TEACHING READING IN THE 21ST CENTURY: A GLIMPSE AT HOW SPECIAL EDUCATION

TEACHERS PROMOTE READING COMPREHENSION

Author(s): Janette K. Klingner, Jennifer Urbach, Deborah Golos, Mary Brownell and
Shailaja Menon
Source: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Spring 2010), pp. 59-74
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25701434
Accessed: 30-01-2017 23:58 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25701434?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Learning
Disability Quarterly

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 TEACHING READING IN THE 21ST CENTURY:
A GLIMPSE AT HOW SPECIAL EDUCATION
TEACHERS PROMOTE READING
COMPREHENSION

Janette K. Klingner, Jennifer Urbach, Deborah Golos, Mary Brownell,

and Shailaja Menon

Abstract. In this study, we conducted 124 observations of 41

special education teachers teaching reading to their third- through
fifth-grade students with learning disabilities to determine the
extent to which and in what ways they promoted students' read
ing comprehension. In 42 lessons, we did not observe any compre
hension instruction. In 30 lessons, the only comprehension-related
activity consisted of asking students questions about what they
had read by means of mostly factual, rote-level questions. In 49 les
sons, teachers provided additional comprehension instruction,
although this mostly consisted of prompting students to use a strat
egy rather than providing explicit instruction. Predicting was the
most common strategy observed. We rarely saw teachers use more
complex strategies, such as finding the main idea or summarizing.
Most special education teachers seemed unsure of how to promote
their students' reading comprehension. We noted many missed
opportunities to do so. Our findings suggest implications for
researchers and teacher preparation programs.

JANETTE K. KLINGNER, Ph.D., University of Colorado at Boulder.

JENNIFER URBACH, Ph.D., University of Northern Colorado.
DEBORAH GOLOS, Ph.D., Utah State University.
MARY BROWNELL, Ph.D., University of Florida.
SHAILAJA MENON, Ph.D., University of Colorado at Boulder.

Over 30 years ago, Durkin (1978-79) conducted an whether or not students used the skill successfully.
observational study of reading comprehension instruc Noticeably missing from this form of comprehension
tion. She found that typical comprehension instruction instruction is instruction. Thus, in over 4,000 minutes
followed a mentioning, practicing, and assessing proce of reading instruction observed in fourth-grade class
dure. That is, teachers would mention to students the rooms, Durkin only recorded 20 minutes of actual com
skill that they wanted them to use. Then they would prehension instruction.
give students opportunities to practice that skill through Similarly, 12 years ago, Vaughn, Moody, and Schumm
workbooks or skill sheets, and then they would assess (1998) observed reading instruction in elementary-level

Volume 33, Spring 2010 59

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
special education teachers' resource rooms in South with LD who speak a home language other than English
Florida. Observing 14 special education teachers three may face additional challenges. Like other students with
times each over the course of one year, the authors LD, they tend to focus on surface aspects of reading and
found that teachers rarely provided explicit instruction apply fewer comprehension strategies, and also may tap
designed to promote their students' reading compre into background knowledge less and have more limited
hension skills. Eleven teachers taught reading compre English vocabularies than their fluent English-speaking
hension by either reading the story aloud to the students Qimenez, 1997).
students and asking questions, or having the group take Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, and Baker (2001) speculated
turns reading the story followed by the teacher asking that the narrative comprehension difficulties of stu
questions. The questions teachers asked were mostly dents with LD may be a result of a breakdown in
factual and literal. Of Vaughn et al.'s 41 observations, in metacognition, or not being able to reflect about how
only one case did they record a teacher teaching stu reading is progressing or knowing which strategies to
dents a comprehension strategy. use when comprehension breaks down.
Since then, the National Reading Panel has published Expository text structures, such as those found in his
its widely disseminated report (2000) emphasizing tory books or periodicals, present students with LD with
the importance of reading comprehension as one of even greater challenges than narrative text structures.
the "big ideas" of reading. Reading First, as part of the Expository text structures can take many different
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), forms, and it can be difficult for students to figure out
mandated increased attention to reading skills instruc which form is being used. In contrast, good readers are
tion, including reading comprehension. As part of this better able to discern which structure is being used and
initiative, teachers at participating schools received to determine which strategies to apply to aid compre
extensive professional development and reading coaches hension. For these reasons, students with LD benefit
were assigned, all designed to improve teachers' read from focused instruction in how to identify different
ing instruction. Further, RAND published a report call text structures (Gersten et al., 2001).
ing for an increased focus on reading comprehension Many of the reading comprehension strategies that
(Snow, 2002). have been associated with the highest effect sizes for
Given this heightened focus on reading comprehen students with LD are those that teach strategies that
sion, how much has instruction changed since Durkin's prompt students to monitor and reflect before, during,
(1978/1979) and Vaughn et al.'s (1998) studies? The and after reading. Such strategies ask students to con
purpose of the current study was to examine how sider their background knowledge about the topic they
special education teachers integrate reading compre are reading, to summarize key ideas, and to self-ques
hension into their reading instruction. We conducted tion while they read (e.g., Gajria et al., 2007; Gersten et
multiple observations of special education teachers al., 2001; Jenkins, Heliotis, Stein, & Haynes, 1987;
teaching reading to their third- through fifth-grade stu Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, & Whedon, 1996;
dents with learning disabilities (LD). Swanson, 1999; Wong & Jones, 1982).
Reading Comprehension Instruction for Students Direct instruction, strategy instruction, or a combina
with LD tion of the two, are associated with the highest effect
Reading comprehension instruction is helpful for all sizes in reading comprehension for students with LD
students, but it is particularly critical for students with (Swanson, 2001; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999). The
LD (Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007; Vaughn, instructional components that contributed the most to
Gersten, & Chard, 2000). Students with LD tend to be improved effect sizes in reading comprehension include
inactive learners (Torgesen & Licht, 1983), who do not (a) teacher and students questioning, (b) interactive dia
monitor their learning or use strategies effectively. In logue between teachers and students and/or students
addition, many students with LD have weak executive and students, (c) controlling task difficulty and scaf
functioning and struggle with planning, organizing folding instruction, (d) elaboration of steps or strategies
information and ideas, initiating and maintaining and modeling by the teacher, (e) small-group instruc
focus on activities, selecting relevant task goals, choos tion, and (f) use of cues to help students remember to
ing and changing strategies, self-monitoring, and regu use and apply what they learn.
lating behavior (McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1990; Observation Studies of Special Education Reading
Meltzer, 2007; Swanson, 1999). Instruction
Metacognition is central to the notion of executive The majority of special education reading observation
functions, as is the importance of teaching students studies have focused on determining the amount of
metacognitive strategies (Torgesen, 1994). Students time spent on various activities. For example, Allington

Learning Disability Quarterly 60

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
and McGill-Franzen (1989) followed 64 students in sec "reading comprehension instruction was sorely neg
ond, fourth, and eighth grade for one full school day. lected in the reports of these observations" (p. 9).
Half of the students were in special education (of whom Purpose
the "vast majority" were labeled with LD, p. 534), while
Although researchers and educators now know a great
the other half received Chapter 1 services. The authors
deal about the importance of providing explicit instruc
found that, compared to the general education class
tion in reading comprehension and how to teach vari
room, reading instruction in special education pro ous comprehension strategies, little is known about
grams offered the smallest proportion of active teaching
how special education teachers currently teach reading
and the largest proportion of seatwork activities, with
comprehension. The purpose of this study was to deter
fewer total minutes actually spent on reading instruc
tion. mine the extent to which and in what ways special
education teachers promote their students' reading
In another study, Haynes and Jenkins (1986) observed
comprehension.
fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students with disabilities
in 23 resource rooms and in general education class METHODS
rooms. They found that reading instruction varied a The current study was part of a larger investigation
great deal across programs and that the amount of conducted over two years to assess relationships among
actual reading instruction was "remarkably low" (p. special education teachers' reading instruction, other
161). Specifically, students in resource rooms spent teacher and school-level variables, and student achieve
more than half of their time on seatwork (52%), 19% of ment. In the larger study, researchers observed 98 spe
the time receiving small-group instruction, and 16% cial educators providing reading instruction across
receiving one-to-one support. three states (e.g., Brownell et al., 2009; Brownell et al.,
Similarly, Leinhardt, Zigmond, and Cooley (1981) in preparation).
and O'Sullivan, Ysseldyke, Christenson, and Thurlow The research team evaluated teachers' instructional
(1990) observed students with LD in different settings
practices using the Reading Instruction in Special
and noted the amount of time spent in different activi Education Observation Instrument (RISE) and assessed
ties with similar results. Yet, in none of these studies did
their reading content knowledge. In addition, the team
the researchers look specifically at reading comprehen
sion instruction. assessed individual students' reading achievement
using a variety of standardized and curriculum-based
Gelzheiser and Myers (1991) did include reading com measures.
prehension. Observing the reading instruction provided
Multiple-regression analyses indicated that teache
to students with disabilities in general, remedial, and
knowledge of decoding explained a moderate propo
special education classrooms, these authors found that
tion of variance in observed reading practice, ranging
students spent an excessive amount of time waiting, on
from .08 to .21, depending on the practice bei
seatwork, and on independent activities rather than
observed. Teacher knowledge of comprehension did no
actually reading or receiving explicit instruction. The
account for a significant proportion of variance i
amount of time spent on reading comprehension was
observed classroom practice.
especially low (8% in the resource room). While
Hierarchical linear modeling analyses demonstrat
Gelzheiser and Myers noted how many minutes were
that decoding instruction accounted for a modera
spent on different types of instruction, they did not
describe what the instruction looked like. proportion of variance in word identification (.12) and
As noted earlier, Vaughn et al. (1998) observed read word attack gains (.15), whereas various aspects
ing instruction in resource rooms and found very little
observed classroom practice accounted for a modera
comprehension instruction. Moody, Vaughn, Hughes, proportion of variance in oral reading fluency (rangin
from .09 to .10). Different facets of generic classroom
and Fischer (2000) conducted a followup study to
Vaughn et al., observing in the same teachers' class practice and comprehension practice accounted for sig
rooms. They noted more emphasis on phonics teaching nificant and moderate proportions of the variance
than in the initial study and more emphasis on chil students' reading comprehension scores, ranging from
dren's literature; however, they did not report any .08 to .13. Notably, time spent in instruction and the
changes in reading comprehension. number of students in a group moderated the relation
Thus, it appears that to date, special education read ships between observed classroom practice and studen
achievement.
ing observation studies have not focused much on
reading comprehension instruction. In fact, in their Research Design
synthesis of special education reading observation stud The focus of the current mixed-methods study was o
ies, Vaughn, Levy, Coleman, and Bos (2002) noted that the descriptive data from the RISE as well as findings

Volume 33, Spring 2010 61

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 continued on next page

115 F W 2 BA 69.5302 F W 4 MA
R Harcourt 94.2 R2.0Eclectic
6 90/90 H$ 7 30/60 1
104 M B 4 BA 75 R Harcourt 6 60/0 2.0 ? 113 F W 8 BA 29 R RM 5 95/95 2.5 || 116 F W 4 MA 53.9 R Harcourt 11 90/90 2.0

101 F W 19 MA 87.7 R Harcourt 3 45/45 3.5 | 111 F W 27 BA 69. R Harcourt112 4F W90/0

3 BA 3.5
32.4 R^ RM-Plus 13 55/55 3.5 114 F W 30 MA 69.5 R Harcourt 6 90/90 3.5 ^
301 F W 1.5 MA 87.3 R Eclectic 6 60/30 2.5
105 F W 4 MA 89.2 R SFA/Harcourt 2 90/0 2.0
103 F B 4 MA 34.8 R Harcourt RM 7 50/0 2.0 117 F W 5 MA 71.8 R Harcourt SFA 5 70/0 2.0119 F W 22 BA 89.4 R Harcourt SFA 5 50/0 3.0

? 110 F W 33 MA 79. R Read 180 5 80/80 2.5

;J x 102 F W 1 MA 54.1 I Kaleidoscopes 9 75/75 2.0 121 F W 3.5 MA 71.8 R Harcourt SFA 5 100/0

V Yrs. School Class Studs. Minutes RC

W 17 BA 45.5 R RM 3 60/90
| > 107 F W 23 MA 46 I RM 12 60/90 3.0 1|
I 109 F W 16 BA 1.9 R RM 7 100/100 2.5 2.0 |p|

g 108 F W 10 MA 44.8 R RM 7 60/0 - ff|* 120 F W 25 MA 47.6 R RM 6 60/0 2.0

Teacher Gender Ethnicity Teaching Degree FRL% Type Curriculum Tested in SE/GE Rating

Characteristics of Special Education Teachers

Table 1
-

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 s mm flfl

BB 314 F W 17 MA 2 R Eclectic 6 35/60 4.0 |J| 320 F W 32 MA 4.1 R Eclectic 5 30/90 2.0 tBI
HI 303 F W 26 MA 25 R Eclectic 7 50/0 2.0 Bfl HE 307 F W 30 MA 25 R Eclectic 8 40/0 2.5 Bfl S K 313 F W 30 MA 35 R Eclectic 7 60/30 2.5 \Jm pj 321 F W 6 MA 94.3 R Eclectic 4 40/50 2.5 Nfl}

B| 304 F W 7 MA 51.2 R Open HBCt/Jump

305 F WSt304 50/40
MA 57.53.0RBfl
Eclectic 7 45/45 3.5 BB BB 308 F W 29 MA 23 R Eclectic 6 50/0 2.5 Bl 1 Bl] 312 F W 17 MA 46 R Soar to Success 8 30/30 1.5 F 11 B|| 317 F W 14 MA 96 R||| Eclectic
318 F 6 4MA
30/60
35.3flf|
2.0R 319
PB
Eclectic
M AC4545/40
MA 77.32.0RKB
Eclectic 7 60/30 1.5 tlfl
322 F W 13 BA 93.3 R/I Eclectic/DPS 4 50/40 3.5 gfl
I 111] 309 F W 25 MA 94 R Eclectic 6 45/45 2.5 BB

f |||] 311 M W 16 MA 90.2 R/I Eclectic/DPS 5 30/60 1.5 11M

Bk1 Yrs. School Class Studs. Minutes RC MB

|pl| 306 F W 25 MA 92.4 R/I Eclectic 6 40/60 2.5 Hi

Note. F = female; M = male; W = White; B = Black; MA = Mexican American; J A = Japanese American; AC = African Caribbean; FRL = free or reduced-price lunch; R = resource setting; I = inclusion; | |BB

SC = self-contained; SE = special education; GE = general education; RM = Reading Mastery (published by SRA); Harcourt = Harcourt Trophies; SFA = Success for All; DPS = Denver Public Schools KB9l

B| 316 F W 25 MA 91.7 R SRA 3 45/45 1.5 ?B

? Wm 310 F MA/JA 7 MA 85.7 I DPS 3 90/0 3.5 VSM

Bb Teacher Gender Ethnicity Teaching Degree FRL% Type Curriculum Tested in SE/GE Rating HB

curriculum; RC = reading comprehension rating on the RISE. EfflH

Nfl Characteristics of Special Education Teachers BB

Table 1 continued BB

00 BSjgy huh

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
from extensive field notes collected during observations a combination (n = 3). Instructional time in special edu
of reading instruction over one school year. cation for reading ranged from 150 minutes to 500 min
Participants and Setting utes a week. In about two thirds of the settings (n = 28),
We included 41 special educators from Florida and students received additional reading instruction in the
Colorado (i.e., all of the teachers from Florida and general education classroom.
Colorado from Year 2 of the larger study) (see Table 1). Curricula varied among classrooms, ranging from
To select teachers, we asked participating school dis core reading programs such as Reading Mastery Plus
tricts to provide us with the names of the special educa (Engelmann et al, 2002) or Harcourt Brace Trophies
tion teachers in the district. We subsequently invited to (Beck et al., 2003), to less prescriptive approaches (see
participate the special education teachers whom the Table 1). Teachers using less prescribed curriculum mod
schools had identified as teaching reading to upper-ele els relied on a variety of materials and techniques,
mentary students with LD for at least 90 minutes a including a reader's workshop model (Atwell, 1998;
week. Roller, 1996), combined with guided reading (Fountas &
When teachers expressed interest in participating in Pinnell, 1996).
the study, we determined whether they were fully certi Instrumentation
fied to teach special education and only included teach Classroom observation tool - Reading Instruction in
ers with such certification. Teachers had obtained their Special Education Observation Instrument (RISE).
degrees from a variety of in- and out-of-state institu The researchers completed the RISE when observing
tions of higher education. The vast majority of teachers teachers. The RISE consists of 22 items that address
were of Caucasian ethnicity. Three were male. Thirty Instructional Practices, General Instructional Environ
two of the teachers had earned master's degrees, while a ment, Phonological Awareness, Decoding, Fluency,
bachelor's degree was the highest degree earned by Reading Comprehension, Classroom Management, and
nine. Over half (n = 25) of the teachers taught in schools Overall Classroom Practice.
with a free or reduced-priced lunch count over 50%; 13 We developed the RISE by examining, drawing
taught in schools where this percentage was over 80%. from, and adapting other observation instruments and
All teachers taught third-, fourth-, and/or fifth-grade procedures, including the English Language Learner
students with LD in reading. Teachers had between 1 to Classroom Observation Instrument (e.g., Haager,
32 years of experience, with a mean of 15.3 years. Gersten, Baker, & Graves 2003), a tool used to docu
The student sample was diverse. Of the 244 students ment the effectiveness of reading practices in first
tested, 106 were White (43%), 66 were Hispanic/Latino grade classrooms, and observational research on
(27%), 65 were African American (27%), and 7 were effective teaching of special education students
Other (3%). None of the students were considered to be (Englert, 1984; Stanovich & Jordan, 1998).
English language learners not yet proficient in English. Before using the RISE in this study, we conducted an
Subjects consisted of 143 boys (59%) and 101 girls extensive pilot study of the instrument and refined it
(41%); 175 (72%) received a free or reduced-price lunch. based on pilot study results. The coefficient alpha relia
All students were in grades 3 through 5, had been bility was .96. Items are rated on a 1-4 Likert scale. A
school-identified as having LD, and were considered to score of 1 represents "Low Quality" for an item and 4
have reading difficulties. represents "High Quality." Observers may check a box
Mean pretest scores on an oral reading fluency (ORF) marked "Not Observed" if there is no occurrence of an
curriculum-based measure1 were higher for Florida stu item during the observation. An example of the com
dents than for Colorado students. On second-grade prehension items scored is found in Figure 1.
level ORF passages, Florida students' (N = 127) mean Teacher observations. We observed 40 teachers three
was 85.16, SD = 35.44; Colorado students' {N = 117) times each and one teacher four times, for a total of 124
mean was 54.07, SD = 31.52. On third-grade ORF pas observations. Observers informed participating teachers
sages, Florida students' mean score was 79.25, SD = of the purpose of the observations ("to understand
36.94; Colorado students' mean score was 47.56, 5DD = how special educators typically teach reading") and
32.83. For information about students' gains on the instructed them to teach a typical lesson. For each
ORF and correlations with teachers' RISE ratings, as well observation, a trained observer scheduled observations
as students' gains as assessed by other measures and with the teachers and then observed the entire reading
their correlations, see Brownell et al. (in preparation). lesson for the students in the study for the scheduled
The instructional groups in teachers' load ranged day. Observers took detailed field notes in real time,
from 2 to 17 students. Service delivery models varied which they used to identify behaviors that corre
between resource (n = 35) and full inclusion (n = 3), or sponded to exemplary practices highlighted on the

Learning Disability Quarterly 64

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Figure 1. Sample comprehension items from the RISE.

COMPREHENSION
21. Provides comprehension instruction
I-1-1-1
12 3 4
Low Moderate High

EH Not Observed (If not observed, do not score 22, 23, and 24) b{ ;|

22. Provides explicit instruction in comprehension skills and strategies

Models/explains comprehension skills and strategies (e.g., demonstrates how to find the main idea in a M
passage)
Thinks aloud for students in order to demonstrate strategies or skills
Prompts students to focus on relevant information in the text or summarize text

I-1-1-1
12 3 4
Low Moderate High
EZI Not Observed

23. Prompts and cues students to use comprehension strategies and skills
Reminds students to use strategies
Models metacognition
Promotes self regulation

i-1-1-1
12 3 4
Low Moderate High
Not Observed I

24. Effectively uses teacher facilitated discussions to build comprehension

Engages students in meaningful discussions
Incorporates students' questions
Monitors students' comprehension
Asks more higher-order questions
Asks students to provide evidence for their responses (asking how and why)
Encourages students to elaborate when responding to questions about the text or while discussing the text

I-1-1-1
12 3 4
Low Mode
Not Observed I

Volume 33, Sp

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
RISE, and then assigned a score to each item. After we finished coding and tallying all of the data
Observations lasted from 30 to 100 minutes, correspon and were in complete agreement, we examined the
ding to the time allocated for reading. Observations codes again for the purpose of finding relationships
were spread over the school year, occurring in late fall, among the codes, clustering them into categories
winter, and spring. (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999). For example, we assigned
Interrater reliability was established between and data chunks with the codes of "predicting," "finding the
within sites. Observers participated in across-site training main idea," and "summarizing," and then combined
by viewing two videotapes and debriefing across the these and other codes into a "comprehension strate
sites. The initial average interrater scores were 71% and gies" category. We highlighted representative examples
64%, respectively, for between and within sites. To of each type of instruction throughout this process. In
improve interrater agreement, we developed a training all, we used 22 codes and 6 categories. See Table 2 for
tape that exemplified the behaviors identified in the more details.
RISE and a training protocol that described scenarios for RESULTS
each rating level of every item. Colorado and Florida
We observed 124 reading lessons in Colorado and
established anchor persons who trained the group to
Florida taught by 41 teachers. On the RISE, the mean
80% reliability before going into the field. In addition,
rating in reading comprehension across all teachers was
two observers completed observations for 18% of the les
2.5. This rating is midway between the lowest possible
sons. For those lessons, the interrater reliability was 91%.
score (1) and the highest score (4). We gave seven teach
Data Analysis ers either a 3.5 or a 4 rating in reading comprehension
First, we determined teachers' scores on the RISE and (only 1 with 4), indicating that they appeared to be
tabulated those data for descriptive purposes (see Table quite skilled in promoting reading comprehension dur
1). For more information on how teachers' ratings cor ing the lessons observed. We rated 5 teachers with a 1.5,
related with student achievement, see Brownell et al. (in and 13 with a 2.0, suggesting that their reading com
preparation). prehension instruction was poor. Finally, we scored 10
Second, we (in this case, the first two authors) sepa teachers with a 2.5 and 3 with a 3.O.2 Three teachers
rately read and reread all field notes and identified all never taught reading comprehension when we
comprehension-related activities. Next, we independ observed, and thus received no score.
ently developed codes to reflect all comprehension In the 124 lessons that we observed, 82 included at
related activities according to type of activity or least one comprehension activity. We identified six cat
instruction. This was done by randomly selecting two egories that dealt with other activities or instruction:
sets of observation field notes and independently teachers' questions, interactive dialogue, identifying
chunking all data into idea units (i.e., bracketing every text structure, metacognition, comprehension strate
instructional occurrence) and assigning each unit a gies, and instruction in comprehension strategies. We
label or code that referred to the type of instruction separated many of these into subcategories. Table 2
observed (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). shows the number of times we observed each activity
Once we had developed an initial set of codes, we met other than teachers' questions and interactive dia
to compare and refine our lists and come up with one logues. This list is an indication of the quantity of vari
agreed-upon set of codes. We looked for areas of agree ous activities, but not of the quality. Additional
ment and disagreement. When we disagreed, we dis information about the quality of instruction in each cat
cussed what would make sense and refined the code list egory is presented below.
accordingly. We then independently coded an addi Teachers' Questions
tional set of observation notes, adding more codes as As stated, 82 reading lessons included at least one
needed, and repeated this process. In this way, we cre comprehension activity. In three cases, the only com
ated a master code list, which we used with all of our prehension-related instruction was review of vocabu
observation notes. lary. In the other 79 lessons, the teacher asked at least
Separately, we then tallied the number of instances one comprehension question. Of those, in 30 lessons
we observed of each instructional practice, and met the only comprehension-related activity was to ask stu
again to compare our tallies. In the few cases in which dents questions about what they had read (or listened to
our tallies for a specific instructional practice differed, as read by the teacher, as was the case five times). In
we went back to the original data (i.e., observation general, this questioning consisted of mostly factual,
notes), examined the instructional occurrence in ques rote questions, either to check if students understood
tion, and reached an agreement on whether the practice what they read or to assess recall. Higher-level ques
fit a particular code. tioning was observed only 16 times. In 39 lessons, the

Learning Disability Quarterly 66

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
teacher asked surface-level questions regarding what active exchange of ideas with multiple contributions by
vocabulary terms meant (e.g., "Do you know what a students. We noted interactive dialogue in seven les
plank is?"). sons. The excerpt below is similar to an IRE sequence,
yet is different in that multiple students were involved,
Interactive Dialogue
did not raise their hands, and were actively engaged in
Even when teachers engaged in extensive questioning the conversation.
of students, they did not necessarily promote interac Teacher: Can a human baby do much at 6 weeks
tive dialogue of the content students were reading that old? A tiger baby is already hunting with their
might have promoted their understanding of the mate mother.
rial. Instead, most teachers followed the Initiation Student 1: No.
Evaluation-Response sequence (IRE) typical of Student 2: That's crazy!
classroom discourse (Cazden, 1988). We looked for an Teacher: What does extinct mean?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Table 2
Type and Number of Comprehension Activities Other Than Teachers' Questions and
Interactive Dialogues
_
_______________

Activity Numb

> Text Structure

Problem-Solution 4
Compare-Contrast 1
Beginning/Middle/End 2

' Metacognition
Reminder to think before
Other (questions about wha
after reading; praise for t

|*|'? Comprehension
Predicting 30
Making connections 13
jtigs Rereading 12
j^F** Summarizing 7
".. Finding the main idea 4 ; , - *
Figuring out the meaning of words 4

pi Visualizing
Retelling 3 2^
Previewing questions 2
| v Generating questions 2
f';.; Paraphrasing 2

i%: Instruction in Comprehension Strategies

> s Explanations 7
Modeling 4
?v
V'/f Note- Of the 124 lessons observed, only 49 included one or more of the activities listed in
f|i _

Volume 33, Spring 2010 67

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Student 3: Like, they are all gone. teacher reminded them that they had been talking
Student 1: Like dinosaurs. about compare and contrast and asked, "So how are
Teacher: Good example ... they alike?" When no one responded, she told them,
Teacher: Who can think of one way they are alike? "They are both 9 and they are both girls."
Student 1: They have tan fur? Beginning, middle, end. Two lessons included refer
Student 2: They hunt the same. ences to stories having a beginning, middle, and end.
Teacher: Which is how? However, in one of the lessons in which the teacher
Student 2: They jump in front and bite their neck. was asking students how to summarize a story, it was a
Teacher: Who remembers another one? student rather than the teacher who noted this. In the
Student 3: They are both becoming extinct. other, the teacher directed students to "write some
Student 2: They are not! thing you remember at the beginning, something you
Teacher: Which one is? remember in the middle, and something you remem
Student 2: The tiger. ber at the end."
In the second excerpt, the teacher was conversing Metacognition
with just one student. The teacher is questioning the We also looked for instances of teachers promoting
student, using higher-order questions, but the discus metacognition in the lessons, but they were noticeably
sion goes beyond the IRE sequence in the ways the absent. We did not see teachers prompting students to
teacher and student respond to one another. develop self-regulation or an awareness of their behav
Teacher: Why would he want the map? If it's not iors during the reading process. However, we did note
that much money ... 17 examples of teachers prompting students to think
Student: But it is; I know that it is. The guy was about what they were reading. Most often (in 15 cases),
listening to the conversation, I think maybe this prompt consisted of a simple reminder to think, as
so he can sell it or something. He tried to buy in the following examples:
the chest... and got very mad when she "Listen carefully - this is a difficult question - you
wouldn't sell it to him. are going to have to think about it."
Teacher: Do you think he knew the treasure map "Let's read the first questions at the bottom so
was in the chest? we'll know what we need to think about to find
Student: I think he did. answers."
Teacher: But how could he know the map was in "Be thinking about that; about why the author
there? chose this title."
Student: I don't know, maybe he didn't... "Stop and think."
Teacher: OK, let's see if your prediction is true. Two other instances were slightly different. In one
Text Structure lesson, the teacher questioned students about their
Teachers rarely (six times) instructed their students thinking after reading (i.e., "What were you thinking
about different text structures. When they did, a few about when we read this book?"). In another case, the
taught the problem-solution structure and one taught teacher reinforced a student for thinking (i.e., "I like
the compare-contrast structure. Another explained that how you were thinking, Abby.").
narrative stories have a beginning, middle, and end. As mentioned, most of these prompts were reminders
Problem-solution. We noted four instances in which "to think" rather than an explicit focus on cognitive
teachers engaged students in finding the problem and processes related to reading (e.g., monitoring under
the solution in stories they read. For example: standing, selecting what to remember, and regulating
The teacher asked students to work in pairs to strategies). Thus, it is not clear that teachers were ask
read and figure out problems and solutions. She ing students to consciously control their metacognitive
had written phrases on the board ahead of time. processes. In fact, in one lesson, the teacher rejected
She asked, "Who found a solution to the problem the importance of metacognition. In this counterex
of pandas dying?" ample, the teacher tells students not to think: "It is
here in the book. Read it and don't think. Read from
The teacher asked students to identify the prob
lem in a story they read. Using a "study guide,"
here to the end and then you tell me. Don't do any
the students looked at a story map. The teacher thinking while you read."
asked questions about the map. Comprehension Strategies
Compare-contrast. One teacher mentioned the We observed several comprehension strategies,
compare-contrast structure as follows, "How are they including predicting, making connections, looking
alike and different?" Before students answered, the back or rereading to find answers to questions, summa

Learning Disability Quarterly 68

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 rizing, finding the main idea, taking steps to fix under The teacher asks students to respond in writing to
standing when comprehension breaks down, retelling, the following prompts:
visualizing, previewing questions, paraphrasing, and The chapters made me think about...
generating questions. We describe these next in the The chapters reminded me about the time ...
order of how often they occurred. In most cases, the I connected to_because so far I think_
teacher prompted students to use the strategy but did In two cases, we recorded students making their own
not provide instruction in how to do so. (This may connections. One student said, "That kid, I think he is
have occurred in other lessons we did not observe.) one of those kids that loves to get videos, like me, I love
Predicting. By far the most common strategy the to go rent videos." The teacher responded, "Yeah?" In
teachers used, or prompted students to use, was pre the other case, the teacher exclaimed: "She brought in
dicting (30 times). Teachers asked students to either her prior knowledge like good readers do! Good job!"
guess what would happen next in a narrative story or We noted one case as a negative example, where the
to predict what they thought they would learn as part teacher asked students what they already knew about a
of previewing expository text; for example: topic, but then disapproved of a student's connection,
"What do you suppose he's going to do?" as follows:
"What will happen next?" The story is about alligators; the teacher asks students
"Make a prediction about how successful this what they know about alligators. One student says,
lemonade stand will be if he keeps it open." "My father caught an alligator when we lived in
"What are we going to learn about? (We predict) Georgia." The teacher responds, "Robert, we are in
because that's what good readers do." Florida, not Georgia, so we don't want to talk about
"Just from looking at the cover and reading the Georgia." Robert doesn't respond again and starts to
title, what do you think this is going to be fidget. The teacher soon says, "Robert, please sit up."
about?" Looking back or rereading. The third most com
In nine of these lessons, the students were asked to monly applied strategy (12 times) was looking back or
predict based on pictures. Only three instances rereading to find answers to comprehension questions.
involved "picture walks" (i.e., looking at a book's pic Most often this consisted of prompting students to use
tures as part of previewing to get a sense for what a the strategy. For example:
story will be about). "Go back in the story. That's Ms. Mac's favorite
Teachers rarely followed up with students to check if reading strategy."
their predictions were accurate. One teacher asked, "Use the strategy of looking back in the book if
"We predicted. Were you right?" Another teacher said, you don't know the answer to the question."
"OK, tomorrow when we come back, we are going to "When you are working on these, it's OK to look
see if the predictions are true." We were not able to back in the book even when you are doing CSAP
observe the next day to find out if the class actually dis (i.e., the state's high-stakes standardized assess
cussed their predictions. ment) next week. It's not only OK to look back,
Helping students make connections. Helping stu you need to, we want you to ..."
dents activate and connect with background knowl In two cases, teachers reinforced students for applying
edge is an important aspect of reading comprehension. a strategy (e.g., "Good job looking back."). In another, a
Yet, we saw few teachers do this. Nevertheless, this was student asked, "Can we look back?" The teacher
still the strategy observed the second most often (13 responded, "Yes."
times). Teachers asked students to think about what In addition, there was at least one missed opportunity
they already knew related to a topic or a vocabulary for using this strategy. In this instance, the teacher
word, reminded them of a similar lesson, or provided asked a question and students did not answer. Instead
examples they thought would make the content more of instructing the students in the strategy, the teacher
meaningful and relevant for them. For example: looked for the answers herself and told them to stu
The teacher says, "OK, the next time you're in your dents. The teacher never mentioned that she was using
mom's car, ask her to go 35 miles per hour, and that's a comprehension strategy.
how fast the lion's running ..." In the same lesson, Summarizing. Teachers asked students to summarize
"Lupe, how much do you weigh? So the lions could eat seven times. They rarely provided scaffolding to sup
more than what Lupe weighs." port students. Apparently, some teachers might not
The teacher asks, "Have you ever been to the bank have been sure themselves what a summary entails. For
with your parents? Do you go inside or drive example:
through? If you go talk to the person ... that person The teacher asked students to summarize the story
is called a teller." from the day before. When students hesitated, the

Volume 33, Spring 2010 69

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 teacher prompted, "Tell me about the story..." poem. The teacher directed students to "picture what
The teacher asked, "What does summary mean?" A the words are saying." In the other instance, the teacher
student responded, "The very main idea." The asked, "Anybody get any picture of that?"
teacher did not question this answer or elaborate. Previewing questions. Teachers asked students to pre
The teacher asked a student to summarize the view questions twice. In one example, the teacher
book. She told her that she wanted her to say the directed small groups to answer questions before read
main characters, setting, and problem. ing. As students worked in their groups, she mentioned
The teacher asked, "Why don't you summarize for to them the purpose of this task: "Previewing gives you
us - tell us what happened?" the purpose for reading."
In only one case did the teacher provide explicit Generating questions. Teachers did not instruct stu
instruction in how to summarize, as follows: dents in how to generate teacher-like questions as
Teacher: If we were to write a summary, what taught in Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown,
would we do? 1994) or Collaborative Strategic Reading (Klingner,
Student: Tell the beginning, middle, and end. Vaughn, Argiielles, Hughes, & Ahwee, 2004). Rather, in
Teacher (writing this on a poster sheet): About two instances they encouraged students to come up
what? What will we write a summary about? with questions that reflected what they were wonder
Student: About what happened in the book? ing before they read the next section of text, as in the
Teacher: Little tiny details or the big idea? following example:
Students: Big idea! Teacher: I'm wondering why rain comes some
Teacher: If I say (some small detail) - is this a good times from clouds, but not always. I'm won
point to include in a summary? ... dering, "Are there some kinds of clouds that
Finding the main idea. Teachers asked students to produce rain and some that do not?" What are
find the main idea four times. They provided no explicit you wondering?
instruction in the lessons, instead simply directing stu Student: I'm wondering, "When does it rain and
dents to "find the main idea." In one lesson, the teacher when does it snow?"
asked students to provide three details that supported Teacher: Great question. If the answer is not in
the main idea.
this book, I'll find another for you with the
Monitoring comprehension and figuring out the answer. OK, let's read.
meaning of words. We only noted four examples of Paraphrasing. Paraphrasing was not used by students
teachers teaching strategies for figuring out the mean nor was it modeled. The strategy was mentioned by two
ings of unknown words. In one lesson, the teacher had teachers when they told their students to "put it in your
written strategies for figuring out word meanings on the own words," but they did not explain what is included
board:
in a paraphrase or why it is important.
Look at pictures.
What makes sense? Instruction in Reading Comprehension Strategies
Finish the sentence and then reread the sentence. We noted two types of instruction: direct explana
Break the word apart. tions and modeling, or thinking aloud.
She commented, "Excellent; very nice job there with Explanations. Given that we observed 81 instances of
what makes sense. Nice reading strategies." In another comprehension strategies, it is surprising that we noted
example, the teacher told students, "You will have to only seven instances of direct explanation. We rarely
read all that again and figure it out. That is what it is all (only seven times) observed teachers explaining how to
about, read and reread it until we can figure it out." And implement a comprehension strategy. Most examples
in a third example, a different teacher directed students were brief. It is possible that this instruction took place
to "reread if something doesn't make sense." when we were not present; however, we observed
Retelling. In three cases, the teacher explicitly asked numerous missed opportunities to teach or review the
students to retell. In one of these lessons, the teacher procedures for implementing strategies. Examples of
was reading aloud to the whole class and asked students explanations follow:
to turn to their partners and ask them to retell the story. "Skim through the book and find the answers (to
She asked, "What is happening in the story so far?" In questions). Scan through the book, Susan. Scanning
another case, students retold a story as part of the read is to read really fast and find the information fast."
ing program used. "Preview gives you the purpose of reading ... You
Visualizing. We noted only two examples of a teacher are still previewing. You are not reading yet, but
asking students to develop a mental image of what they your brain wants to know what happens in the
were reading. One was when students were reading a book."

Learning Disability Quarterly 70

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 "So what are we going to do today? Yes, weTl find instruction of some type was still attempted in 82 les
and circle the problem and solution." The teacher sons. However, 40% of those 82 lessons included only
reviews what problem and solution means and nominal comprehension instruction through either
reminds students about the problem and solution teacher-generated comprehension questions or a review
from the last story ... "Now, that was a fiction text. of vocabulary words. Although teachers frequently
This is a little different. It's nonfiction. We have to asked their students about what they were reading,
put it together. What do you know about the fea most questions were factual or rote in nature rather
tures of nonfiction? Look first at the picture on top, than higher level. Few teachers engaged their students
the map, and the caption. Look at the chart, but in interactive dialogues that would promote under
don't spend too much time on it. Get with a part standing.
ner. One reads one paragraph and the other finds Delving into the 49 lessons that provided other com
the problem and solution. You have 10 minutes to prehension-related activities, we saw a number of strate
read; then come back and we'll discuss it." gies and instructional practices being used; however,
Modeling or thinking aloud. Modeling and "thinking such instruction was rarely connected to current
aloud" are other forms of instruction that can be very research.
effective for helping students learn how to implement Research suggests that the highest effect sizes are
comprehension strategies. Yet, we only noted four associated with strategies that prompt students to mon
examples of these teaching behaviors. One such exam itor and reflect before, during, and after reading (e.g.,
ple appears above in the "generating questions" subsec Gajria et al., 2007; Gersten et al, 2001). Yet, we did not
tion. Another follows: see any examples of teachers deliberately teaching stu
Teacher (thinking aloud): What time of day is it? dents to use multiple strategies. Other aspects of reading
But I don't think the pictures are showing us. comprehension instruction associated with the highest
Like I was thinking it is midday, like 12 or 1, effect sizes (Swanson, 2001; Swanson et al., 1999) did
because, what is he saying? "It's too hot." But I not fare much better. Only occasionally did teachers
think that the illustration got us off track, did explain how to implement a strategy or model strategy
n't it, Abby? You were doing great thinking usage. Also, they rarely provided students with the scaf
about that. So maybe it is sun RISE? folding that could have promoted deeper learning. The
quality of the instruction varied in these instances.
DISCUSSION Instead of offering daily reviews of material taught,
At least in the classrooms in which we observed, comintroducing new material through examples and
prehension instruction seemed to have progressed little
demonstration, providing direct explanations, and
in the 30 years since Durkin's groundbreaking study making sure students had opportunities for guided feed
(1978-1979) or in the 12 years since Vaughn andback, many instances of instruction were quick expla
colleagues (1998) observed reading comprehension
nations or modeling without telling students what
instruction in special education resource rooms. Even
strategy was being demonstrated or why. On the other
though reading comprehension was one of the main hand, teachers did use cues to prompt students to use
instructional areas emphasized by the National Readingstrategies, but they tended to be superficial and without
Panel (2000) and promoted in Reading First, most of the
followup. None of the instances of instruction we
observed combined all aspects associated with the
special education teachers we observed still provided
limited reading comprehension instruction to their stuhighest effect sizes (Swanson, 2001). Perhaps, as Duffy
dents with LD. (2002) suggested, it is too difficult for many teachers to
In the 124 lessons we observed, only 82 addressed learn to teach this way.
comprehension (66%). The absence of comprehension In general, most teachers in the study seemed to be
instruction in 34% of the lessons led us to wonderaware of the need to incorporate some type of compre
if teachers prioritized word study over comprehension hension instruction into their teaching. We saw many
instruction or if comprehension instruction was taughtinstances of teachers asking students to predict. It
more often in the general education classroom. Yet, appeared that this was the easiest strategy for them to
pre- vious research of students with LD in general eduuse. However, they did not seem to understand the
cation classrooms suggests that they may not receive importance of following up on students' predictions to
much help there either (Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, see if they were accurate. Further, we noted that the
Mistretta-Hampston, & Echevarria, 1998; Ysseldyke,strategies of making connections with background
Thurlow, Mecklenburg, & Graden, 1984). knowledge and rereading were used more frequently
Despite the absence of comprehension instruction in
than more difficult or complex skills such as finding the
one third of the lessons we observed, comprehension
main idea and summarization. Participating teachers

Volume 33, Spring 2010 71

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
seemed unsure of what a summary entails. We observed whether or not these aspects influenced their instruc
other strategies only occasionally. tional practices. Determining the extent to which teach
Because many students with LD tend to be inactive ers operated under time or program constraints may be
learners (Torgesen & Licht, 1983), it is critical that we helpful in understanding why so few teachers explicitly
teach students to self-regulate their reading. Thus, we taught comprehension. Perhaps teachers were following
looked for ways teachers in our study promoted self-reg teachers' manuals and felt constrained by them; how
ulation and other metacognitive skills. Though a few ever, that did not seem to be the case.
teachers encouraged students to "think" during the Implications for Research and Practice
reading process, metacognitive strategy instruction was Our research suggests that there are still gaps between
largely missing. Most often, the reminder to think con
research and what teachers are doing in practice. It
sisted of a prompt to think about the meaning of what
appeared as though the teachers in this study did not
students were reading rather than to think about the
have sufficient understanding of how to teach reading
cognitive processes related to reading. Given the impor
comprehension, or at least were unable to incorporate
tance of teaching metacognitive strategies to students
an understanding into their practice. Although some
with LD (Gersten et al., 2001; Meltzer, 2007; Swanson,
teachers taught a few comprehension skills and strate
1999), teachers should provide explicit instruction gies, they did not demonstrate a full repertoire of ways
instead of casual comments about thinking, and focus
to teach comprehension. Perhaps even more impor
more on teaching metacognitive strategies designed to tant, they did not provide instruction that would help
enhance students' executive functioning as well as their students become self-regulated learners (Meltzer, 2007).
reading comprehension. If our goal is to ensure that students with LD become
Also, little attention was paid to text structure. In the
independent learners, teachers must help them identify
few cases where teachers taught text structures, they did breakdowns in comprehension, teach specific step-by
not make explicit the steps necessary to identify the step strategies, and help them internalize and general
structure. Since we know that skillful readers use organ
ize such strategies. We concur with Snow's (2002)
ization patterns within the text to assist in gaining assertion that "understanding how to improve reading
meaning from the text and that students with LD often comprehension outcomes, not just for students who
have difficulty with planning and organizing informa are failing in the later grades but for all students who
tion and ideas (Gersten et al., 2001), this was a notable
are facing increasing academic challenges, should be
omission.
the primary motivating factor in any future research
Limitations agenda" (p. xi).
This study examined how 41 special education teach It is not clear whether the special education teachers
ers promoted reading comprehension by observing in our study (a) did not understand what explicit com
examples of their instruction. We observed every prehension instruction should look like; (b) did not
teacher at least three times. Because we were not in the consider comprehension instruction important (e.g.,
participating teachers' classrooms more often, we can perhaps thought that phonics instruction should take
not say with certainty that comprehension instruction precedence over comprehension); (c) were constrained
did not take place at other times during the year. by curricular considerations that interfered with com
However, it is noteworthy that we observed many prehension instruction; or (d) simply were unsure of
missed opportunities to support student learning. what is involved in reading comprehension. Future
In addition, most of the teachers in our study taught research should include interviews that explore teach
in special education resource rooms rather than inclu ers' beliefs, concerns, or decisions regarding compre
sive settings. In these cases, we were unable to observe hension instruction to shed light on why teachers are
the literacy instruction that occurred in general educa doing little to promote comprehension.
tion classrooms. Therefore, students may have received We agree with Snow (2002), who emphasized that
comprehension instruction within the general educa teachers need guidance in how to combine and priori
tion classroom while resource room time was specifi tize various instructional approaches in the classroom.
cally devoted to word-level activities. This may help Future research should focus on preservice and inser
explain why 42 of the 124 lessons did not address com vice teacher education programs and the extent to
prehension. Yet, it does not explain the insufficient which they focus on reading comprehension. The
instruction in other lessons. National Reading Panel (2000) reported that for teach
We did not analyze teachers' instructional practices ers to use strategies effectively, extensive formal
according to the amount of time spent with students or instruction in reading comprehension is necessary.
the curriculum used. Therefore, we are unable to say Although we know a great deal about the features of

Learning Disability Quarterly 72

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
effective reading comprehension instruction and what R., & Dingle, M. (in preparation). Teacher quality in special
education: The role of domain expertise.
strategies are helpful for students, we know less about
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching
what it takes to help teachers become proficient in and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
teaching strategies to their students. Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1993). Strategy mastery by at
Also, as the National Reading Panel (2000) noted, we risk students: Not a simple matter. The Elementary School
do not know enough about which "teacher characteris Journal 94, 153-167.
tics influence successful instruction of reading compre Duffy, G G (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies.
In M. Pressley & K. C. Block (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:
hension" (p. 15). Several researchers have documented Research-based best practices (pp. 28-41). New York: Guilford.
the challenges in teaching teachers how to implement Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal
reading comprehension strategies and suggested ways about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research
to optimize professional development programs Quarterly, 14(4), 481-533.
(Deshler & Schumaker, 1993; Hilden & Pressley, 2007; Engelmann, S., Arbogast, A., Bruner, E., Lou Davis, K.,
Engelmann, O., Hanner, S., et al. (2002). SRA Reading Mastery
Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Plus. DeSoto, TX: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Klingner et al., 2004; Pressley & El Dinary, 1997). Englert, C. S. (1984). Effective direct instruction practices in spe
Clearly, we still need to do more to make sure teachers cial education settings. Remedial & Special Education, 5, 38-47.
are successful at promoting their students' reading com Fountas, I. C, & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first
teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
prehension.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K.; & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral
CONCLUSION reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theo
retical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of
In the past 30 years researchers have conducted Reading, 5, 239-256.
numerous studies on comprehension instruction. Yet, Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving
the findings from those studies do not seem to be comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A
reflected in the reality seen in at least some classrooms. research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210-225.
While the National Reading Panel (2000) and the Gamse, B. C, Bloom, H. S., Kemple, J. J., & Jacob, R. T. (2008).
Reading First impact study: Interim report (NCEE 2008-4016).
RAND (Snow, 2002) reports emphasized the need for
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation
more guidance for teachers in the area of comprehen and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
sion, it is not clear whether that is happening. The fact Department of Education.
that the recent Reading First evaluation found no sta Gelzheiser, L. M., & Myers, J. (1991). Reading instruction by class
tistically significant differences in students' reading room, remedial and resource room teachers. The Journal of
Special Education, 24, 512-526.
comprehension test scores (Gamse, Bloom, Kemple, &
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching
Jacob, 2008) suggests that comprehension is not reading comprehension strategies to students with learning dis
emphasized enough. abilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71,
Similar to Durkin's (1978-1979) findings, the most 279-320.
prevalent comprehension activity in our study was still Haager, D., Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Graves, A. (2003). The
English-Language Learner Classroom Observation Instrument:
asking questions. When other activities were involved,
Observations of beginning reading instruction in urban
teachers continued the practice of "mentioning" a skill schools. In S. R. Vaughn & K. L. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the
and providing opportunities to practice but neglected classroom: Systems for observing teaching and learning (pp. 111
to offer explicit instruction in the skill. Thus, it is clear 144). Baltimore: Brookes.
that a gap still exists between research and practice. Haynes, M., & Jenkins, J. (1986). Reading instruction in special
education resource rooms. American Educational Research
Our challenge is to find ways to bridge that gap. Journal, 23, 161-190.
Hilden, K. R., & Pressley, M. (2006). Self-regulation through trans
REFERENCES actional strategies instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23,
Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, M. (1989). School response to 51-75.
reading failure: Chapter 1 and special education students in Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C, & Deno, S.
grades 2, 4, & 8. Elementary School Journal, 89(5), 529-542. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading compre
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understanding about writing, hension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology,
reading, and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 95, 719-729.
Beck, I., Farr, R., Flor-Ada, A., Brechtel, M., McKeown, M.; Roser, Jenkins, J. R., Heliotis, J., Stein, M. L., & Haynes, M. (1987).
N., et al. (2003). Harcourt Trophies: Reading 1-6. Orlando, FL: Improving reading comprehension by using paragraph restate
Harcourt School Publishers. ments. Exceptional Children, 54, 54-59.
Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. G., Gersten, R., Klingner, J. K., Jimenez, R. T. (1997). The strategic reading abilities and potential
Dimino, J., Haager, D., Menon, S., Penfield, R., & Sindelar, P. T. of five low-literacy Latina/o readers in middle school. Reading
(2009). Examining the dimensions of teacher quality for begin Research Quarterly, 32(3), 224-243.
ning special education teachers: The role of domain expertise. Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Menendez, R. (2003).
Exceptional Children, 75, 391-411. Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices.
Brownell, M. T., Haager, D., Bishop, A., Klingner, J. K., Penfield, Exceptional Children, 69, 411-429.

Volume 33, Spring 2010 73

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Argiielles, M. E.; Hughes, M. T., & more important than the executive system? Journal of
Ah wee, S. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: "Real world" Experimental Child Psychology 72, 1-31.
lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, Swanson, H. L. (2001). Reading intervention research outcomes
25, 291-302. and students with LD: What are the major instructional ingre
LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Analyzing and interpret dients for successful outcomes? Perspectives, 27(2), 18-20.
ing ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for stu
Leinhardt, Gv Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. W. (1981). Reading dents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment out
instruction and its effects. American Educational Research come. New York: Guilford.
Journal, 18, 343-361. Torgesen, J. K. (1994). Issues in the assessment of executive func
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. tion: An information-processing perspective. In G. R. Lyon
(1996). Reading comprehension: A synthesis of research in (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities:
learning disabilities, In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), New views on measurement issues (pp. 143-162). Baltimore:
Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 277-303). Brookes.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Torgesen, J. K.; & Licht, B. (1983). The learning disabled child as
McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1990). Comprehension an inactive learner: Restrospect and prospects. In J. D.
and coherence: Neglected elements of literacy instruction in McKinney & L. Feagans (Eds.), Current topics in learning disabili
remedial and resource room services. Journal of Reading, Writing, ties (Vol. 1, pp. 3-32). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
and Learning Disabilities, 6(2), 149-182. Vaughn, S., Levy, S.; Coleman, M., & Bos, C. S. (2002). Reading
Meltzer, L. J. (Ed.). (2007). Executive function in education. New instruction for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of obser
York: Guilford Press. vation studies. Journal of Special Education, 36, 2-13.
Mercer, C. D., Jordan, L., Miller, M. D., Schenck, B. J., Black, K., Vaughn, S.; Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying
Bock, M., et al. (1997). Curriculum-based assessment in Alachua message in LD intervention research: Findings from research
County. Gainesville, FL: Exceptional Student Education School syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99-114.
Board of Alachua County. Vaughn, S., Moody, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises:
Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Fischer, M. (2000). Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children,
Reading instruction in the resource room: Set up for failure. 64(2), 211-226.
Exceptional Children, 66, 305-316. Wong, B.Y.L., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An in learning disabled and normally achieving students through
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on self-questing training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228-240.
reading and its implications for reading instruction [On-line]. Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., Mecklenburg, C, & Graden, J.
Available: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/small (1984). Opportunity to learn for regular and special education
book.pdf students during reading instruction. Remedial and Special
Education, 5, 29-37.
O'Sullivan, P. J., Ysseldyke, J. E., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M.
L. (1990). Mildly handicapped elementary students' opportu
nity to learn during reading instruction in mainstream and spe
FOOTNOTES
cial education settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 131-146. 1 We used an oral reading fluency measure developed by Alachua
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). The reciprocal teaching of County Schools in Florida (Mercer et al., 1997). Oral reading flu
comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring ency (ORF) was selected because the correlation between fluent
activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175. reading and overall reading ability has consistently been sup
Pressley, M., & El Dinary, P. B. (1997). What we know about trans ported (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Jenkins, Fuchs,
lating comprehension-strategies instruction research into prac van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003). Reliability coefficients for
tice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 486-488. the measure ranged from .89 to .99 for internal consistency, test
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & retest reliability, and interrater reliability.
Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth- and 2 Although scores of 2.5 and 3.0 indicate that these teachers were
fifth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of adequate in their teaching of reading comprehension, in retro
Reading, 2(2), 159-194. spect we believe that these scores were somewhat inflated. There
Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, enacted January 8, 2002. may have been a halo effect. In other words, if teachers seemed to
teach other areas of reading well, we were more likely to rate their
Roller, C. (1996). Variability not disability: Struggling readers in a
reading comprehension as adequate.
workshop classroom. Newark, DE: International Reading Associ
ation.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D pro AUTHORS' NOTE
gram in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. This study was conducted through the Center on Personnel
Stanovich, P., & Jordan, A. (1998). Canadian teachers' and princi Studies in Special Education, funded by the Office of Special
pals' beliefs about inclusive education as predictors of effec Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education (cooper
tive teaching in heterogeneous classrooms. Elementary School ative agreement #H3256Q000002).
Journal. 98, 221-238.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:
Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newberry Park, CA: Please address correspondence about this article to: Janette
Sage. Klingner, University of Colorado at Boulder, School of Education
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading comprehension and working 249 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0249; e-mail: janette.klingner?
memory in learning-disabled readers: Is the phonological loop colorado.edu

Learning Disability Quarterly 74

This content downloaded from 206.244.94.112 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:58:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms