985).

71. Harter, Whitesell, and Kowalski (1992).

72. Grolnick and Ryan (1987).

73. Deci et al. (1999); Tang and Hall (1995).

74. Deci et al. (1999).

their achievement is an indicator o their

intelligence or ability. These students are

likely to develop perormance goals—

or example, the goal o achieving good

grades or looking smart. When aced with

ailure, students with perormance goalsmight iner that they do not have the re-

quired ability and seek only those oppor-

tunities that make them look smart. On

the other hand, students praised or their

eort might view ability as an expandable

entity that depends on their eort. These

students are likely to develop learning

goals—or example, the goal o enjoying

explorations and challenges or acquiring

new skills and knowledge. They might in-

terpret ailure as an indicator o their lack

o eort rather than lack o ability. 75

Research also shows that when teachers

stress perormance outcomes, students

develop perormance goals. Likewise,

when teachers put more emphasis on the

learning process and provide a supportive

environment where mistakes are viewed

as growth opportunities instead o ail-

ures, students are more likely to develop

learning goals. Studies have consistently

shown that students who have learninggoals are more motivated and engaged

and have better reading test scores than

students who have perormance goals.76

In one experimental study researchers

randomly assigned students to one o two

conditions. In the rst condition they told

students that many people make mistakes

at the beginning o a task and become

better with practice. They encouraged

students to see the task as a challenge

and to have un trying to master it. In theother condition students were told that

people are either good or not so good at

certain tasks and that their completion

o the task would indicate how good they

are at it. The researchers ound that stu-

75. Mueller and Dweck (1998).


(1987); Schunk (2003).




( 28 )

dents in the rst condition put more eort

into deep processing o semantic meaning

o words and had better memory o the

words learned.77

The points raised above emphasize theimportance o helping students acquire

authentic, personally meaningul learning

goals. An important part o the process in-

volves teacher eedback. Students’ motiva-

tion is highest when they receive eedback

that is inormational but not controlling—

or example, when it is not perceived as

pressure to attain a particular outcome.78

Students benet rom inormational eed-

back that conveys realistic expectations,

links perormance to eort, details step

by step how to apply a reading strategy,

and explains why and when this strategy is

useul and how to modiy it to t dierent

tasks.79 Students who receive such eed-

back believe more in their ability to apply

reading strategies in dierent contexts

and have better reading perormance than

students who do not receive this kind o

eedback.80 This is not to say that teachers

should prioritize the process over the de-

sired outcome—increased knowledge and

skill. On the contrary, teachers should helpstudents engage in a process that achieves

stronger outcomes by developing learning

rather than perormance goals.


1. Establis meaninl and enain con-

tent learnin oals arond te essential

ideas o a discipline as well as te specifc

learnin processes stdents se to accesstose ideas. Monitor stdents’ proress over

time as tey read or compreension and

develop more control over teir tinin


78. Ryan (1982).

79. Henderlong and Lepper (2002); Schunk and

Rice (1992).

80. Schunk and Rice (1992).

processes relevant to te discipline. Provide

explicit eedbac to stdents abot teir

proress. Wen teacers set oals to reac

a certain standard, stdents are liely to

sstain teir eorts ntil tey acieve tat

standard. Learnin oals may be set by teteacer or te stdent. however, i stdents

set teir own oals, tey are more apt to be

lly enaed in te activities reqired to

acieve tem.

2. Provide a positive learnin environment

tat promotes stdents’ atonomy in learn-

in. Allowin stdents some coice o com-

plementary boos and types o readin and

writin activities as a positive impact on

stdents’ enaement and readin compre-

ension.81 Empowerin stdents to mae

decisions abot topics, orms o commni-

cation, and selections o materials encor-

aes tem to assme reater ownersip

and responsibility or teir enaement in

learnin.82

3. Mae literacy experiences more relevant

to stdents’ interests, everyday lie, or im-

portant crrent events.83 Loo or opportni-

ties to bride te activities otside and inside

te classroom. Tne into te lives o stdentsto fnd ot wat tey tin is relevant and

wy, and ten se tis inormation to desin

instrction and learnin opportnities tat

will be more relevant to stdents.84 Consider

constrctin an interated approac to in-

strction tat ties a ric conceptal teme

to a real-world application. or example, se

a science topic in te news or one tat st-

dents are crrently stdyin, sc as adoles-

cent ealt isses, to bild stdents’ readin,

writin, and discorse sills.

4. Bild in certain instrctional conditions,

sc as stdent oal settin, sel-directed

learnin, and collaborative learnin, to


82. Guthrie and McCann (1997).


84. Biancarosa and Snow (2004).



4. Increase student motIvatIon and engagement In lIteracy learnIng

( 29 )

ineae eading engageen and onep-

ua eaning o uden.85 thi ype o i-

peenaion ha evea oon hee:

Connections between disciplines, such•

as science and language arts, taughtthrough conceptual themes.

Connections among strategies for•

learning, such as searching, compre-

hending, interpreting, composing, and

teaching content knowledge.

Connections among classroom activi-•

ties that support motivation and social

and cognitive development.


1. soe eahe hink ha oivaiona a-

iviie u eneain uden and hee-

oe eae un aiviie ha ae no ne-

eaiy oued on eaning. rewading

uden hough one, opeiion,

and poin igh enie he o do hoe-

wok, opee ak, and paiipae in

a. though eaningu goa, hee igh

no eu in eaningu eaning. teahe

ae oen exhaued o unning oneo ge uden o ead, and he exena o-

ivaion o uh aiviie oen ake u-

den dependen on he eahe o aiviy

o bene o eading.86 teahe houd

hep uden beoe oe inenay oi-

vaed. they houd oey onne inu-

iona paie and uden peoane o

eaning goa. teahe houd e he ba

high and povide inoaiona eedbak o

deph o eaning, opex hinking, ik ak-

ing, and eawok. suden houd be en-ouaged o efe on how hey ean, wha

hey do we, and wha hey need o ipove

on. the oe uden know heeve a

eane, he oe onden hey wi be-

oe and he bee abe hey wi be o e

hei own goa o eaning.

85. Guthrie et al. (1999); Guthrie et al. (2000).

86. Guthrie and Humenick (2004).

2. soe uden ay hink ha exbook

ae boing and beyond hei abiiy o un-

deand. many high hoo ex do no

have enough uppeenay expanaion

ha fehe ou dionneed inoaion,

whih igh onibue o diuy in o-pehenion. I uden anno opehend

he ex ha hey ead and he exbook i

he bai o uiuu, hei ene o ai-

ue gow age. copeenay aeia

houd be avaiabe o uden, inuding a

e o eading aeia on he ae opi

ha ange o vey eay o vey haeng-

ing o uppeena ade aeia, o po-

vide eoue on vaiou onen opi o

hep uden deveop deepe bakgound

knowedge eevan o oue onen.

3. many onen-aea eahe do no ea-

ize he ipoane o eahing he ead-

ing aegie and hinking poee ha

kied eade ue in dieen aadei

diipine and do no eognize he bene-

ia ee o uh inuion on uden’

abiiy o engage wih hei eaning. too ew

onen-aea eahe know how o epha-

ize he eading and wiing paie pe-

i o hei diipine, o uden ae no

enouaged o ead and wie and eaon ikehioian, ieni, and aheaiian.

lieay oahe houd ephaize he oe

o onen-aea eahe, epeiay in e-

onday hoo in pooing ieay ki,

and he oe o eading ki in pooing

peoane in vaiou onen aea uh

a hioy, iene and oia iene. thi

an be aopihed hough a oodinaed

hoowide appoah ha povide poe-

iona deveopen in onen ieay. many

eoue avaiabe on he Inene povideinoaion abou aegi eading in on-

en aea. conen-aea eahe houd ao

deveop oaive aeen ha aow

uden o ake hei hinking viibe and

ha povide evidene o he pobe-oving

and iia-hinking aegie uden ue

o opehend and onu eaning.

teahe an ue hee aeen o ake

inoed deiion abou eon panning,

inuiona paie and aeia, and




( 30 )

activities tat will be more appropriate and

enain or stdents.

4. Adolescent stdents wo strle in read-

in do not expect to do well in class. As

tese stdents proress tro scool,most teacers do not expect tem to do well

eiter and oten remar tat tey sold

ave learned te material in earlier rades.

Many adolescents do not express confdence

in teir own ability—tey do not trst or

vale teir own tinin. Te strents o

stdents can be identifed tro interest

srveys, interviews, and discssions, and

tro learnin abot and nderstandin

stdents’ readin istories. Tese activities

will elp teacers et to now teir stdents.

or many stdents, avin a personal con-

nection wit at least one teacer can mae a

dierence in teir response to scool. know-in stdents’ interests maes it easier or

teacers to coose materials tat will oo

stdents and motivate tem to enae in

teir own learnin. Teacers sold provide

mltiple learnin opportnities in wic st-

dents can experience sccess and can bein

to bild confdence in teir ability to read,

write, and tin at i levels.



( 31 )

Recommendation 5.Make availableintensive andindividualizedinterventions orstruggling readersthat can be providedby trained specialists

Some adolescents need more spportto increase literacy sills tan relarclassroom teacers can provide.Stdents wo are nable to meetrade-level standards in literacy otenreqire spplemental, intensive, andindividalized readin intervention toimprove teir sills. Sc interventionsare most oten provided by readinspecialists or teacers wo avenderone toro trainin to elptem nderstand te proram orapproac tey will se and to deepenteir nderstandin o adolescentstrlin readers.

Te prpose o intensiveinterventions is to accelerate literacydevelopment so tat stdents areable to mae sbstantial proresstoward accomplisin readin tassappropriate or teir crrent radelevel. Placement in interventions isoten a two-step process, beinninwit an initial screenin assessment to

identiy tose stdents wo need extraelp. Tis step sold be ollowed byassessment wit dianostic tests toprovide a profle o literacy strentsand weanesses.

Becase te case o adolescents’difclties in readin may dier romstdent to stdent, interventions mayocs on any o te critical elements

o nowlede and sill reqired orte compreension o complex texts.Tese elements inclde: ndamentalsills sc as ponemic awareness,ponemic decodin, and oter wordanalysis sills tat spport wordreadin accracy; text readin ency;strateies or bildin vocablary;strateies or nderstandin andsin te specifc textal eatrestat distinis dierent enres;and sel-related se o readincompreension strateies. Determininstdents’ sill levels, elpin stdentslearn specifc readin strateies, andprovidin intensive and individalizedinstrction appear to be especially

promisin metods or improvin teotcomes o strlin readers. orexample, stdents wo ave difcltysin te sills needed to reconizewords need dierent intervention tando stdents wose primary defcits arefrin ot te meanin o namiliarwords or compreension o extendedprose.




strong , based on 12 small experimental

design studies,87 1 well-designed quasi-

experimental study,88 and 1 meta-analysis

study.89 Comparative and correlational

research provided additional support.

Together, the studies examined various

methods or improving literacy outcomes

o struggling adolescent readers. In some

studies the participants were characterized

87. Allinder et al. (2001); Bos and Anders (1990);

DiCecco and Gleason (2002); Johnson, Graham,

and Harris (1997); Lovett et al. (1996); Lovett

and Steinbach (1997); Peverly and Wood (2001);

Rooney (1997); Therrien, Wickstrom, and Jones

(2006); Wilder and Williams (2001); Williams et al.

(1994); Xin and Reith (2001).

88. Englert and Mariage (1991).

89. Scammacca et al. (2007).



5. MAkE AvAILABLE InTEnSIvE AnD InDIvIDuALIzED InTERvEnTIOnS fOR STRuggLIng READERS

( 32 )

as students with learning disabilities, while

in others the participants struggled in

reading or various reasons. The interven-

tions evaluated in the studies took place

in dierent contexts, including urban and

suburban schools and clinical treatmentacilities, and served struggling readers

rom a variety o socioeconomic and racial

and ethnic backgrounds. Several common

strategies and practices emerged rom this

body o evidence and provide a ramework

or helping educators carry out the recom-

mendation in practice.


On the most recent NAEP reading assess-

ment in 2007, about a third (33 percent) o

4th graders and over a ourth (26 percent)

o 8th graders in the United States per-

ormed below the basic level, meaning that

those students have only partial mastery o

the prerequisite knowledge and skills that

are undamental or reading at their grade

level.90 For students who perorm below

the basic level, the panel recommends in-

tensive supplemental interventions in addi-

tion to the reading support they might re-ceive in their regular classrooms. Because

ailure to read at grade level may be caused

by several dierent actors, including de-

ciencies in decoding skills, vocabulary,

background knowledge, and inecient use

o comprehension strategies,91 the choice

o supplemental interventions needs to be

guided by initial ormative assessments

that gauge the specic learning needs o

struggling readers and individualized to

meet students’ identied needs.

There is accumulating evidence that an

inadequate ability to decode printed text

accurately and uently may be one rea-

son or students’ ailure to meet grade-

level standards in reading. A 2002 NAEP

90. Lee et al. (2007).

91. Riddle Buly and Valencia (2002).

special study o oral reading showed that

4th grade students reading below the basic

level demonstrated low accuracy when

they were asked to read a passage aloud.92

This suggests that they have not reached

the level o word-reading ability typical ortheir grade. A recent meta-analytic study,93

which used slightly more lenient criteria

or selecting studies than were used or

this guide, supports the appropriateness

o word-level interventions or middle and

high school students. The study demon-

strated that interventions ocused at the

word level resulted in both improved read-

ing accuracy and improved reading com-

prehension in older struggling students.

Further, a small experimental study o

students with reading disabilities showed

that systematic training in metacognitive

decoding skills, such as subsyllabic seg-

mentation, transerred to accurate read-

ing o regular and irregular multisyllabic

words.94

Descriptive and correlational evidence

suggests that struggling adolescent read-

ers tend to use less ecient reading com-

prehension strategies than do more skill-

ul readers. In light o these observations,it is not surprising that many interventions

in the studies that we reviewed tended to

include eorts to help struggling readers

become more engaged, active, and stra-

tegic readers. This body o evidence also

suggests that educators can use multiple

approaches to help struggling readers be-

come more active and strategic readers.

The approaches should involve structured

and explicit instruction where teachers

model and explain the specic strategiesbeing taught and provide eedback on stu-

dents’ use o the strategies. Instructional

activities should provide scaolding to

ensure that students understand the skills

they need to acquire.

92. Daane et al. (2005).

93. Scammacca et al. (2007).

94. Lovett and Steinbach (1997).




( 33 )

Research, such as that conducted on recip-

rocal teaching (dialogue which students

and teachers take turns leading; this in-

volves summarizing, generating ques-

tions, clariying, and predicting),95 sug-

gests that the most eective instructionalapproach is to provide explicit instruction

on strategies proven to help students read

and comprehend material more eectively

than they had in the past. Student collab-

oration in comprehension strategies has

also shown promise, eectively transer-

ring control o strategy instruction to the

students themselves.96 This approach,

like reciprocal teaching, relies on teacher-

guided instruction and interaction among

students to promote the internalization o

reading strategies, development o sel-

regulation, and transer o strategy control

rom teachers to students.

Other experimental studies have also high-

lighted the promising eects o helping

students organize the inormation pre-

sented within the classroom. For instance,

two studies demonstrated the promise

o intensive instruction and the use o

graphic organizers to help students at-

tain relational knowledge rom exposi-tory text.97 Creating graphic organizers,

which are visual portrayals or maps o

the relationships among key concepts

represented in texts, can help struggling

readers integrate and process inorma-

tion. Other methods or helping struggling

readers organize and process written and

oral inormation were demonstrated by

another set o researchers, whose experi-

mental work suggested that using themes,

messages, or morals attached to a coreconcept within stories, could help strug-

gling readers improve comprehension.98

95. Englert and Mariage (1991); Lovett et al.

(1996).

96. Englert and Mariage (1991).

97. DiCecco and Gleason (2002); Lovett et al.

(1996).

98. Williams et al. (1994).

As noted in another source, instruction

with a ocus on the theme o stories and

on the potential application o the theme

beyond the stories enabled students to

learn higher-order comprehension skills

and generalize what they had learned toother reading material and to their real-lie

experiences.99 Likewise, ater adolescents

with reading disabilities received specic

instruction on text structures, organiza-

tional patterns, and linguistic conventions

commonly ound in expository texts, they

were able to transer these skills to inde-

pendent reading tasks with unamiliar ex-

pository material.100

These strategies, shown to be eective

in experimental studies that were oten

designed to test single interventions and

with populations o students who had

been diagnosed as learning disabled, pres-

ent a catalog o possible ways to help ado-

lescents become more active and ecient

readers o diverse kinds o text. Integrated

into regular classroom instruction and

into classes designed to improve students’

reading, these strategies can help many

students become stronger readers.

Many struggling readers, however, need

more intensive, explicit instruction ad-

dressing their speciic deiciencies, ac-

companied by extensive guided practice

to ensure that they understand and can

apply the new strategies. Struggling read-

ers can be identiied by initial screen-

ing measures or consistently low scores

on yearly reading tests. Students alling

below a designated threshold are oten

assigned to an intervention class withouturther testing. Although it is a costly ap-

proach, initial identication o students

who are struggling with reading should

be ollowed by a group or individually- ad-

ministered diagnostic assessment to deter-

mine students’ specic needs. Intervention

99. Wilder and Williams (2001).

100. Lovett et al. (1996).




( 34 )

models have been investigated in some

experimental studies, but their impacts,

while promising, have not been ully con-

rmed. Programs such as Talent Develop-

ment 101 and the Enhanced Reading Op-

portunities 102

(ERO) model have shownpromise in increasing students’ reading

achievement and potentially their aca-

demic achievement as well. In Talent Devel-

opment schools hal a semester o English

is replaced by double blocks o reading

instruction, ollowed by a transition back

to regular English instruction. In the ERO

model a ull year o intense reading in-

struction (approximately 225 minutes per

week) is oered as a supplement to regular

English or language arts instruction. Mod-

els such as these and others are currently

being studied in the ederally unded Striv-

ing Readers evaluation as well as in other

programs.


Supplemental interventions or struggling

readers can oer the learning opportuni-

ties that student need to make substantial

progress toward grade-level standards.However, because adolescents’ reading

needs are varied and complex, schools

should rst take steps to understand the

learning needs they must address.

1. Alto classroom teacers can some-

times pinpoint stdents’ learnin needs by

sin inormal assessment tools or even ob-

servation, a more reliable metod or iden-

tiyin strlin readers incldes se o

an initial screenin test or a tresold scoreon a reqired readin test and sbseqent

se o a dianostic readin test tat mst

be administered, scored, and interpreted

by a specialist. or some stdents, ormal,

individally administered dianostic as-

sessments are needed; or oters wit less

101. Kemple, Herlihy, and Smith (2005).

102. Kemple et al. (2008).

severe needs rop-administered, standard-

ized or criterion-reerenced tests can serve

as a startin point or determinin an appro-

priate intervention.103 Individally or rop-

administered tests provide inormation tat

allows te specialist to perorm te in-deptdianosis tat is oten needed to matc inter-

vention approaces to stdents’ needs.

2. Te identifcation o stdents’ learnin

needs sold be ollowed by te selection

o an intervention tat provides an explicit

instrctional ocs tareted to meet tose

needs. Sc instrction mit inclde vary-

in areas o need and rely on teacin di-

erent strateies to meet tem. however, te

teacin strateies selected sold provide

stdents wit explicit strateies, tecniqes,

principles, nowlede, or rles tat enable

tem to solve problems and complete tass

independently.104

Central to the eective use o an inter-

vention is working with students to set

goals or improvement, ollowed by a de-

scription o the strategy to be mastered,

modeling o the strategy verbal, continued

practice and eedback, and generalization

o the strategy to other tasks.105 Provid-ing students with learning aids can help

them understand the purpose o the les-

son, a rationale or the lesson, the learning

expectations, and how the content to be

taught relates to what they have learned

previously and what they may learn in the

uture.106 Examples o these include ad-

vance organizers to prepare them or read-

ing and activate prior knowledge, graphic

organizers or maps to track ideas during

reading, and graphic displays that encour-age students to make link between what


Englert and Mariage (1991).


Englert and Mariage (1991).

105. Ellis et al. (1991).

106. DiCecco and Gleason (2002); Wilder and Wil-

liams (2001); Williams et al. (1994).




( 35 )

they know and the content about which

they are reading.

3. Even to explicit stratey instrction

and varios orms o strctrin eective

stratey instrction sow promise, it alsoseems clear tat many strlin readers

reqire more intensive eorts tan do st-

dents wo are perormin at or near rade

level.107 Te intensiveness o te intervention

sold be matced to te needs o stdents

wo strle—te reater te instrctional

need, te more intensive te intervention.

Two metods or increasin te intensity o

instrction are to provide additional instrc-

tion time or to wor wit stdents individ-

ally or in small rops. Te most practical

metod or increasin instrctional intensity

or smaller nmbers o strlin readers is

to provide spplemental small rop instrc-

tion, sally or extended periods o time or

as a distinct pll-ot class. Witin tese small

rops, teacers can more readily monitor

stdent proress and elp stdents learn te

particlar strateies tat will elp tem at-

tain rade-level readin sills. All te stdies

tat inormed tis recommendation oered

interventions tat provided more intensive

instrction or strlin readers trosmaller classes, increased time or learnin,

or bot.

4. Additionally, intensive interventions

mit involve repeated readin, provision

o adjnct qestions to scaold compreen-

sion, and qestionin or nderstandin to

improve te readin otcomes o adoles-

cents.108 Tese strateies can be oered in

small rop intervention sessions. Alto

not as interventions per se, tese strateiesalso serve te needs o poorly prepared

readers wen adopted or se in content-

area classrooms.

107. Gersten et al. (2001).

108. Peverly and Wood (2001); Therrien et al.

(2006).


1. Some middle and i scools may not

ave te specialized personnel, time, and

resorces to condct eicient screenin

assessments or stdents to identiy teirreadin needs. Timely and proper screen-

in, dianosis, and treatment o te sorce

o strlin readers’ difclties are central

to te sccess o an intervention stratey.

Teacer recommendations can be te moti-

vation or initiatin assinment to an inter-

vention, bt it is more liely tat stdents

will be identifed tro a screenin test

or data analysis o readin tests to identiy

scores allin below a specifc tresold. In

some cases stdents mit ave an individ-

alized edcation plan tat contains inorma-

tion abot previos testin.

For the most seriously disabled readers,

however, it is crucial that the major source

o the students’ reading diiculties be

identiied so that interventions can be

targeted to the most critical areas. Previ-

ous results rom standardized tests can

be used as a baseline to determine which

students are reading below grade level. I

such data are unavailable, regular middleand high school teachers can administer

group screening tests that will indicate

which students may be having reading

problems. Ater students with severe read-

ing diculties are identied, urther test-

ing is usually needed. This testing should

be administered and interpreted by read-

ing specialists or special education teach-

ers with advanced knowledge o reading

diculties.

Finding the resources to administer and

interpret these various ormal and inor-

mal assessments can be a challenge. We

suggest that educators consider reallocat-

ing resources to carry out timely assess-

ments and avoid ar more serious uture

costs to the system, such as retentions in

grade, and costs to individual students,

including dropping out o school.




( 36 )

Acquiring appropriate intervention ma-

terials, equipment, and programs; train-

ing teachers in use o the interventions;

and allocating space or instruction o

individuals and small groups also pose

challenges in many schools. But the im-portance o addressing and remediat-

ing students’ decits in reading cannot

be underestimated. The resources can

come rom programs such as Title I and

other supplemental state and local und-

ing sources, or proessional development

initiatives can be supported by Title II

dollars. Business partnerships, private

grants, and other parent and commu-

nity-based undraising initiatives may

also help augment existing resources.

Finally, establishing strong administra-

tion and aculty support to make literacy

a schoolwide priority will certainly help

raise awareness about the importance o

supporting these eorts and will garner

greater commitment to make the needed

alterations to schedules and resources.

2. Many middle and i scool content-area

teacers, in areas sc as science, mat, and

social stdies, do not possess te inorma-

tion or sills needed to teac readin anddo not believe tat it is teir job to teac

readin strateies. To compond tis prob-

lem, te typical departmental strctre o

secondary scools combined wit te lac

o relar commnication amon teacers

across departments can lead to a lac o

coordination across te crricla. Content-

area teacers sold not be responsible

or carryin ot intensive interventions or

strlin readers. however, content-area

teacers can be tat to se strateies

desined to mae content-area texts more

accessible to all stdents, incldin tose

wo strle wit literacy. Proessional de-

velopment sessions tat provide clear, easy-

to-nderstand inormation abot te extent

o te readin difclties tat stdents ex-perience and abot te steps tat all teac-

ers can tae to address stdents’ problems

empasize tat a scool aclty as a wole

as responsibilities or meetin te needs

o all stdents. Proessional development,

wic needs to acnowlede te demands

o all content areas, can inclde te model-

in and reinorcement o eective strateies

to increase stdents’ abilities to compreend

teir textboos and oter resorce materi-

als. Content-area teacers can se teacin

aids and devices tat will elp strlin

readers better nderstand and remember

te content tey are teacin. or instance,

rapic oranizers, oranizin temes, and

ided discssions can elp stdents nder-

stand and master te crriclm content. I

scoolwide coordination is acieved tro

proessional development, common plan-

nin periods, and inormal opportnities or

teacers to collaborate and commnicate

across te content areas, teacers can more

easily provide mtally reinorcin readinopportnities to better prepare stdents to

meet identifed standards in all areas. Ide-

ally, content-area teacers sold wor wit

lanae arts teacers, literacy specialists,

and oter content-area teacers to provide

coerent and consistent instrction tat en-

ables stdents to scceed in readin across

te crriclm.



( 37 )

Conclusion

This practice guide presents ve recom-

mendations that are supported by re-

search. The NAEP data discussed in the

overview make it clear that many adoles-cents lack the robust literacy skills they

need or success in school and in the work-

place. Many o these students can benet

tremendously when their classroom teach-

ers adjust their instruction in ways that

this practice guide recommends. The rst

our recommendations provide evidence-

based strategies that can usually be imple-

mented by regular classroom teachers,

those who teach content areas to students.

Three o the recommendations—providing

explicit vocabulary instruction, direct and

explicit comprehension strategy instruc-

tion, and opportunities or discussion

o text—are relatively easy to implement

within English language arts and other

content-area classrooms. These strategies

help content-area teachers adapt their in-

struction so that all students, even those

who struggle with reading, have easier ac-

cess to the special language and text struc-

ture o content-area materials.

The ourth recommendation concerns

the importance o increasing students’

motivation or and engagement with lit-

eracy learning. Motivation and engage-

ment seem to decline as students enter

adolescence. This is especially true or

those students who have experienced

many years o instruction and oten many

years o rustration as they try to make

sense o literacy activities. When teach-

ers make eorts to build motivation andengagement, students are more likely to

establish and act on personally meaning-

ul learning goals, becoming autonomous,

sel-directed learners.

However, the data also show that there is

a cohort o students whose reading skills

are so decient that they need help beyond

what classroom teachers alone can pro-

vide. It is toward this cohort o struggling

readers that the nal recommendation in

this guide is directed. Strengthening the lit-

eracy skills o struggling adolescent read-

ers is not easy, and improvement usually

does not come quickly. Assessing students’

literacy strengths and weaknesses is otena necessary rst step in determining the

appropriate interventions to use. Some

students’ deciencies are so complex that

a diagnostic assessment, administered

and interpreted by a specialist, is needed

to provide a prole o what these students

can and cannot do. The resulting proles

will point toward interventions ocused on

identied weaknesses. Some adolescent

struggling readers might need help with

the most basic reading skills required to

decode words, whereas others might bene-

t rom explicit and intense work on strate-

gies to increase vocabulary or deepen com-

prehension. Whatever the needs, it is oten

necessary or the intervention to be tar-

geted, intense, and provided by a specialist

who can monitor students’ progress more

eectively than a classroom teacher.

For those struggling readers who have

less severe deciencies, interventions o

a more general nature—or example, aprogram designed to strengthen compre-

hension and vocabulary skills in general—

might boost their skills enough to more

successully participate in school. Such

programs, oten oered as supplementary

courses or electives, provide the help stu-

dents need to build on existing reading

skills. When classroom teachers provide

complementary instruction because they

have adapted their instruction with strate-

gies such as those presented in this prac-tice guide, students benet even more.

Overall, this practice guide recognizes

the needs o all adolescent readers, those

whose weak literacy skills require individ-

ualized and intense intervention and those

remaining students whose skills can be

strengthened when content-area teachers

make practical alterations to their regular

instructional practices.



( 38 )

Appendix A.Postscript romthe Institute oEducation Sciences

What is a practice guide?

The health care proessions have em-

braced a mechanism or assembling and

communicating evidence-based advice to

practitioners about care or specic clini-

cal conditions. Variously called practice

guidelines, treatment protocols, critical

pathways, best practice guides, or simply

practice guides, these documents are sys-

tematically developed recommendations

about the course o care or requently en-

countered problems, ranging rom physi-

cal conditions, such as oot ulcers, to psy-

chosocial conditions, such as adolescent

development.1

Practice guides are similar to the prod-

ucts o typical expert consensus panels

in reecting the views o those serving

on the panel and the social decisions that

come into play as the positions o individ-ual panel members are orged into state-

ments that all panel members are willing

to endorse. Practice guides, however, are

generated under three constraints that do

not typically apply to consensus panels.

The rst is that a practice guide consists

o a list o discrete recommendations that

are actionable. The second is that those

recommendations taken together are in-

tended to be a coherent approach to a

multiaceted problem. The third, which ismost important, is that each recommen-

dation is explicitly connected to the level

o evidence supporting it, with the level

represented by a grade (strong, moder-

ate, low).

The levels o evidence, or grades, are

usually constructed around the value o

1. Field and Lohr (1990).

particular types o studies or drawing

causal conclusions about what works.

Thus, one typically inds that a strong

level o evidence is drawn rom a body o

randomized controlled trials, the moder-

ate level rom well designed studies thatdo not involve randomization, and the

low level rom the opinions o respected

authorities. Levels o evidence can also be

constructed around the value o particular

types o studies or other goals, such as the

reliability and validity o assessments.

Practice guides can also be distinguished

rom systematic reviews or meta-analyses,

which employ statistical methods to sum-

marize the results o studies obtained

rom a rule-based search o the literature.

Authors o practice guides seldom conduct

the types o systematic literature searches

that are the backbone o a meta-analysis,

although they take advantage o such work

when it is already published. Instead, au-

thors use their expertise to identiy the

most important research with respect to

their recommendations, augmented by a

search o recent publications to assure that

the research citations are up-to-date. Fur-

thermore, the characterization o the qual-ity and direction o evidence underlying a

recommendation in a practice guide relies

less on a tight set o rules and statistical al-

gorithms and more on the judgment o the

authors than would be the case in a high-

quality meta-analysis. Another distinction

is that a practice guide, because it aims or

a comprehensive and coherent approach,

operates with more numerous and more

contextualized statements o what works

than does a typical meta-analysis.

Thus practice guides sit somewhere be-

tween consensus reports and meta-analyses

in the degree to which systematic pro-

cesses are used or locating relevant re-

search and characterizing its meaning.

Practice guides are more like consensus

panel reports than meta-analyses in the

breadth and complexity o the topic that

is addressed. Practice guides are dierent



APPEnDIx A. POSTSCRIPT fROM ThE InSTITuTE fOR EDuCATIOn SCIEnCES

( 39 )

rom both consensus reports and meta-

analyses in providing advice at the level

o specic action steps along a pathway

that represents a more-or-less coherent

and comprehensive approach to a multi-

aceted problem.

Practice guides in education at theInstitute o Education Sciences

The Institute o Education Sciences (IES)

publishes practice guides in education to

bring the best available evidence and ex-

pertise to bear on the types o systemic

challenges that cannot be addressed by

single interventions or approaches. Al-

though IES has taken advantage o the

history o practice guides in health care to

provide models o how to proceed in edu-

cation, education is dierent rom health

care in ways that may require that prac-

tice guides in education have somewhat

dierent designs. Even within health care,

where practice guides now number in the

thousands, there is no single template in

use. Rather, one nds descriptions o gen-

eral design eatures that permit substan-

tial variation in the realization o practice

guides across subspecialties and panelso experts.2 Accordingly, the templates

or IES practice guides may vary across

practice guides and change over time and

with experience.

The steps involved in producing an IES-

sponsored practice guide are rst to se-

lect a topic, which is inormed by ormal

surveys o practitioners and spontaneous

requests rom the eld. Next, a panel chair

is recruited who has a national reputa-tion and up-to-date expertise in the topic.

Third, the chair, working in collaboration

with IES, selects a small number o panel-

ists to co-author the practice guide. These

are people the chair believes can work well

together and have the requisite expertise

to be a convincing source o recommen-

dations. IES recommends that at least one

2. American Psychological Association (2002).

o the panelists be a practitioner with

considerable experience relevant to the

topic being addressed. The chair and the

panelists are provided a general template

or a practice guide along the lines o the

inormation provided in this postscript.They are also provided with examples

o practice guides. The practice guide

panel works under a short deadline o 6–9

months to produce a drat document. The

expert panel interacts with and receives

eedback rom sta at IES during the de-

velopment o the practice guide, but they

understand that they are the authors and,

thus, responsible or the nal product.

One unique eature o IES-sponsored prac-

tice guides is that they are subjected to

rigorous external peer review through the

same oce that is responsible or inde-

pendent review o other IES publications.

A critical task o the peer reviewers o a

practice guide is to determine whether the

evidence cited in support o particular rec-

ommendations is up-to-date and whether

studies o similar or better quality that

point in a dierent direction have not been

ignored. Peer reviewers also are asked to

evaluate whether the evidence grade as-signed to particular recommendations by

the practice guide authors is appropriate.

A practice guide is revised as necessary to

meet the concerns o external peer reviews

and gain the approval o the standards and

review sta at IES. The process o external

peer review is carried out independent o

the oce and sta within IES that initiated

the practice guide.

Because practice guides depend on theexpertise o their authors and their group

decision-making, the content o a practice

guide is not and should not be viewed as a

set o recommendations that in every case

depends on and ows inevitably rom sci-

entic research. It is not only possible but

also likely that two teams o recognized

experts working independently to produce

a practice guide on the same topic would

generate products that dier in important



APPEnDIx A. POSTSCRIPT fROM ThE InSTITuTE fOR EDuCATIOn SCIEnCES

( 40 )

respects. Thus, consumers o practice

guides need to understand that they are,

in eect, getting the advice o consultants.

These consultants should, on average, pro-

vide substantially better advice than edu-

cators might obtain on their own because

the authors are national authorities who

have to reach agreement among them-

selves, justiy their recommendations in

terms o supporting evidence, and un-

dergo rigorous independent peer review

o their product.

Institute o Education Sciences



( 41 )

Appendix B.About the Authors

Michael L. Kamil is a proessor o educa-

tion at Stanord University. He is a mem-ber o the Psychological Studies in Edu-

cation Committee and is on the aculty

o the Learning, Design, and Technology

Program. He earned his Ph.D. in psychol-

ogy rom the University o Wisconsin—

Madison. His current research ocuses

on the eects o recreational reading on

reading achievement, instruction or Eng-

lish language learners, and the eects

o technology on literacy and literacy

instruction.

Geofrey D. Borman is a proessor in the

Departments o Educational Leadership

and Policy Analysis, Educational Psychol-

ogy, and Educational Policy Studies at the

University o Wisconsin—Madison. He

earned his Ph.D. in measurement, evalua-

tion, and statistical analysis rom the Uni-

versity o Chicago. His main substantive

research interests ocus on social strati-

cation and the ways in which educational

policies and practices can help addressand overcome inequality.

Janice Dole is director o the Utah Cen-

ter or Reading and Literacy and associate

proessor o education at the University

o Utah. She earned her Ph.D. in reading

education rom the University o Colorado.

Her research ocuses on comprehension

instruction, proessional development in

reading, and school reorm in reading.

Cathleen C. Kral is the instructional

leader o literacy and the director o lit-

eracy coaching or Boston Public Schools.

She earned an M.Ed. in curriculum and

instruction rom Lesley University and an

M.A. in English rom Northeastern Univer-sity. She has written articles and presented

widely on Boston’s proessional develop-

ment coaching model, Collaborative Coach-

ing and Learning. In addition to her work

in Boston Public Schools, she contributes

to adolescent literacy and literacy coaching

at the national level.

Terry Salinger is a managing director

and chie scientist or reading research at

the American Institutes or Research. She

earned her Ph.D. in reading, with dual em-

phases on Statistics and Curriculum De-

sign, rom New Mexico State University.

Her research ocuses on reading and liter-

acy instruction and assessment. Dr. Salin-

ger previously held positions as a school

teacher, a proessor o reading and early

childhood education, and a researcher at

Educational Testing Service.

Joseph Torgesen is the Morcom Proes-

sor o psychology and education at FloridaState University and director emeritus o

the Florida Center or Reading Research.

He also serves as the director o reading

or the Center on Instruction K–12 in Read-

ing, Math, and Science. He earned his Ph.D.

in developmental and clinical psychol-

ogy rom the University o Michigan. His

research has ocused on the psychology

o reading and interventions or students

with reading diculties.



( 42 )

Appendix C.Disclosure o potentialconficts o interest

Practice guide panels are composed o in-dividuals who are nationally recognized

experts on the topics about which they

are rendering recommendations. The In-

stitute o Education Sciences (IES) expects

that such experts will be involved proes-

sionally in a variety o matters that relate

to their work as a panel. Panel members

are asked to disclose their proessional

involvements and to institute deliberative

processes that encourage critical exami-

nation o the views o panel members as

they relate to the content o the practice

guide. The potential inuence o panel

members’ proessional engagements is

urther muted by the requirement that

they ground their recommendations in

evidence that is documented in the prac-

tice guide. In addition, the practice guide

undergoes independent external peer

review prior to publication, with par-ticular ocus on whether the evidence

related to the recommendations in the

practice guide has been appropriately

presented.

The proessional engagements reported

by each panel member that appear most

closely associated with the panel recom-

mendations are noted below.

Dr. Dole is a coauthor o a basal reading

program or elementary grades (K–6), but

this program is not reerenced in the prac-

tice guide.



( 43 )

Appendix D.Technical inormationon the studies

Recommendation 1.Provide explicit vocabularyinstruction



that supports this recommendation to be

strong. This rating is based on six random-

ized controlled experiments and three well

designed quasi-experiments that dem-

onstrated group equivalence at pretest.1

An additional six studies provided direct

evidence to support this recommenda-

tion but were weaker or various reasons,

such as quasi-experimental studies that

did not show equivalence between inter-

vention and control groups at pretest, a

lack o a comparison group, and a teacher-

intervention conound.2 Moreover, a single

subject design study with a counter-bal-

anced time-series design also provided

evidence about the eect o vocabulary

instruction on students’ outcomes.3 O this body o scientic evidence, nine stud-

ies included students in upper elementary

schools, and the remaining seven studies

ocused on students in middle and high

schools. The body o evidence supporting

explicit vocabulary instruction represents

student populations rom low, middle,

and upper-middle socioeconomic sta-

tus in urban, suburban, and rural school

1. Barron and Melnik (1973); Baumann et al.(2002); Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders

(1990); Brett et al. (1996); Lieberman (1967); Mar-

gosein et al. (1982); Nelson and Stage (2007); Xin

and Reith (2001).

2. Beck et al. (1982); Jenkins et al. (1989); Koury

(1996); Ruddell and Shearer (2002); Stump et al.

(1992); Terrill et al. (2004).

3. Malone and McLaughlin (1997). The standards

or judging the quality o a single subject design

study are currently being developed.

districts throughout the United States.

About 33 percent o the studies showed a

positive impact specically or students

reading below grade level.

Several o the studies taught students tobecome independent learners by analyz-

ing semantic and syntactic eatures o

words and building on relationships be-

tween new words and previously acquired

vocabulary.4 In addition, several stud-

ies used multiple methods (or example,

syntactic and semantic analysis, context

clues and semantic analysis, semantic

analysis and multiple sensory experiences)

to promote vocabulary acquisition.5 In

one study, middle school students with

learning disabilities were randomly as-

signed to one o our conditions: seman-

tic mapping, semantic eature analysis,

semantic/syntactic eature analysis, and

denition instruction.6 Immediate post-

test and ollow-up ndings showed that

interactive instruction (that is, semantic

mapping, semantic eature analysis, se-

mantic/syntactic eature analysis) is more

eective than just learning and practicing

the meaning o words in helping students

understand the context-related meaningo vocabulary presented in a passage. In

addition, students in the interactive con-

ditions outperormed students in the de-

inition instruction condition on reading

comprehension. In a second study, middle

school students were randomly assigned

to either a semantic mapping instruction

group or a context-clue instruction group.7

Results avored students in the semantic

mapping group over students in the con-

text clue group on a vocabulary test anda researcher-developed denitions test.

4. For example, Baumann et al. (2002); Baumann

et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990); Margosein

et al. (1982) .

5. Beck et al. (1982); Brett et al. (1996); Lieberman

(1967); Xin and Rieth (2001).

6. Bos and Anders (1990).

7. Margosein et al. (1982).



APPEnDIx D. TEChnICAL InfORMATIOn On ThE STuDIES

( 44 )

In another study students in upper ele-

mentary school with learning disabilities

were randomly assigned to either vocab-

ulary instruction with video technology

or vocabulary instruction without video

technology.8

Students who received video-assisted vocabulary instruction outper-

ormed students who received the same

instruction without video technology on

a word denitions vocabulary test.

Example o an intervention tat sesexplicit vocablary instrction

In the example study a research team con-

ducted a randomized controlled trial with

157 5th-grade students in ethnically di-

verse classrooms rom our urban schools

in the Southeast.9 Whole classrooms were

assigned to conditions and explicit vo-

cabulary instruction was provided, using

morphemic and contextual analysis in-

struction (MC) or the more traditional text-

book vocabulary instruction (TV). For 25

instructional days vocabulary instruction

was embedded within 45-minute social

studies periods and delivered by regular

classroom teachers in both conditions.Within each lesson, in both conditions,

teachers ocused on the social studies

textbook content or 30 minutes and on

vocabulary instruction or 15 minutes.

Students in the MC group received instruc-

tion in morphemic and contextual analysis

strategies. Morphemic analysis included

looking or word-part clues (root words,

preixes, suixes). Contextual analysis

included looking or dierent types o

context clues (denitions, synonyms, ant-onyms, examples, general clues) in the

sentences around the word. Students in

the TV group received the same amount

o vocabulary instruction as the MC group.

However, instead o teaching students

how to derive the meaning o words rom

8. Xin and Rieth (2001).

9. Baumann et al. (2003).

context and morphemic clues, teachers

directed students to look or denitions

in their textbook glossaries or the class-

room dictionaries.10 To motivate students

in both conditions to ocus on vocabulary,

the researchers constructed the lessonsaround an adaptation o the television se-

ries The X-Files . The students were asked to

be Vocabulary-Files (V-Files) agents. They

were part o the Federal Vocabulary Insti-

tute (FVI) and their mission was to gure

out the meaning o words as they learned

about the Civil War.

According to the study authors, the results

o this study showed that students in the

TV group showed a better acquisition o

textbook vocabulary than students in the

MC group. This result was statistically sig-

nicant. However, students in the MC group

were better able to gure out the meanings

o vocabulary that could be deciphered by

using morphemes presented in isolation

than students in the TV group. This result

was also statistically signicant. Other out-

comes investigated in this study (eects

on students’ understanding o words in

context, students’ comprehension o two

chapters rom the textbook, and students’comprehension o new social studies text)

showed no dierences between the dier-

ent conditions, and the eect sizes were

relatively small. In this study explicit vo-

cabulary instruction was used in both con-

ditions and showed a positive impact on

dierent vocabulary outcomes. Because a

business as usual control group was not

adopted, the study did not directly address

the impact o explicit vocabulary instruc-

tion on literacy development. Rather, it

10. Some o the strategies taught in the interven-

tion condition—engaging in prior knowledge and

prediction activities—were taught in the com-

parison condition as well. For example, students

completed a know, want to know, and learned

chart (Ogle 1986, as cited in Baumann et al. 2003),

responded to questions, constructed a semantic

map, and made an entry in their vocabulary logs

with illustrations related to the reading.




( 45 )

demonstrated the relative merits o dier-

ent types o explicit vocabulary instruction

on reading achievement.

Recommendation 2.

Provide direct and explicitcomprehension strategy instruction



that supports this recommendation to

be strong. This rating is based on ive

experiments,11 with additional evidence

rom a single subject design study with

multiple probe design across students.12

O this body o scientic evidence, two

studies included students in upper ele-

mentary schools, and the remaining stud-

ies ocused on students in middle and high

schools. The body o evidence supporting

explicit comprehension strategy instruc-

tion represents student populations in

urban, suburban, and rural school dis-

tricts in the Northeastern, Central, and

other regions o the United States. About

67 percent o the studies showed a posi-

tive impact specically or students read-

ing below grade level.

Most o the studies shared common ea-

tures o implementation: direct and ex-

plicit comprehension strategy instruction,

question answering, and summarization

strategies. In one study the researchers

examined the eects o teaching 4th-grade

students comprehension strategies—in-

cluding activating background knowledge,

answering questions, and making predic-

tions—on the students’ comprehensionachievements. The authors asked good

and poor readers literal and inerential

questions about a story at the students’

11. Hansen and Pearson (1983); Katims and Har-

ris (1997); Margosein et al. (1982); Peverly and

Wood (2001); Raphael and McKinney (1983).

12. Jitendra et al. (1988). The standards or judg-

ing the quality o a single subject design study

are currently being developed.

reading level as well as literal and ineren-

tial questions about a common story not

at the students’ reading level. The literal

questions could be answered by using in-

ormation verbatim rom the story. The in-

erential questions could only be answeredby interpreting the text using other knowl-

edge. In addition to being scored “correct”

or “incorrect,” the inerential questions

were also scored using a weighting scheme

to incorporate the quality o the students’

responses. Results indicated that or the

story at the students’ reading level, the

intervention group signicantly outper-

ormed the control group on the literal

questions and the inerential questions

or the poor readers only. For the com-

mon story, the intervention group scored

statistically signicantly better than the

control group on the inerential questions

and the weighted inerential questions or

both good and poor readers.13 In a second

study the researchers examined the eects

o summarizing and paraphrasing on the

reading comprehension test scores o low

socioeconomic status 7th-grade students

and ound that the intervention group

scored statistically signiicantly better

than a comparison group.14 In anotherstudy the eect o a graphic organizer (se-

mantic mapping) on the comprehension

and vocabulary achievements o 7th- and

8th-grade students was examined. The re-

searchers ound that students in the inter-

vention group scored statistically signi-

cantly better on measures o vocabulary

but not comprehension.15

Example o an intervention tatses compreension strateies orexpository texts

In the example study a research team

conducted a randomized controlled trial

13. Hansen and Pearson (1983).


15. Margosein et al. (1982).




( 46 )

with 10 classes o 7th-grade students (N =

207) rom a low socioeconomic district.16

Twelve percent o the students had learn-

ing disabilities. Because the intervention

was designed to help students who had

problematic comprehension strategies orexpository texts, 21 students who had a

score at or above 90 percent on the com-

prehension test using passages rom Timed

Readings 17 were excluded rom the data

analysis. Literacy instruction using summa-

rizing and paraphrasing to promote read-

ing comprehension was provided. As part

o the intervention, students in the control

group were given the district-mandated

Reading Workshop ,18 which gave students

learning opportunities in reading, writing,

and discussion experiences using both c-

tion and nonction reading materials. In

addition to Reading Workshop , students in

the intervention group were taught the cog-

nitive strategy o paraphrasing or 20 min-

utes every other school day over a course

o six weeks. The intervention emphasized

summarizing and paraphrasing strategies.

Students practiced identiying the main

idea and learned how to ask questions in

three simple steps: reading a paragraph,

asking questions, and putting the inor-mation in their own words. During the in-

tervention, the teacher rst described and

modeled the strategies to be used, ollowed

by students’ verbal practice o the strate-

gies using grade-level and advanced grade-

level passages. In addition, cue cards and

large posters prompted students to use the

strategies they had learned. Reading com-

prehension was measured at the start and

end o the intervention with 10 comprehen-

sion questions using expository texts.

According to the study authors, the re-

sults o this study indicated that students

receiving the intervention showed higher


17. Spargo (1989).

18. Atwell (1987), as cited in Katims and Harris

(1997).

comprehension scores than students in

the control group. This result was statisti-

cally signicant.

Recommendation 3.

Provide opportunities or extendeddiscussion o text meaning andinterpretation




moderate. This rating is based on one well

designed quasi-experiment19 that demon-

strated group equivalence at pretest and

one large correlational study with strong

statistical controls.20 Three additional

quasi-experimental studies provided direct

evidence to support this recommendation

but were not ideal or various reasons in-

volving study design (or example, teacher

conound, lack o baseline equivalence).21

Additionally, a recent meta-analysis22 and

a large descriptive study23 provided evi-

dence to support this recommendation. O

this body o scientic evidence, our stud-

ies included students in late elementary

schools, and the remaining studies ocusedon students in middle and high schools.

The body o evidence supporting text dis-

cussion represents student populations in

urban, suburban, and rural school districts

in all ve regions o the United States (West,

Southwest, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast).

About 50 percent o the studies showed a

positive impact specically or students

reading below grade level.

Most o the studies shared common ea-tures o implementation: training o teach-

ers prior to implementation, collaborative



21. Bird (1984); Heinl (1988); Yeazell (1982).


23. Langer (2001).




( 47 )

group discussion and learning, a ocus on

interpretive and logical thinking, summa-

rization, and engaging reading material. In

one study, one o the intervention groups

participated in shared inquiry and discov-

ery by reading a narrative literature selec-tion and engaging in group interpretation

and discussion. Students who participated

in these discussions showed greater im-

provements on a standardized measure

o reading comprehension than those

who did not, but the eect was statisti-

cally signicant only or the lower ability

students in the group.24 In a second study

students discussed controversial issues in

the selections they read and wrote a per-

suasive essay about a particular story at

the end o the intervention. Analysis o the

written essays indicated that the interven-

tion group signicantly outperormed the

comparison group in terms o variables

such as number o arguments, counter-

arguments, rebuttals, ormal argument

devices, and textual inormation.25

Example o an intervention tat sestext discssion

In the example study a research team con-

ducted a quasi-experimental study with se-

lected classrooms rom our public schools

serving students o diverse ethnic and so-

cioeconomic backgrounds.26 In this study,

literacy instruction to promote the persua-

siveness o written arguments used an oral

discussion technique known as collabora-

tive reasoning. As part o the intervention,

students in the collaborative reasoning

group met in small groups twice a weekor 15- to 20-minute discussions over ve

weeks. During these discussion sessions,

students openly participated (that is, they

did not need to be called on by a teacher)

in oral discussions about controversial

24. Heinl (1988).



issues in stories they had read, taking po-

sitions on issues and providing supporting

evidence rom the story or their positions.

The teacher’s role was to encourage stu-

dents to think reectively about what they

had read, to expose students to ormal ar-gument devices, and to coach students (to

challenge others’ viewpoints, to provide

counterarguments, to respond using rebut-

tals). In addition to these regular discussion

periods, students in the intervention group

also participated in twice weekly 15-min-

ute discussions with all other participating

classrooms, using web-based technology.


o this study indicated that students engag-

ing in collaborative reasoning showed better

persuasive arguments as indicated by the

number o arguments, counterarguments,

rebuttals, and use o textual inormation in

essays that the students had written. This

result was statistically signicant.

Recommendation 4.Increase student motivation andengagement in literacy learning




moderate. This rating is based on two ex-

periments27 and one quasi-experimental

study that did not show equivalence be-

tween intervention and comparison groups

at pretest but had no other major laws

threatening its internal validity.28 Three ad-

ditional studies provided direct evidence

to support this recommendation but wereweaker or various reasons, such as lack

o an eligible outcome (that is, measured

motivation rather than literacy).29 Six addi-

27. Schunk and Rice (1992), which contains two

studies; Mueller and Dweck (1998).



(1987); Guthrie et al. (2000). Some o these studies




( 48 )

tional experimental and quasi-experimental

design studies30 provided indirect evidence

or this practice. Although these studies

did not ocus on literacy skills, they dem-

onstrated a direct link between the quality

o a teacher’s praise and students’ motiva-tion. Finally, two meta-analyses o the re-

search about the general eects o extrinsic

rewards on students’ motivation were also

considered or the purpose o this review.31

Although the meta-analyses o the litera-

ture included secondary school students,

all other empirical studies reviewed here

ocused on students in elementary schools.

The body o evidence supporting motiva-

tion and engagement represents student

populations in urban and suburban school

districts in multiple geographical regions o

the United States. About 33 percent o the

studies that ocused on literacy outcomes

showed a positive impact specically or

students reading below grade level. In addi-

tion to the empirical studies, a literature re-

view and an article summarizing a series o

research studies provided direct evidence

to support this recommendation.32

Some o the studies shared common ea-

tures o implementation: a yearlong imple-mentation, a ocus on interdisciplinary

themes, a phased approach to teaching the

practice, a ocus on extrinsic motivation

or intrinsic motivation or the interven-

tion group(s), and the linking o correct

responses to comprehension questions to

the correct use o a taught strategy. In one

study, an interdisciplinary approach called

Concept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI)

was used over one year to teach students

lie and earth science topics using a our-phase teaching ramework that provided

also ailed on duration as dened in the adolescent

literacy protocol (that is, at least our weeks) but

were deemed to be o sucient length to provide

additional support or the recommendation.

30. Mueller and Dweck (1998).

31. Deci et al. (1999); Tang and Hall (1995).

32. Guthrie and McCann (1997); Schunk (2003).

students with opportunities to generate

questions, discuss text meaning and inter-

pretation, and communicate their under-

standings throughout the process. Results

indicated that students using CORI signi-

cantly increased their strategy use, con-ceptual learning, and text comprehension

compared with students taught using a tra-

ditional approach.33 In a second study stu-

dents processed words using one o three

levels that ranged rom shallow to deep

and then participated in one o two condi-

tions that manipulated their motivational

state (task-ocused or ego-ocused). Results

indicated that students in the task-ocused

group had signicantly higher cued recall

scores than students in the ego-ocused

group.34 In another study students’ mo-

tivation was manipulated by leading stu-

dents to believe that they would be graded

on their perormance (controlling directed

learning), not graded but asked questions

(noncontrolling directed learning), or asked

questions to assess their enjoyment and

attitudes (nondirected spontaneous learn-

ing). The researchers ound that students in

the controlling and noncontrolling directed

learning groups had better rote learning

than students in the nondirected group.But students in the noncontrolling directed

learning group also had statistically signi-

cantly better learning than students in the

controlling directed group.35

Example o an intervention tat sesConcept Oriented Readin Instrction36

In our example a research team conducted

two quasi-experimental studies37

with



35. Grolnick and Ryan (1987).

36. This nonbranded program is included be-

cause it contains many relevant motivation and

engagement practices and strategies.

37. One study was initially reported briey in

Guthrie and McCann (1997) and was described in




( 49 )

3rd- and 5th-grade students rom class-

rooms o mixed races and ethnicities near

a large city in a mid-Atlantic state.38 In

this study literacy instruction to promote

motivation or literacy, conceptual under-

standing, strategies or learning, and so-cial interaction was provided using Con-

cept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI).

CORI is based on seven instructional

characteristics:

Conceptual theme: theme about which•

learning is organized.

Observation: use o hands-on activities•

and real-lie experiences or learning.

Sel-direction: supports to student in•

being autonomous in their learning.

Strategy instruction: supports to stu-•

dent in guided discovery.

Collaboration: support to help stu-•

dents work together to learn.

Sel-expression: support to assist stu-•

dents describe their understanding to

others.

Coherence: the link between con-•

ceptual understanding and real-lie

experiences.

As part o the intervention, CORI was

taught over the course o a year by inte-

grating science and language arts. The

CORI teachers participated in a summer

workshop or 10 hal-day sessions to plan

the instruction or the year. Each month,

detail in Guthrie et al. (1999). The other study was

described in Guthrie et al. (2000). This section o

the technical appendix is based on inormation

rom all three articles.

38. Although the studies included 3rd- and 5th-

grade students, this practice guide ocuses only

on the results or the 5th-grade students because

o the age range specied in the Adolescent Lit-

eracy protocol.

the CORI teachers met to discuss inor-

mation related to progress, strategies,

and challenges. The teachers used a our-

phase approach in the instructional units

taught over the year: observe and per-

sonalize (hands-on activities and student-developed questions), search and retrieve

(searching or answers to questions and

inormation rom varied sources), com-

prehend and integrate (direct strategies on

how to integrate inormation learned rom

each source), and communicate (students

communicate what they have learned

using various media). In the all the teach-

ers taught a series o instructional units

about the lie cycles o plants and animals;

in the spring, the units ocused on earth

science, including the solar system and

geological cycles.39 In the traditional class-

rooms teachers used the teachers’ guides

and manuals. Teachers in both the CORI

classrooms and the traditional classrooms

had the same instructional goals or lan-

guage arts and science. In one study40 stu-

dents were assessed over a weeklong pe-

riod using a perormance assessment that

tested them either on amiliar or unamil-

iar topics to determine their prior knowl-

edge, strategy use, conceptual learning(drawing and writing), conceptual trans-

er, inormational text comprehension,

and narrative interpretation abilities. In

the other study41 students were assessed

on their intrinsic motivation (curiosity, in-

volvement, and preerence or challenge),

extrinsic motivation (recognition and com-

petition), and strategy use.


o the rst study42

indicated that students

39. This was the content taught in Guthrie et al.

(1999). In Guthrie et al. (2000), teachers taught

environmental adaptation (lie science theme)

in the all and weather (earth science theme) in

the spring.







( 50 )

receiving CORI showed greater conceptual

learning, motivated strategy use, inorma-

tional text comprehension, and narrative

comprehension than students in the tra-

ditional classrooms. These results were

statistically signicant. Other outcomes in-vestigated in this study (conceptual trans-

er) showed no statistically signiicant

dierences between the dierent condi-

tions. Results or the other study43demon-

strated that students who had participated

in CORI scored statistically signicantly

higher than students rom traditional

classrooms on measures o curiosity and

strategy use. Other outcomes investigated

in this study (involvement, recognition,

and competition) showed no statistically

signicant dierences between the dier-

ent conditions.

Recommendation 5.Make intensive and individualizedinterventions available orstruggling readers that can beprovided by trained specialists


The panel considers the level o evidencethat supports this recommendation to

be strong. This rating is based on 12 ex-

periments and one well designed quasi-

experiment that demonstrated group com-

parability at pretest.44 O this body o

scientic evidence, 12 studies included

students in upper-elementary or middle

school; the remaining study ocused on

students in high school. All the studies

included students with learning disabili-

ties including speciic reading impair-ments. Two also included students with



DiCecco and Gleason (2002); Englert and Mariage

(1991); Johnson et al. (1997); Lovett et al. (1996);

Lovett and Steinbach (1997); Peverly and Wood

(2001); Rooney (1997); Therrien et al. (2006);

Wilder and Williams (2001); Williams et al. (1994);

Xin and Reith (2001).

other types o disabilities, such as speech-

language impairment, and one study in-

cluded students without disabilities who

were deemed at risk or ailure in reading.

It is oten dicult to determine whether

adolescent struggling readers are in actlearning disabled because the characteris-

tics o their diculties are oten similar.

The body o evidence supporting intensive

and individualized interventions or strug-

gling readers represents student popula-

tions located in mostly urban and subur-

ban areas across the United States and in

one province in Canada (Ontario). Overall,

several studies demonstrated a positive

relationship between strategic interven-

tions and student outcomes when com-

pared with business-as-usual approaches,

but comparisons among dierent types o

strategic intervention did not lead to any

clear conclusions about the superiority o

one approach over another.

The interventions implemented in these

studies included such diverse approaches

as uency strategies, semantic mapping

and semantic eature analysis to show

relationships among words, graphic rep-resentations o ideas in text, goal setting,

sel-instruction, question answering, iden-

tication o themes, phonological analysis

and blending, word identication, text con-

tent and structure, and reciprocal teach-

ing. Several interventions combined two

or more o these strategies. The most suc-

cessul approaches used semantic map-

ping, semantic eature analysis, thematic

or graphic organizers appropriate to genre,

identication o themes, phonological anal-ysis and blending, word identication, text

content and structure, or reciprocal teach-

ing. In one study students45 using semantic

45. The students had a discrepancy between

their intellectual unctioning in one or more aca-

demic area and one or more decits in cognitive

processing. Additionally, the students had aver-

age intelligence but reading was identied as a

ocus or remediation.




( 51 )

mapping or semantic eature analysis ap-

proaches outperormed students receiving

typical direct instruction on immediate and

delayed tests o reading comprehension.46

In a second study47 students who used re-

peated reading and answered actual andinerential comprehension questions made

greater gains on a test o basic literacy skills

than their peers who did not receive the in-

tervention.48 In another study students49

who used an organizing strategy ollowed

by theme identication and generalization

o story themes to real lie perormed bet-

ter on measures o comprehension than

students who received typical instruc-

tion.50 All the successul approaches used

the chosen intervention over the course o

a month or more, although they varied in

intensity rom just under an hour a week

to two hours a day.

Example o an intervention orstrlin readers

In the example study researchers con-

ducted a randomized controlled trial

with 61 junior high school students with

learning disabilities rom two middle- andlower-middle-class school districts in the

Southwest United States.51 Participating

46. Bos and Anders (1990).

47. About hal o the students had a reading

learning disability and hal were at risk or read-

ing ailure (that is, reading at least two grade lev-

els below actual grade level).

48. Therrien et al. (2006).

49. All students had identiied learning dis-abilities and discrepancies between actual and

expected levels o reading achievement were

greater than 1.5 grade levels. Additionally, the

students scored at the 11th percentile on the

Degrees o Reading Power Test , a test o reading

comprehension.

50. Wilder and Williams (2001).

51. Bos and Anders (1990); the students had a

discrepancy between their intellectual unction-

ing in one or more academic area and one or more

students were receiving educational sup-

ports or their learning disabilities through

either resource or sel-contained settings.

Individual students were assigned to one

o our intervention conditions: Denition

Instruction (DI), Semantic Mapping (SM),Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA), or Se-

mantic/Syntactic Feature Analysis (SSFA).

Students met in groups o 6–12 or eight

50-minute sessions spread out over ap-

proximately seven weeks.

The DI condition involved directly teach-

ing students the meaning o vocabulary

words by using a written list o the words

with their denitions. The other three in-

terventions were based on interactive in-

structional models. In the SM condition the

teacher worked with students to construct

a hierarchical relationship map or the vo-

cabulary words based on their meaning.

In the SFA condition the teacher worked

with students using a matrix to predict

relationships among the concepts repre-

sented by the vocabulary words. The ma-

trix was created by placing superordinate

vocabulary at the head o the matrix and

then subordinate vocabulary below. The

SSFA condition was identical to the SFAcondition except that students also used

the matrix to guide them in predicting the

answers or cloze-type sentences.

According to the study authors, students

in the SM condition developed better read-

ing comprehension than students in the

DI condition by the time o posttest. This

eect was statistically signicant. In a de-

layed reading comprehension ollow up,

students in the SFA and SSFA conditionsoutperormed those in the DI condition.

These eects were statistically signicant.

For all the outcomes above, there were no

signicant dierences between the peror-

mances o the students across the three

interactive conditions.

decits in cognitive processing. Additionally, the

students had average intelligence but reading

was identied as a ocus or remediation.



( 52 )

Reerences

ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines:

What the ACT reveals about college read-

iness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Adler, M., & Rougle, E. (2005). Building literacy through classroom discussion:

Research-based strategies or developing

critical readers and thoughtul writers in

middle school . New York: Scholastic.

Allinder, R. M., Dunse, L., Brunken, C. D.

& Obermiller-Krolikowski, H. J. (2001).

Improving luency in at-risk readers

and students with learning disabilities.

Remedial and Special Education, 22 (1),

48–54.

American Educational Research Associa-

tion, American Psychological Associa-

tion, & National Council on Measure-

ment in Education. (1999).Standards or

educational and psychological testing.

Washington, DC: American Educational

Research Association Publications.

American Psychological Association.

(2002). Criteria or practice guideline

development and evaluation. American

Psychologist , 57 , 1048–51.

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M.,

& Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-basedapproaches to developing understand-

ing: Classroom instruction and student

perormance in middle and high school

English. American Educational Research

Journal , 40 (3), 685–730.

Artley, S. (1944). A study o certain re-

lationships existing between general

reading comprehension and reading

comprehension in a speciic subject

matter area. Journal o Educational Re-

search, 37 , 464–73.Ausubel, D. P., & Yousse, M. (1965). The e-

ect o spaced repetition on meaningul

retention. Journal o General Psychol-

ogy, 73, 147–50.

Barron, R. F., & Melnik, R. (1973). The e-

ects o discussion upon learning vo-

cabulary meanings and relationships

in tenth grade biology. In H. L. Herber

& R. F. Barron (Eds.), Research in read-

ing in the content areas, second year

report (pp. 46–52). Syracuse, NY: Syra-

cuse University, Reading and Language

Arts Center.

Barry, A. L. (1997.) High school reading pro-

grams revisited. Journal o Adolescent

and Adult Literacy, 40 (7), 524–31.Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland, E.

M., Olejnik, S., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2003).

Vocabulary tricks: Eects o instruction

in morphology and context on ith-

grade students’ ability to derive and

iner word meanings. American Educa-

tional Research Journal , 40 (2), 447–94.

Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Font, G.,

Tereshinski, C. A., Kame’enui, E. J., &

Olejnik, S. (2002). Teaching morphemic

and contextual analysis to th-grade

students. Reading Research Quarterly ,

37 (2), 150–76.

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2006). Im-

proving comprehension with question-

ing the author: A resh and expanded

view o a powerul approach. New York:

Scholastic.

Beck, I. L., Peretti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G.

(1982). Eects o long-term vocabulary

instruction on lexical access and read-

ing comprehension. Journal o Educa-

tional Psychology , 74(4), 506–21.Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use o think-

ing aloud in identication and teach-

ing o reading comprehension strate-

gies. Cognition and Instruction, 2 (2),

91–130.

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Read-

ing next—A vision or action and re-

search in middle and high school liter-

acy: A report to Carnegie Corporation o

New York. Washington, DC: Alliance or

Excellent Education.Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Read-

ing next—A vision or action and re-

search in middle and high school liter-

acy: A report to Carnegie Corporation

o New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:

Alliance or Excellent Education.

Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in

vocabulary development: Implications

or choosing words or primary grade

vocabulary instruction. In E. Hiebert



REfEREnCES

( 53 )

& M. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learn-

ing vocabulary: Bringing research to

practice (pp. 223–42). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Bird, J. J. (1984). Eects on th graders’

attitudes and critical thinking/reading skills resulting rom a Junior Great

Books program. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation. Rutgers University, New

Brunswick, NJ.

Blanchowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2001). Reading

comprehension: Strategies or indepen-

dent learners. New York: Guilord.

Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Eects o

interactive vocabulary instruction on

the vocabulary learning and reading

comprehension o junior-high learning

disabled students. Learning Disability

Quarterly , 13(1), 31–42.

Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996).

Vocabulary acquisition rom listen-

ing to stories and explanations o tar-

get words. Elementary School Journal ,

96 (4), 415–22.

Brown, A. D., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D.

(1981). Learning to learn: On training

students to learn rom text. Educational

Researcher , 10 (2), 14–21.

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., &Shuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental

validation o transactional strategies

instruction with low-achieving second-

graders. Journal o Educational Psychol-

ogy , 88 (1), 18–37.

Center on Education Policy. (2007). Answer-

ing the question that matters most: Has

student achievement increased since

No Child Let Behind? Washington, DC:

Author.

Chall, J. S., & Conrad, S. S. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students? New York:

Teachers College Press.

Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Develop-

mental and instructional analyses o

children’s metacognition and reading

comprehension. Journal o Educational

Psychology , 80 (2), 131–42.

Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S.,

Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005).

Fourth-grade students reading aloud:

NAEP 2002 special study o oral read-

ing (NCES 2006-469). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department o Education, Institute

o Education Sciences, National Center

or Education Statistics.

Darwin, M. (2003). High school readingspecialist pathways. In R. Bean (Ed.),

The reading specialist: Leadership or

the classroom, school, and community.

New York: Guilord.

Deci, E., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. (1999). A

meta-analytic review o experiments

examining the eects o extrinsic re-

wards on intrinsic motivation. Psycho-

logical Bulletin, 125 (6), 627–68.

Dewitz, P., Carr, E. M., & Patberg, J. P. (1987).

Eects o inerence training on compre-

hension and comprehension monitor-

ing. Reading Research Quarterly , 22 (1),

99–121.

DiCecco, V. M., & Gleason, M. M. (2002).

Using graphic organizers to attain re-

lational knowledge rom expository

text. Journal o Learning Disabilities ,

35 (4), 306–20.

Dole, J. A., Duy, G., Roehler, L. R., & Pear-

son, P. D. P. (1991). Moving rom the old

to the new: Research on reading com-

prehension instruction. Review o Edu- cational Research, 61(2), 239–64.

Duy, G. G. (2002). The case or direct ex-

planation o strategies. In C. C. Block & M.

Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruc-

tion (pp. 28–41). New York: Guilord.

Duy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rack-

lie, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus,

L. G., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., &

Bassiri, D. (1987). Eects o explaining

the reasoning associated with using

reading strategies. Reading ResearchQuarterly , 22 (3), 347–68.

Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S.,

Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L.,

Means, B., Murphy, R., Penuel, W., Javitz,

H., Emery, D., and Sussex, W. (2007). E-

ectiveness o reading and mathematics

sotware products: Findings rom the

rst student cohort. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department o Education, Institute

o Education Sciences.



REfEREnCES

( 54 )

Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D., Lenz, B. K., Schu-

maker, J. B., & Clark, F. L. (1991). An in-

structional model or teaching learning

strategies. Focus on Exceptional Chil-

dren, 23(6), 1–24.

Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1991). Mak-ing students partners in the comprehen-

sion process: Organizing the reading

‘posse.’ Learning Disability Quarterly ,

14(2), 123–38.

Field, M. J., & Lohr, K. N. (Eds.). (1990). Clini-

cal practice guidelines: Directions or a

new program. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. H., & Sim-

mons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted strate-

gies: Making classrooms more respon-

sive to diversity. American Educational

Research Journal , 34(1), 174–206.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., &

Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading com-

prehension strategies to students with

learning disabilities: A review o the re-

search. Review o Educational Research,

71(2), 279–320.

Gottried, A. W. (1985). Measures o socio-

economic status in child development

research: Data and recommendations.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly , 31(1), 85–92.Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational

inuences on cognition: Task involve-

ment, ego involvement, and depth o

inormation processing. Journal o Edu-

cational Psychology , 83(2), 187–94.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Au-

tonomy in children’s learning: An ex-

perimental and individual dierences

investigation. Journal o Personality and

Social Psychology , 52 (5), 890–98.

Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004).Motivating students to read: Evidence

or classroom practices that increase

reading motivation and achievement.

In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The

voice o evidence in reading research

(pp. 329–54). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.

Brookes Publishing.

Guthrie, J. T., & McCann, A. D. (1997). Char-

acteristics o classrooms that promote

motivations and strategies or learning.

In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigeld (Eds.),Read-

ing engagement: Motivating readers

through integrated instruction (pp. 128–

48). Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigeld, A., & VonSecker, C.(2000). Eects o integrated instruction

on motivation and strategy use in read-

ing. Journal o Educational Psychology ,

92 (2), 331–41.

Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., &

Rinehart, J. (1999). Inuences o con-

cept-oriented reading instruction on

strategy use and conceptual learning

rom text. Elementary School Journal ,

99 (4), 343–66.

Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An in-

structional study: Improving the iner-

ential comprehension o good and poor

ourth-grade readers. Journal o Educa-

tional Psychology , 75 (6), 821–29.

Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Kowalski, P.

(1992). Individual dierences in the e-

ects o educational transition on young

adolescent’s perceptions o competence

and motivational orientation. American

Educational Research Journal , 29 (4),

777–807.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to

enhance understanding. Portland, ME:

Stenhouse Publishers.

Heinl, A. M. (1988). The eects o the Junior

Great Books program on literal and in-

erential comprehension. Unpublished

master’s thesis. University o Toledo,

Toledo, OH.

Heller, R., & Greenlea, C. L. (2007).Literacy

instruction in the content areas: Getting

to the core o middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance

or Excellent Education.

Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. (2002). The

eects o praise on children’s intrinsic

motivation: A review and synthesis. Psy-

chological Bulletin, 128 (5), 774–95.

Hiebert, E. H. (2005). In pursuit o an e-

ective, ecient vocabulary curriculum

or elementary students. In E. H. Hie-

bert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and



REfEREnCES

( 55 )

learning vocabulary: Bringing research

to practice (pp. 243–63). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A

comprehension strategy or both skilled

and unskilled readers. Journal o Learn- ing Disabilities , 20 (4), 196–205.

International Reading Association. (2006).

Standards or middle and high school lit-

eracy coaches . Newark, DE: Author.

Jenkins, J. R., Matlock, B., & Slocum, T. A.

(1989). Two approaches to vocabulary

instruction: The teaching o individual

word meanings and practice in deriving

word meaning rom context. Reading

Research Quarterly , 24(2), 215–35.

Jitendra, A., Cole, C., Hoppes, M., & Wilson,

B. (1998). Eects o a direct instruction

main idea summarization program and

sel-monitoring on reading comprehen-

sion o middle school students with

learning disabilities. Reading and Writ-

ing Quarterly , 14(4), 379–96.

Johnson, L., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R.

(1997). The eects o goal setting and

sel-instruction on learning a reading

comprehension strategy: A study o stu-

dents with learning disabilities. Journal

o Learning Disabilities , 30 (1), 80–91.Kame’enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C., Chard, D.,

& Dickson, S. (1997). Direct-instruction

reading. In S. A. Stahl & D. A. Hayes

(Eds.), Instructional models in reading

(pp. 59–84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and lit-

eracy: Reading or the 21st century .

Washington DC: Alliance or Excellent

Education.

Katims, D. S., & Harris, S. (1997). Improv-

ing the reading comprehension o mid-dle school students in inclusive class-

rooms. Journal o Adolescent and Adult

Literacy , 41(2), 116–23.

Keene, E. (2006). Assessing comprehension

thinking strategies . Huntington Beach,

CA: Shell Educational Publishing.

Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mo-

saic o thought: Teaching comprehension

in a reader’s workshop . Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Kemple, J. J., Herlihy, C. M., & Smith, T. J.

(2005). Making progress toward gradu-

ation: Evidence rom the talent devel-

opment high school model. New York:

Manpower Demonstration Research

Corporation.Kemple, J. J., Corrin, W., Nelson, E., Salin-

ger, T., Hermann, S., & Drummond, K.

(2008). Enhanced reading opportunity

study: Early impact and implementation

ndings (NCEE 2008-4015). Washington,

DC: U.S. Department o Education, In-

stitute o Education Sciences.

Kingery, E. (2000). Teaching metacogni-

tive strategies to enhance higher level

thinking in adolescents. In P. E. Linder,

E. G. Sturtevant, W. M. Linek, & J. R.

Dugan (Eds.), Literacy at a new horizon:

The twenty-secondary yearbook . (pp.

74–85) Commerce, TX: College Reading

Association.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S.

(1998). Collaborative strategic reading

during social studies in heterogeneous

ourth-grade classrooms. Elementary

School Journal , 99 (1), 3–22.

Koury, K. A. (1996). The impact o pre-

teaching science content vocabulary

using integrated media or knowledgeacquisition in a collaborative class-

room. Journal o Computing in Child-

hood Education, 7 (3–4), 179–97.

Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teach-

ing middle and high school students to

read and write well. American Educa-

tional Research Journal , 38 (4), 837–80.

Lee, J., Griggs, W. S., & Donahue, P. L.

(2007). Nation’s report card: Reading

(NCES 2007-496). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department o Education, Institute o Education Sciences, National Center or

Education Statistics.

Lenz, B. K., Alley, G. R., & Schumaker, J. B.

(1987). Activating the inactive learner:

Advance organizers in the secondary

content classroom. Learning Disability

Quarterly , 10 (1), 53–67.

Lieberman, J. E. (1967). The eects o direct

instruction in vocabulary concepts on

reading achievement. (ED 010 985)



REfEREnCES

( 56 )

Lovett, M., & Steinbach, K. (1997). The e-

ectiveness o remedial programs or

reading disabled children o dier-

ent ages: Does the beneit decrease

or older children? Learning Disability

Quarterly , 20 (3), 189–210.Lovett, M. W., Borden, S., Warren-Chaplin,

P., Lacerenza, L., DeLuca, T., & Giovi-

nazzo, R. (1996). Text comprehension

training or disabled readers: An eval-

uation o reciprocal teaching and text

analysis training programs. Brain and

Language, 54(3), 447–80.

Malone, R. A., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1997).

The eects o reciprocal peer tutoring

with a group contingency on quiz per-

ormance in vocabulary with seventh-

and eighth-grade students. Behavioral

Interventions , 12 (1), 27–40.

Margosein, C. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Paum,

S. W. (1982). The eects o instruction

using semantic mapping on vocabulary

and comprehension. Journal o Early

Adolescence, 2 (2), 185–94.

McLaughlin, M., & Allen, M. B. (2001).Guided

comprehension: A teaching model or

grades 3–8 . Newark: DE: International

Reading Association.

Moore, D., Readence, J., & Rickman, R.(1983). An historical explanation o con-

tent area reading instruction. Reading

Research Quarterly , 18 (4), 419–38.

Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., &

Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy:

A position statement or the commission

on Adolescent Literacy o the Interna-

tional Reading Association. Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise

or intelligence can undermine chil-dren’s motivation and perormance.

Journal o Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 75 (1), 33–52.

Murphy, K. P., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter,

A., Hennessey, M. H., & Alexander,

J. F. (2007). What the studies tell us:

An examination o the eects o class-

room discussion on students’ high-level

comprehension o text. Manuscript in

submission.

National Assessment Governing Board.

(2007). Reading ramework or the 2009

National Assessment o Educational

Progress. Washington, DC: American

Institutes or Research.

National Reading Panel. (2000a). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based as-

sessment o the scientic research litera-

ture on reading and its implications or

reading instruction (NIH Publication No.

00-4769). Washington DC: U.S. Depart-

ment o Health and Human Services,

National Institute o Child Health and

Human Development.

National Reading Panel. (2000b). Teach-

ing children to read: Reports o the sub-

groups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department o

Health and Human Services, National

Institute o Child Health and Human

Development.

Nelson, J. R., & Stage, S. A. (2007). Fostering

the development o vocabulary knowl-

edge and reading comprehension though

contextually-based multiple meaning

vocabulary instruction. Education &

Treatment o Children, 30 (1), 1–22.

O’Brien, D. G., Moje, E. B., and Stewart, R.

(2001.) Exploring the context o second-ary literacy: Literacy in people’s every-

day school lives. In E. B. Moje & D. G.

O’Brien (Eds.), Construction o literacy:

Studies o teaching and learning in and

out o secondary schools (pp. 105–24.)

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Oczkus, L. D. (2004).Super six comprehen-

sion strategies: 35 lessons and more or

reading success with CD-Rom. Norwood,

MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Outsen, N., & Yulga, S. (2002). Teaching comprehension strategies all readers

need: Mini-lessons that introduce, ex-

tend, and deepen reading skills and pro-

mote a lielong love o literature. New

York: Scholastic.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Re-

ciprocal teaching o comprehension-

ostering and comprehension-monitor-

ing activities. Cognition and Instruction,

1(2), 117–75.



REfEREnCES

( 57 )

Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y.

(1984). Inormed strategies or learn-

ing: A program to improve children’s

reading awareness and comprehension.

Journal o Educational Psychology , 76 (6),

1239–52.Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K.

(1983). Becoming a strategic reader.

Contemporary Educational Psychology ,

8 (3), 293–316.

Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C.

(1991). The development o strategic

readers. In R. Barr, P. D. Pearson, M.

Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook

o reading research (pp. 609–40). New

York: Longman.

Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit

comprehension instruction: A review o

research and a new conceptualization

o instruction. Elementary School Jour-

nal , 88 (2), 151–65.

Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Com-

prehension instruction. In R. Barr, M.

L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pear-

son (Eds.), Handbook o reading re-

search Volume II (pp. 815–60). New York:

Longman.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The

instruction o reading comprehension.Contemporary Educational Psychology ,

8 (3), 317–44.

Pennsylvania Department o Education.

(2004). Pennsylvania reading require-

ments or school, the workplace and

society: Executive summary o ndings .

Harrisburg, PA: Author.

Perie, M., & Moran, R. (2005). NAEP 2004

trends in academic progress: Three

decades o student perormance in read-

ing and mathematics (NCES 2005-464).Washington, DC: U.S. Department o

Education, Institute o Education Sci-

ences, National Center or Education

Statistics.

Peverly, S. T., & Wood, R. (2001). The eects

o adjunct questions and eedback on

improving the reading comprehension

skills o learning-disabled adolescents.

Contemporary Educational Psychology ,

26 (1), 25–43.

Pressley, G. M. (1976). Mental imagery

helps eight-year-olds remember what

they read. Journal o Educational Psy-

chology , 68 (3), 355–59.

Pressley, M., & Aferbach, P. (1995). Ver-

bal protocols o reading: The nature o constructively responsive reading. Hills-

dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pressley, M., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull,

T. (1987). How can good strategy use

be taught to children? Evaluation o

six alternative approaches. In S. M.

Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Trans-

er o learning: Contemporary research

and applications . New York: Academic

Press.

Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., &

Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruc-

tion research comes o age. Learning

Disability Quarterly , 12 (1), 16–30.

Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S.,

McGoldrick, J. A., & Kurita, J. A. (1989).

Strategies that improve children’s mem-

ory and comprehension o text. Elemen-

tary School Journal , 90 (1), 3–32.

Raphael, T. E., & McKinney, J. (1983). An

examination o th and eighth-grade

children’s question-answering behav-

ior: An instructional study in metacog-nition. Journal o Reading Behavior ,

15 (3), 67–86.

Reutzel, D. R. (1985). Story maps improve

comprehension. The Reading Teacher ,

38 (4), 400–04.

Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen,

B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., &

Kim, S. (2001). Inuence o oral discus-

sion on written argument. Discourse

Processes , 32 (2&3), 155–75.

Riddle Buly, M., & Valencia, S. W. (2002).Below the bar: Proles o students who

ail state reading assessments. Educa-

tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis ,

24(3), 219–39.

Rooney, J. (1997). The eects o story

grammar strategy training on the story

comprehension, sel-ecacy and attri-

butions o learning disabled students.

Dissertation Abstracts International ,

58 (5-A), 1642. (UMI No. 9732965)



REfEREnCES

( 58 )

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Recip-

rocal teaching: A review o the research.

Review o Educational Research, 64(4),

479–530.

Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman,

S. (1996). Teaching students to gener-ate questions: A review o intervention

studies. Review o Educational Research,

66 (2), 181–221.

Ruddell, M. R., & Shearer, B. A. (2002). “Ex-

traordinary,” “tremendous,” “exhilarat-

ing,” “magnicent”: Middle school at-risk

students become avid word learners

with the vocabulary sel-collection

strategy (VSS). Journal o Adolescent &

Adult Literacy , 45 (5), 352–63.

Ryan, R. (1982). Control and inormation in

the intrapersonal sphere: An extension

o cognitive evaluation theory. Journal

o Personality and Social Psychology ,

43(3), 450–61.

Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S.,

Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C.

K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Interventions

or adolescent struggling readers: A

meta-analysis with implications or prac-

tice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research

Corporation, Center on Instruction.

Schoenbach, R., Greenlea, C., Cziko, C., &Hurwitz, L. (1999). Reading or under-

standing: A guide to improving reading

in the middle and high school class-

rooms . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1992).

Validation o learning strategy interven-

tions or students with LD: Results o a

programmatic research eort. In B. Y.

L. Wong (Ed.), Intervention research with

students with learning disabilities . New

York: Springer-Verlag.Schunk, D. H. (2003). Sel-ecacy or read-

ing and writing: Inuence o model-

ing, goal setting, and sel-evaluation.

Reading & Writing Quarterly , 19 (2),

159–72.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1992). Inuence

o reading-comprehension strategy in-

ormation on children’s achievement

outcomes. Learning Disability Quar-

terly , 15 (1), 51–64.

Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Grin, P. (Eds.).

(1998). Preventing reading difculties

in young children. Washington, DC: Na-

tional Academy Press.

Spargo, E. (1989). Timed readings (3rd

ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: JamestownPublishers.

Stebick, D. M., & Dain, J. M. (2007). Compre-

hension strategies or your K–6 literacy

classroom: Thinking beore, during, and

ater reading . Thousand Oaks, CA: Cor-

win Press.

Stump, C. S., Lovitt, T. C., Fister, S., Kemp,

K., Moore, R., & Shroeder, B. (1992). Vo-

cabulary intervention or secondary-

level youth. Learning Disability Quar-

terly , 15 (3), 207–22.

Swanborn M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999).

Incidental word learning while reading:

A meta-analysis. Review o Educational

Research, 69 (3), 261–85.

Sweet, A. P., Guthrie, J. T., & Ng, M. M.

(1998). Teacher perceptions and student

reading motivation. Journal o Educa-

tional Psychology , 90 (2), 210–23.

Tang, S., & Hall, V. (1995). The overjusti-

cation eect: A meta-analysis. Applied

Cognitive Psychology , 9 (5), 365–404.

Terrill, M., Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M.(2004). SAT vocabulary instruction or

high school students with learning dis-

abilities. Intervention in School & Clinic ,

39 (5), 288–94.

Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K.

(2006). Eect o a combined repeated

reading and question generation In-

struction on reading achievement.

Learning Disabilities Research and Prac-

tice, 21(2), 89–97.

Torgesen, J. K. (1982). The learning dis-abled child as an inactive learner: Edu-

cational implications. Topics in Learning

and Learning Disabilities , 2 (1), 45–52.

Tovani, C. (2004). Do I really have to teach

reading? Content comprehension,

grades 6–12. Portland, ME: Stenhouse

Publishers.

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The

teaching o learning strategies. In M.

C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook o research



REfEREnCES

on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315–27). New

York: Macmillan.

Wilder, A. A., & Williams, J. P. (2001). Stu-

dents with severe learning disabilities

can learn higher order comprehension

skills. Journal o Educational Psychol- ogy , 93(2), 268–78.

Wilhelm, J. (2001). Improving comprehen-

sion with think-aloud strategies: Model-

ing what good readers do . New York:

Scholastic.

Williams, J. P., Brown, L. G., Silverstein, A.

K., & deCani, J. S. (1994). An instruc-

tional program in comprehension o

narrative themes or adolescents with

learning disabilities. Learning Disability

Quarterly , 17 (3), 205–21.

Williamson, G. L. (2004). Student read-

iness or postsecondary options.

(Metametrics Technical Report). Re-

trieved October 2005, rom http://www.

lexile.com/lexilearticles/Student%20

Readiness%20or%20Postsecondary%20

Options%20(v4_1).pd

Xin, J. F., & Rieth, H. (2001). Video-assistedvocabulary instruction or elementary

school students with learning disabili-

ties. Inormation Technology in Child-

hood Education Annual , 1, 87–103.

Yeazell, M. I. (1982). Improving reading

comprehension through philosophy or

children. Reading Psychology: An Inter-

national Quarterly , 3(3), 239–46.

Zwiers, J. (2004). Building reading compre-

hension habits in grades 6–12: A toolkit

o classroom activities . Newark, DE: In-

ternational Reading Association.

http://www.lexile.com/lexilearticles/Student%20Readiness%20for%20Postsecondary%20Options%20(v4_1).pdf






Documents

Improving Adolscent Literacy Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices