Improving adolescent literacy

IES PRACTICE GUIDE WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE

Improving Adolescent Literacy:
Effective Classroom and
Intervention Practices

NCEE 2008-4027
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) publishes practice guides in education
to bring the best available evidence and expertise to bear on the types of systemic
challenges that cannot currently be addressed by single interventions or programs.
Authors of practice guides seldom conduct the types of systematic literature searches
that are the backbone of a meta-analysis, although they take advantage of such work
when it is already published. Instead, authors use their expertise to identify the
most important research with respect to their recommendations, augmented by a
search of 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 office that is responsible for independent review
of other IES publications. A critical task for peer reviewers of a practice guide is to
determine whether the evidence cited in support of particular recommendations is
up-to-date and that studies of similar or better quality that point in a different di-
rection have not been ignored. Because practice guides depend on the expertise of
their authors and their group decisionmaking, the content of a practice guide is not
and should not be viewed as a set of recommendations that in every case depends
on and flows inevitably from scientific research.

The goal of this practice guide is to formulate specific and coherent evidence-based
recommendations 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 specific recommendations for edu-
cators and the quality of evidence that supports these recommendations.

IES PRACTICE GUIDE

E ective Classroom and
Intervention Practices

August 2008

Panel
Michael L. Kamil (Chair)
STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Geo rey 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

Sta
Xinsheng “Cindy” Cai
Fiona Helsel
Yael Kidron
Elizabeth Spier
AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH

NCEE 2008-4027
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

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

Disclaimer
The opinions and positions expressed in this practice guide are the authors’ and do
not necessarily represent the opinions and positions of the Institute of Education Sci-
ences or the U.S. Department of Education. This practice guide should be reviewed
and applied according to the specific needs of the educators and education agency
using it, and with full realization that it represents the judgments of the review
panel regarding what constitutes sensible practice, based on the research that was
available at the time of publication. This practice guide should be used as a tool
to assist in decisionmaking rather than as a “cookbook.” Any references within the
document to specific education products are illustrative and do not imply endorse-
ment of these products to the exclusion of other products that are not referenced.

U.S. Department of Education
Margaret Spellings
Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences
Grover J. Whitehurst
Director

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance
Phoebe Cottingham
Commissioner

August 2008

This report is in the public domain. While permission to reprint this publication is
not 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: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A Prac-
tice Guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evalu-
ation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.

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

Alternative Formats
On request, this publication can be made available in alternative formats, such as
Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more information, call the
Alternative Format Center at (202) 205–8113.

Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices

Contents
Introduction 1

The What Works Clearinghouse standards and their relevance to this guide 3

Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices 4

Overview 4

Scope of the practice guide 8

Checklist for carrying out the recommendations 9

Recommendation 1. Provide explicit vocabulary instruction 11

Recommendation 2. Provide direct and explicit comprehension
strategy instruction 16

Recommendation 3. Provide opportunities for extended discussion of text
meaning and interpretation 21

Recommendation 4. Increase student motivation and engagement in
literacy learning 26

Recommendation 5. Make available intensive and individualized interventions
for struggling readers that can be provided by trained specialists 31

Conclusion 37

Appendix A. Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences 38

Appendix B. About the Authors 41

Appendix C. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest 42

Appendix D. Technical information on the studies 43

References 52

( iii )

IMPROvIng ADOLESCEnT LITERACy: EffECTIvE CLASSROOM AnD InTERvEnTIOn PRACTICES

List of tables
1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides 2

2. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence to support each 7

( iv )

Introduction reading instruction, we use this informa-
tion to make broader points about im-
The goal of this practice guide is to present proving practice. In this guide we have
specific and coherent evidence-based rec- tried to take findings from research or
ommendations that educators can use to practices recommended by experts and
improve literacy levels among adolescents describe how recommendations might ac-
in upper elementary, middle, and high tually unfold in school settings. In other
schools. The panel purposefully included words, we aim to provide sufficient detail
students in 4th and 5th grades within the so that educators will have a clear sense
realm of adolescents because their in- of the steps necessary to make use of the
structional needs related to literacy have recommendations.
more in common with those of students
in middle and high school than they do A unique feature of practice guides is the
with students in early elementary grades. explicit and clear delineation of the qual-
Many students in grades 4 and up experi- ity—as well as quantity— of evidence that
ence difficulty acquiring the advanced lit- supports each claim. To do this, we used
eracy skills needed to read in the content a semi-structured hierarchy suggested by
areas.1 The target audience for the practice IES. This classification system uses both
guide is teachers and other school person- the quality and the quantity of available
nel who have direct contact with students, evidence to help determine the strength of
such as coaches, counselors, and princi- the evidence base grounding each recom-
pals. The practice guide includes specific mended practice (table 1).
recommendations for educators along with
a discussion of the quality of evidence that Strong refers to consistent and generaliz-
supports these recommendations. able evidence that a practice causes bet-
ter outcomes for students in measures of
We, the authors, are a small group with reading proficiency.2
expertise on this topic. The range of evi-
dence we considered in developing this Moderate refers either to evidence from
guide is vast, ranging from experimental studies that allow strong causal conclu-
studies in which reading was the depen- sions but cannot be generalized with as-
dent variable, to trends in the National As- surance to the population on which a rec-
sessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) ommendation is focused (perhaps because
data, to correlational and longitudinal the findings have not been widely repli-
studies, again with reading as the major cated) or to evidence from studies that
variable of interest. For questions about are generalizable but have more causal
what works best, high-quality experimen- ambiguity than offered by experimental
tal and quasi-experimental studies—such designs (statistical models of correlational
as those meeting the criteria of the What data or group comparison designs for
Works Clearinghouse (http://www.ies. which equivalence of the groups at pretest
ed.gov/ncee/wwc)—have a privileged is uncertain).
position. In all cases we pay particular
attention to findings that are replicated Low refers to expert opinion based on rea-
across studies. sonable extrapolations from research and
theory on other topics and evidence from
Although we draw on evidence about
the effectiveness of specific practices in 2. Following What Works Clearinghouse guide-
lines, we consider a positive, statistically signifi-
1. Biancarosa and Snow (2004); Heller and Green- cant effect or large effect size (greater than 0.25)
leaf (2007). as an indicator of positive effects.

(1)

InTRODuCTIOn

Table 1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides

In general, characterization of the evidence for 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 of the range of participants and settings on
which the recommendation is focused to support the conclusion that the results can be generalized to
those participants and settings). Strong evidence for this practice guide is operationalized as:
• A systematic review of research that generally meets the standards of the What Works Clearing-
house (WWC) (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/) and supports the effectiveness of a program, prac-
tice, or approach with no contradictory evidence of similar quality; OR
Strong
• Several well-designed, randomized controlled trials or well designed quasi-experiments that gen-
erally meet the WWC standards and support the effectiveness of a program, practice, or approach,
with no contradictory evidence of similar quality; OR
• One large, well-designed, randomized controlled, multisite trial that meets the WWC standards
and supports the effectiveness of a program, practice, or approach, with no contradictory evi-
dence of similar quality; OR
• For assessments, evidence of reliability and validity that meets the Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing.a

In general, characterization of the evidence for 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 from studies that support strong
causal conclusions but where generalization is uncertain, or studies that support the generality of a
relationship but where the causality is uncertain. Moderate evidence for this practice guide is opera-
tionalized as:
• Experiments or quasi-experiments generally meeting the WWC standards and supporting the ef-
fectiveness of a program, practice, or approach with small sample sizes and/or other conditions
of implementation or analysis that limit generalizability and no contrary evidence; OR
• Comparison group studies that do not demonstrate equivalence of groups at pretest and there-
Moderate
fore do not meet the WWC standards but that (a) consistently show enhanced outcomes for par-
ticipants experiencing a particular program, practice, or approach and (b) have no major flaws
related to internal validity other than lack of demonstrated equivalence at pretest (e.g., only one
teacher or one class per condition, unequal amounts of instructional time, highly biased outcome
measures); OR
• Correlational research with strong statistical controls for selection bias and for discerning influ-
ence of endogenous factors and no contrary evidence; OR
• For assessments, evidence of reliability that meets the Standards for Educational and Psychological
Testingb but with evidence of validity from samples not adequately representative of the popula-
tion on which the recommendation is focused.

In general, characterization of the evidence for a recommendation as low means that the recommenda-
tion is based on expert opinion derived from strong findings or theories in related areas and/or expert
Low
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 for the moderate or high levels.

a. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measure-
ment in Education (1999).

b. Ibid.

(2)

InTRODuCTIOn

studies that do not meet the standards for studies with no design flaws and ran-
moderate or strong evidence. domized controlled trials that have
problems with randomization, attri-
The What Works Clearinghouse tion, or disruption.
standards and their relevance to
this guide • Does Not Meet Evidence Screens for
studies that do not provide strong evi-
In terms of the levels of evidence indicated dence of causal validity.
in table 1, we rely on What Works Clearing-
house (WWC) evidence standards to assess Appendix D provides more technical in-
the quality of evidence supporting educa- formation about the studies and our de-
tional programs and practices. The WWC cisions regarding the level of evidence
addresses evidence for the causal validity for each recommendation. To illustrate
of instructional programs and practices the types of studies reviewed, we de-
according to WWC standards. Informa- scribe one study for each recommenda-
tion about these standards is available at tion. Our goal in doing this is to provide
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc. The technical interested readers with more detail about
quality of each study is rated and placed the research designs, the intervention
into one of three categories: components, and the way impact was
measured.
• Meets Evidence Standards for random-
ized controlled trials and regression Dr. Michael Kamil
discontinuity studies that provide the Dr. Geoffrey D. Borman
strongest evidence of causal validity. Dr. Janice Dole
Cathleen C. Kral
• Meets Evidence Standards with Res- Dr. Terry Salinger
ervations for all quasi-experimental Dr. Joseph Torgesen

(3)

Improving Adolescent attention to the challenges of improving
Literacy: Effective reading instruction in upper elementary,
middle, and high school. Yet reading in-
Classroom and struction as a formal part of the curricu-
Intervention Practices lum typically decreases as students move
beyond upper elementary grades.

Overview To acquire the skills they need, students
must work hard to refine and build upon
Data from the 2007 National Assessment their initial reading skills, and teachers
of Educational Progress (NAEP) in read- in upper elementary grades and in mid-
ing report that 69 percent of 8th grade dle and high school classes should help
students fall below the proficient level in students acquire more advanced skills
their ability to comprehend the meaning once they understand the demands that
of text at their grade level.1 Equally alarm- content area tasks actually present, es-
ing, 26 percent of students read below the pecially to students who struggle with
basic level, which means that they do not reading.7 However, many teachers re-
have sufficient reading ability to under- port feeling unprepared to help their stu-
stand and learn from text at their grade dents or do not think that teaching read-
level. When these data are coupled with ing skills in content-area classes is their
reports showing that even high school responsibility.8
students with average reading ability are
currently unprepared for the literacy de- For more than 50 years9 the realities of stu-
mands of many workplace and postsec- dent reading difficulties and teacher lack
ondary educational settings, the need for of preparation to address them have been
improved literacy instruction of adoles- met by calls for more instruction in higher-
cents is apparent.2 level reading skills for adolescents and
for professional development in content-
Reading ability is a key predictor of achieve- area reading instruction for middle and
ment in mathematics and science,3 and the high school teachers. Although the debate
global information economy requires to- about the role of content-area teachers in
day’s American youth to have far more ad- reading instruction continues,10 the time
vanced literacy skills than those required has come to consider seriously the support
of any previous generation.4 However, as that needs to be given to struggling read-
long-term NAEP data5 and other studies ers and the role that every teacher needs
show,6 improvements in the literacy skills to play in working toward higher levels of
of older students have not kept pace with literacy among all adolescents, regardless
the increasing demands for literacy in the of their reading abilities.
workplace. These studies, and those men-
tioned earlier, suggest the need for serious A significant difficulty in working toward
higher levels of literacy involves struc-
tural barriers at the middle and high
1. Lee, Griggs, and Donahue (2007).
school levels that need to be overcome.
2. Pennsylvania Department of Education (2004);
Williamson (2004).
7. Heller and Greenleaf (2007).
3. ACT (2006).
8. Heller and Greenleaf (2007).
4. Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998).
9. Artley (1944); Moore, Readence, and Rickman
5. Perie and Moran (2005). (1983).

6. ACT (2006). 10. Heller and Greenleaf (2007).

(4)

OvERvIEW

Researchers11 have found that some teach- English.15 The search for sources focused
ers circumvent the need for students to only on studies of reading programs con-
read texts by adjusting their assignments ducted within a school or clinical setting
or methods of presenting content, rather and excluded those offered in organized
than helping students learn the discipline- after school programs. These decisions
specific strategies needed for content-area narrowed the number of empirical stud-
work. Another researcher12 found that ies from which recommendations could
content-area teachers expressed resis- be drawn.
tance to the work of the high school read-
ing specialists, whose job is to provide Finally, the research that met the crite-
students with additional help outside their ria for inclusion in this guide included
regular class structure. And still others13 few studies involving the use of com-
have suggested that teachers who strive puter technology. Despite great inter-
primarily to cover the content of their est in and increasing use of software for
disciplines are unaware that by increas- reading instruction in middle and high
ing students’ ability to read their assign- schools, there is little experimental or
ments they could actually increase the quasi-experimental research demonstrat-
depth and breadth of content that could ing the effectiveness of that work. Most
be covered efficiently. A final barrier14 recently, the National Evaluation of Edu-
is that when schools actually institute cational Technology16 assessed the ef-
programs to help struggling adolescent fectiveness of four software packages for
readers, they are housed within special literacy instruction at the 4th grade level,
education programs and thus serve only using an experimental design with a na-
a small proportion of the students whom tional sample of 45 schools, comprising
they could benefit. 118 teachers and 2,265 students. Although
the individual products were not identi-
In determining what to include in the ado- fied by specific results, none of the tested
lescent literacy practice guide, the panel software products produced statistically
recognized that recommendations for in- significant improvements in student read-
structional strategies must be evidence- ing achievement at the end of the first of
based. That is, rigorous studies have two years of the study. At the same time,
shown the practices to be associated with the National Reading Panel suggested that
improvements in students’ reading pro- there is some promise in using computers
ficiency. While fully understanding that to supplement classroom instruction; how-
all aspects of literacy are important for ever, these conclusions do not rise to the
success in middle and high school, panel level of a supported endorsement.
members decided to focus specifically on
studies about reading, that is, studies in A major source for identifying strategies
which reading was a dependent variable. that can have an immediate impact on
Although aware of the challenges faced by student reading achievement was the Re-
English language learners, we also focused port of the National Reading Panel,17 es-
on students whose first language was pecially its sections on comprehension

15. The Institute of Education Sciences has pub-
11. Schoenbach et al. (1999).
lished a practice guide on effective literacy in-
12. Darwin (2003). struction for English language learners, which
can be accessed at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee.
13. Kingery (2000); O’Brien, Moje, and Stewart
(2001). 16. Dynarski et al. (2007).

14. Barry (1997). 17. National Reading Panel (2000a).

(5)

OvERvIEW

and vocabulary. What makes the National marginal at best, and also those who strug-
Reading Panel evidence so important is gle with reading. The first two recommen-
that the eligible research for vocabulary dations focus on strategies for vocabulary
consisted mostly of studies of students in and comprehension instruction: Provide
grades 3 and above, while the research on explicit vocabulary instruction (Level of
comprehension involved mostly students evidence: Strong) and provide direct and
in grades 4 and above. The analysis of explicit comprehension strategy instruc-
adolescent literacy practices presented in tion (Level of evidence: Strong) (table 2).
summary form in Reading Next: A Vision
for Action and Research in Middle and High Although its research base is not as strong
School Literacy18 has also been influential as that for vocabulary and comprehension,
in shaping discussions on adolescent lit- the third recommendation concerns dis-
eracy and has provided a starting point cussion of and about texts. Most, if not all,
for developing this guide. the studies that examined instruction in
comprehension strategies indicated the im-
Adolescent literacy is a complex concept portance of practicing those strategies in
because it entails more than the scores the context of discussions about the mean-
that students achieve on standardized ing of texts. Further, there is evidence that
reading tests. It also entails reading to encouraging high-quality discussion about
learn in subjects that present their ideas texts, even in the absence of explicit in-
and content in different ways. Students struction in reading comprehension strate-
need to be able to build knowledge by gies, can have a positive impact on reading
comprehending different kinds of texts, comprehension skills. Small- and large-
mastering new vocabulary, and sharing group discussions also provide teachers
ideas with others. Although causal links with an important window into students’
have not been empirically established thinking that can inform future instruc-
between improvements in reading and tion. Therefore, the third recommendation
increases in course grades and scores on focuses on the use of discussion in improv-
subject-based tests, students’ reading dif- ing the reading outcomes of students: Pro-
ficulties will obviously impede their ability vide opportunities for extended discussion
to master content-area coursework fully. of text meaning and interpretation (Level
Test score data and research continually of evidence: Moderate).
confirm that many adolescents first need
to improve their reading comprehension The fourth recommendation concerns stu-
skills before they can take full advantage dent motivation and engagement. These
of content-area instruction. two factors are widely recognized as im-
portant moderators for learning, but there
In determining what to include in this is limited scientific evidence that links
practice guide, panel members also recog- these factors directly to student achieve-
nized that recommendations must be prac- ment in reading. Nonetheless, all teachers
tical. Teachers must perceive the value of can recognize the importance of bolster-
each recommendation so that they envi- ing students’ motivation and finding ways
sion themselves integrating the recom- to increase students’ engagement with
mendations into their instruction to make the material they are asked to read. The
content-area reading assignments acces- recommendation provided in this prac-
sible to all students—those who are learn- tice guide ties motivation and engage-
ing to make sense of new and unfamiliar ment specifically to literacy outcomes:
academic areas, those whose skills are Increase student motivation and engage-
ment in literacy learning (Level of evi-
18. Biancarosa and Snow (2004). dence: Moderate).
(6)

OvERvIEW

Table 2. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence to
support each

Recommendation Level of evidence

1. Provide explicit vocabulary instruction. Strong

2. Provide direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruction. Strong

3. Provide opportunities for extended discussion of text meaning and
Moderate
interpretation.

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

5. Make available intensive and individualized interventions for strug-
Strong
gling readers that can be provided by trained specialists.

Panel members also recognized that some strong and focused instruction, they will
students need more intense help to im- continue to struggle to make sense of the
prove literacy skills than classroom teach- materials assigned to them in their course-
ers can provide. Because of this, our fifth work, and they are at serious risk of being
recommendation concerns struggling read- unable to use literacy skills successfully in
ers, those students who probably score well their postsecondary lives. However, if they
below their peers on state reading tests and are identified from among their peers as
whose reading deficits hinder successful being struggling readers and if their weak-
performance in their coursework. Under nesses in reading are carefully assessed by
normal classroom instructional conditions, trained specialists using measures that de-
these students are unable to make needed tect strengths and weaknesses, and this as-
improvements in their reading skills, so sessment is followed by intensive interven-
they typically cannot meet grade-level tions that are focused on their particular
standards in literacy throughout middle needs, they will have more opportunities to
and high schools. They need additional improve their literacy skills substantially.
help that the classroom teacher cannot This improvement should then translate
be expected to provide. Unless their read- into gains in content-area achievement
ing growth is dramatically accelerated by (Level of evidence: Strong).

(7)

Scope of the because the formal evidence base for these
practice guide methods is not yet sufficiently developed.
The fifth recommendation refers to read-
ing interventions that in many cases must
This practice guide provides five recom- be provided by reading specialists or spe-
mendations for increasing the reading cially trained teachers.
ability of adolescents. The first three rec-
ommendations are strategies that class- In offering these recommendations, we re-
room teachers can incorporate into their mind the reader that adolescent literacy is
instruction to help students gain more complex. There are many reasons why ad-
from their reading tasks in content-area olescents have difficulty making sense of
classes. The fourth recommendation offers texts, and there are many manifestations
teachers strategies for improving students’ of these difficulties. Addressing students’
motivation for and engagement with learn- needs often requires coordinated efforts
ing. Together, the recommendations offer from teachers and specialists.
a coherent statement: specific strategies
are available for classroom teachers and Readers should also note that appropri-
specialists to address the literacy needs of ate professional development in read-
all adolescent learners. The fifth recom- ing has been shown to produce higher
mendation refers specifically to adolescent achievement in students.19 Providing pro-
struggling readers, those students whose fessional development to content-area
poor literacy skills weaken their ability to teachers focused on instructional tech-
make sense of written material. niques they can use to meet the literacy
needs of all their students, including those
Although not an exhaustive list, the rec- who struggle, is highly recommended in
ommendations are representative of panel this practice guide. Professional develop-
members’ thinking about methods that ment also needs to address the specific
have the strongest research support and literacy demands of different disciplines.
those that are appropriate for use with One attempt at specifying these demands
adolescents. The first four recommenda- describes specific skills in mathematics,
tions can be implemented easily by class- science, social studies, and English.20 Fo-
room teachers within their regular in- cusing on these skills would be an ideal
struction, regardless of the content areas starting point for professional develop-
they teach. Recommendations for teaching ment for content-area teachers who want
students about the discourse patterns of to incorporate elements of literacy instruc-
specific subjects that adolescents study tion in their content area instruction.
(for example, different ways of present-
ing information, creating arguments, or
19. National Reading Panel (2000a).
evaluating evidence in science compared
with history) are not included in this guide 20. International Reading Association (2006).

(8)

Checklist for carrying out the Recommendation 3.
recommendations Provide opportunities for extended
discussion of text meaning and
Recommendation 1. interpretation
Provide explicit vocabulary instruction
Carefully prepare for the discussion by
Dedicate a portion of regular classroom selecting engaging materials and developing
lessons to explicit vocabulary instruction. stimulating questions.

Provide repeated exposure to new words Ask follow-up questions that help pro-
in multiple contexts, and allow sufficient vide continuity and extend the discussion.
practice sessions in vocabulary instruction.
Provide a task or discussion format that
give sufficient opportunities to use new students can follow when they discuss text
vocabulary in a variety of contexts through in small groups.
activities such as discussion, writing, and
extended reading. Develop and practice the use of a spe-
cific “discussion protocol.”
Provide students with strategies to make
them independent vocabulary learners. Recommendation 4.
Increase student motivation and
Recommendation 2. engagement in literacy learning
Provide direct and explicit
comprehension strategy instruction Establish meaningful and engaging
content learning goals around the essential
Select carefully the text to use when ideas of a discipline as well as around the
beginning to teach a given strategy. specific learning processes used to access
those ideas.
Show students how to apply the strate-
gies they are learning to different texts. Provide a positive learning environ-
ment that promotes student autonomy in
Make sure that the text is appropriate learning.
for the reading level of students.
Make literacy experiences more relevant
use a direct and explicit instruction les- to student interests, everyday life, or impor-
son plan for teaching students how to use tant current events.
comprehension strategies.
Build classroom conditions to promote
Provide the appropriate amount of higher reading engagement and conceptual
guided practice depending on the difficulty learning through such strategies as goal set-
level of the strategies that students are ting, self-directed learning, and collaborative
learning. learning.

Talk about comprehension strategies
while teaching them.

(9)

ChECkLIST fOR CARRyIng OuT ThE RECOMMEnDATIOnS

Recommendation 5. Make available
intensive individualized interventions Select an intervention that provides an
for struggling readers that can be explicit instructional focus to meet each stu-
provided by qualified specialists dent’s identified learning needs.

use reliable screening assessments to Provide interventions where intensive-
identify students with reading difficulties ness matches student needs: the greater
and follow up with formal and informal as- the instructional need, the more intensive
sessments to pinpoint each student’s instruc- the intervention. Assuming a high level of
tional needs. instructional quality, the intensity of inter-
ventions is related most directly to the size
of instructional groups and amount of in-
structional time.

( 10 )

Recommendation 1. One caveat is critical to interpreting the
Provide explicit research on vocabulary instruction. While
all of these studies show effects on vo-
vocabulary instruction cabulary learning, only some show that
explicit vocabulary instruction has effects
on standardized measures of reading com-
Teachers should provide students prehension. Although reading comprehen-
with explicit vocabulary instruction sion is clearly the ultimate goal of reading
both as part of reading and language instruction, it is important to note that the
arts classes and as part of content- construct of comprehension includes, but
area classes such as science and social is not limited to, vocabulary. While it is
studies. By giving students explicit likely that the cumulative effects of learn-
instruction in vocabulary, teachers help ing vocabulary would eventually show
them learn the meaning of new words effects on reading comprehension, we be-
and strengthen their independent skills lieve additional research is necessary to
of constructing the meaning of text. demonstrate this relationship.

Level of evidence: Strong Brief summary of evidence to
support the recommendation
The panel considers the level of evidence
supporting this recommendation to be In the early stages of reading most of the
strong, based on six randomized con- words in grade-level texts are familiar to
trolled experimental studies and three students as part of their oral vocabulary.
well designed quasi-experiments that dem- However, as students progress through
onstrated group equivalence at pretest.1 the grades, print vocabulary increasingly
An additional six studies with weaker de- contains words that are rarely part of oral
signs provided direct evidence to support vocabulary. This is particularly the case
this recommendation.2 A single subject de- for content-area material. In many content-
sign study also provided evidence about area texts it is the vocabulary that carries a
the effect of vocabulary instruction on stu- large share of the meaning through special-
dents’ outcomes.3 The research supporting ized vocabulary, jargon, and discipline-re-
explicit vocabulary instruction includes lated concepts. Learning these specialized
students in upper elementary, middle, vocabularies contributes to the success of
and high schools from diverse geographic reading among adolescent students. Re-
regions and socioeconomic backgrounds search has shown that integrating explicit
and addresses a wide variety of strategies vocabulary instruction into the existing
of vocabulary instruction. curriculum of subject areas such as science
or social studies enhances students’ ability
1. Barron and Melnik (1973); Baumann et al. (2002); to acquire textbook vocabulary.4
Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990);
Brett, Rothlein, and Hurley (1996); Lieberman Children often learn new words inciden-
(1967); Margosein, Pascarella, and Pflaum (1982); tally from context. However, according
Nelson and Stage (2007); Xin and Reith (2001). to a meta-analysis of the literature, the
2. Beck, Perfetti, and McKeown (1982); Jenkins, probability that they will learn new words
Matlock, and Slocum (1989); Koury (1996); Rud- while reading is relatively low—about 15
dell and Shearer (2002); Stump et al. (1992); Ter- percent.5 Therefore, although incidental
rill, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (2004).

3. Malone and McLaughlin (1997). The standards
4. Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990).
for judging the quality of a single subject design
study are currently being developed. 5. Swanborn and de Glopper (1999).

( 11 )

1. PROvIDE ExPLICIT vOCABuLARy InSTRuCTIOn

learning helps students develop their vo- prose, expository texts, and specialized
cabulary, additional explicit instructional word lists.9
support needs to be provided as part of
the curriculum to ensure that all students Explicit vocabulary instruction is a name
acquire the necessary print vocabulary for for a family of strategies that can be di-
academic success. In many academic texts, vided into two major approaches: direct in-
students may use context clues within the struction in word meaning and instruction
text, combined with their existing seman- in strategies to promote independent vo-
tic and syntactic knowledge to infer the cabulary acquisition skills. Direct instruc-
meaning of unfamiliar words.6 Explicit tion in word meaning includes helping stu-
vocabulary instruction may be essential dents look up definitions in dictionaries
to this development of these types of in- and glossaries, read the words and their
ference skills. definitions, match words and their defini-
tions, participate in oral recitation, memo-
Words are best learned through repeated rize definitions, and use graphic displays
exposure in multiple contexts and do- of the relationships among words and con-
mains. Many content-area texts, such as cepts such as semantic maps. Strategies to
those in biology and physics, however, promote independent vocabulary acqui-
include specialized vocabulary, jargon, sition skills include analyzing semantic,
and discipline-related concepts that stu- syntactic, or context clues to derive the
dents may not encounter outside their meaning of words by using prior knowl-
textbooks. This aspect of presenting edge and the context in which the word is
content-area material limits the amount presented. Research shows that both ap-
of exposure students will have with these proaches can effectively promote students’
unfamiliar terms. If students encounter vocabulary.10 The first approach can add
unknown words in almost every sen- to students’ ability to learn a given set of
tence in a textbook, learning the content words, whereas the second approach has
becomes daunting and discouraging. Ex- the added value of helping students gen-
plicit instruction in specialized vocabu- eralize their skills to a variety of new texts
laries is an important way to contribute in multiple contexts. In that respect, the
to successful reading among adolescent two approaches are complementary rather
students.7 than conflicting.

Research has shown that integrating ex- Some students acquire words best from
plicit vocabulary instruction into the ex- reading and writing activities, whereas
isting content-area curriculum in content other students benefit more from visual
areas such as science or social studies and physical experiences.11 For exam-
enhances students’ ability to acquire text- ple, short documentary videos may help
book vocabulary.8 Additional studies that students learn new concepts and terms
examined students’ scores on the vocab- because they provide a vivid picture of
ulary subtests of standardized reading how the object looks in the context of its
tests demonstrated that explicit vocabu-
lary instruction had a substantial effect
on students’ vocabulary acquisition in the 9. Barron and Melnik (1973); Baumann et al.
(2002); Beck et al. (1982); Brett et al. (1996); Nel-
context of a variety of texts, including
son and Stage (2007)

10. Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990);
6. Swanborn and de Glopper (1999).
Jenkins et al. (1989)
7. Beck et al. (1982).
11. Barron and Melnik (1973); Xin and Reith
8. Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990) (2001).

( 12 )


environment or specialized use.12 Using respect to the effects of such instruction
computer software to teach vocabulary is on general measures of comprehension.
an effective way to leverage instructional Only a small number of the studies on
time and provide a variety of practice explicit vocabulary instruction included
modes—oral, print, and even multimedia comprehension outcome measures and
elaborations of words and concepts. Pro- found meaningful increases in students’
grams that allow students to engage in reading comprehension. It may be that
independent practice can free teachers to whereas limited vocabulary interferes
work with other students in other instruc- with comprehension, additional literacy
tional modes. skills are needed for successful reading
comprehension.
Other studies have shown that students
also learn vocabulary through rich discus- How to carry out the
sions of texts (see recommendation 3). For recommendation
instance, one study showed that discus-
sion improved knowledge of word mean- 1. Dedicate a portion of the regular class-
ings and relationships for students reading room lesson to explicit vocabulary instruc-
biology texts.13 Discussion was also used tion. The amount of time will be dictated by
in another study as part of the interven- the vocabulary load of the text to be read
tion.14 Discussion seems to have its effects and the students’ prior knowledge of the
by allowing students to participate as both vocabulary. Making certain that students
speakers and listeners. While this is not are familiar with the vocabulary they will
explicit instruction, it does have some encounter in reading selections can help
additional benefits. For example, discus- make the reading task easier. Computer in-
sion might force students to organize vo- struction can be an effective way to provide
cabulary as they participate, even testing practice on vocabulary and leverage class-
whether or not the vocabulary is used ap- room time.
propriately. It also presents opportunities
for repeated exposure to words, shown to 2. use repeated exposure to new words in
be a necessary condition for vocabulary multiple oral and written contexts and allow
learning. Vocabulary learning in these sufficient practice sessions.15 Words are usu-
cases did not result from explicit instruc- ally learned only after they appear several
tion, but teachers who recognize potential times. In fact, researchers16 estimate that it
of this kind of learning can supplement could take as many as 17 exposures for a
these interactions with new vocabulary student to learn a new word. Repeated ex-
with brief, focused explicit instruction posure could be in the same lesson or pas-
to ensure that students share a common sage, but the exposures will be most effec-
understanding of unfamiliar words and tive if they appear over an extended period
terms and have an opportunity to practice of time.17 Words that appear only once or
new vocabulary. twice in a text are typically not words that
should be targeted for explicit instruction
Although the research noted so far dem- because there may never be enough prac-
onstrates the positive effects of explicit tice to learn the word completely. Students
vocabulary instruction on vocabulary should be provided with the definitions of
acquisition, there are mixed results with these infrequent words.

12. Xin and Reith (2001). 15. Jenkins et al. (1989).

13. Barron and Melnik (1973). 16. Ausubel and Youssef (1965).

14. Xin and Reith (2001). 17. Ausubel and Youssef (1965).

( 13 )


3. give sufficient opportunities to use new Content-area textbooks are loaded with too
vocabulary in a variety of contexts through much specialized vocabulary and jargon.
activities such as discussion, writing, and Teachers need to select carefully the most
extended reading. This will ensure that stu- important words to teach explicitly each
dents begin to acquire a range of productive day. Several popular methods of selecting
meanings for the words they are learning words for vocabulary instruction are avail-
and the correct way to use those words in able. Two methods seem important for ado-
addition to simply being able to recognize lescent readers:
them in print.
• One method uses as a criterion the
4. Provide students with strategies to make frequency of the words in instruc-
them independent vocabulary learners. One tional materials.20 This, again, is more
way is to give them strategies to use com- important for elementary materials
ponents (prefixes, roots, suffixes) of words where the vocabulary is selected from
to derive the meaning of unfamiliar words; a relatively constrained set of instruc-
another is to make use of reference ma- tional materials. For most adolescents,
terial such as glossaries included in their this constraint on vocabulary in in-
textbooks.18 structional materials diminishes over
time, making the frequency method of
Potential roadblocks and solutions selecting words less useful for teach-
ing adolescent students reading con-
1. Students may vary in their response to tent. However, for adolescent students
different vocabulary instruction strategies. who have limited vocabularies, select-
for example, some students respond better ing high-frequency, unknown words
to sensory information than to verbal infor- remains an important instructional
mation about word meaning. Teachers need strategy.
to combine multiple approaches in provid-
ing explicit vocabulary instruction.19 for in- • Another method uses three categories
stance, as described above, it is helpful to of words: Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III.
expose students to vocabulary numerous This concept has been applied most
times either in one lesson or over a series of effectively for literary texts with stu-
lessons. It is also helpful to combine this re- dents at elementary levels. Tier I words
peated exposure with a number of different are those typically in readers’ vocab-
explicit instruction strategies, such as using ularies and should not be the focus
direct instruction techniques (getting stu- of instruction. These high-frequency
dents to look up definitions in dictionaries), words are usually acquired very early.
helping promote students to independently Tier III words are rare words that are
acquire vocabulary skills (using context clues recommended for instruction only
to derive meaning), offering students the when they are encountered in a text.
opportunity to work on the computer using That leaves Tier II words as the focus
various software, and allowing students to of explicit vocabulary instruction prior
discuss what they have read. to reading a text. The criteria for what
constitutes membership in each tier
2. Teachers may not know how to select are not sharply defined, but are loosely
words to teach, especially in content areas. based on frequency and the utility for
future reading.21

18. Baumann et al. (2002); Baumann et al.
(2003). 20. Biemiller (2005); Hiebert (2005).
19. Lieberman (1967). 21. Beck et al. (1982).

( 14 )


• For adolescent readers of content mate- 3. Teachers may perceive that they do not
rials, vocabulary should be selected on have time to teach vocabulary. Teachers are
the basis of how important the words often focused on the factual aspect of stu-
are for learning in the particular disci- dents’ content-area learning and find little
pline, rather than the tier in which the time to focus on other issues in reading.
word is located. For example, in a 9th- Whenever reading is part of a lesson, a few
grade biology text, the word “cytoskel- minutes spent on explicit vocabulary in-
eton” might be a target for prereading struction will pay substantial dividends for
instruction in a chapter on cell biology, student learning. Some effort in teaching
even though it would generally be con- students to become independent vocabu-
sidered a Tier III word because it al- lary learners will lessen the amount of time
most never appears in general reading required by teachers as part of the lesson.22
or conversation. Most of the words for Making students even slightly more inde-
adolescent readers should be selected pendent vocabulary learners will eventually
on the basis of how important they are increase the amount of content-area instruc-
to understanding the content that stu- tional time.
dents are expected to read. For much
content material, the words that carry Using computers can give teachers the op-
the burden of the meaning of the text portunity to provide independent practice
are rare words, except in texts and ma- on learning vocabulary. Teachers will be
terials related to a specific discipline. able to leverage instructional time by hav-
Despite the rarity of the words, they are ing students work independently, either
often critical to learning the discipline before or after reading texts.
content and thus should be the subject
of explicit instruction, which is almost 22. Baumann et al. (2002); Baumann et al.
the only way they can be learned. (2003).

( 15 )

Recommendation 2. Level of evidence: Strong
Provide direct and The panel considers the level of evidence
explicit comprehension supporting this recommendation to be
strategy instruction strong, on the basis of five randomized
experimental studies25 and additional evi-
dence from a single subject design study26
Teachers should provide adolescents that examined the effects of teaching main
with direct and explicit instruction in idea summarization on adolescents’ com-
comprehension strategies to improve prehension of narrative and informational
students’ reading comprehension. texts. In addition, this body of research
Comprehension strategies are is supported by numerous other studies
routines and procedures that readers that vary in research design and quality
use to help them make sense of and by additional substantive reviews of
texts. These strategies include, but the research.27
are not limited to, summarizing,
asking and answering questions, Brief summary of evidence to
paraphrasing, and finding the main support the recommendation
idea. Comprehension strategy
instruction can also include specific Approaches for teaching reading com-
teacher activities that have been prehension to adolescents are a common
demonstrated to improve students’ concern among middle and high school
comprehension of texts. Asking teachers because many adolescent stu-
students questions and using graphic dents have a hard time comprehending
organizers are examples of such their content-area textbooks.28 Therefore,
strategies. Direct and explicit teaching helping students comprehend these texts
involves a teacher modeling and should be a high priority for upper elemen-
providing explanations of the specific tary, middle, and high school teachers.
strategies students are learning, giving Using comprehension strategies may be
guided practice and feedback on the a new idea for many teachers. However,
use of the strategies, and promoting comprehension strategy instruction has
independent practice to apply the been around for some time and is the topic
strategies.23 An important part of of a number of resource books available
comprehension strategy instruction
is the active participation of students 25. Hansen and Pearson (1983); Katims and Har-
in the comprehension process. In ris (1997); Margosein et al. (1982); Peverly and
addition, explicit instruction involves Wood (2001); Raphael and McKinney (1983).
providing a sufficient amount of
26. Jitendra et al. (1998). The standards for judg-
support, or scaffolding, to students ing the quality of a single subject design study
as they learn the strategies to ensure are currently being developed.
success.24
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
23. Brown, Campione, and Day (1981); Dole et al. (1989); Pressley, Symons et al. (1989); Rosen-
et al. (1991); Kame’enui et al. (1997); Pearson shine and Meister (1994); Rosenshine, Meis-
and Dole (1987); Pressley, Snyder, and Cariglia- ter, and Chapman (1996); Weinstein and Mayer
Bull (1987). (1986).

24. Brown et al. (1981); Palincsar and Brown 28. Biancarosa and Snow (2006); Chall and Con-
(1984); Pearson and Gallagher (1983). rad (1991); Kamil (2003); Moore et al. (1999).

( 16 )

2. PROvIDE DIRECT AnD ExPLICIT COMPREhEnSIOn STRATEgy InSTRuCTIOn

to help teachers teach strategies to their the page because they are not actively
students.29 Four ideas about teaching com- processing the meaning of what they are
prehension strategies that are important reading. Instruction in the application of
for teachers to understand can be gleaned comprehension strategies may help these
from the research: students become active readers.

The effectiveness of a number of different Most of the research studies compared
strategies has been demonstrated in the the use of one or more strategies against
small set of experimental studies meet- a control condition that typically included
ing the WWC standards. These strategies traditional, or “business as usual” instruc-
included having students summarize main tion. So, it is really not possible to compare
ideas both within paragraphs and across one or more strategies against another.
texts, asking themselves questions about We cannot say that paraphrasing is more
what they have read, paraphrasing what powerful than main-idea summarizing,
they have read, drawing inferences that or that drawing inferences on the basis of
are based on text information and prior text information and prior knowledge is
knowledge, answering questions at dif- better than answering questions at differ-
ferent points in the text, using graphic or- ent points in the text. Very little research
ganizers, and thinking about the types of tells us that. We can say that it appears
questions they are being asked to answer. that asking and answering questions, sum-
It appears that teaching these specific marizing, and using graphic organizers
strategies is particularly powerful. How- are particularly powerful strategies. But
ever, other strategies have been evaluated even with these strategies we cannot say
in the literature and demonstrated to be which ones are the best or better than
useful as well.30 The point here is that it others for which students and for which
may not be the particular strategies that classrooms.
make the difference in terms of student
comprehension. Many researchers think It appears that multiple-strategy training
that it is not the specific strategy taught, results in better comprehension than sin-
but rather the active participation of stu- gle-strategy training. All the strong stud-
dents in the comprehension process that ies that support this recommendation in-
makes the most difference on students’ clude teaching more than one strategy to
comprehension.31 The strategies listed the same group of students. For example,
above might be particularly useful for one study used finding the main ideas and
middle and high school teachers students summarizing to help students compre-
who are passive readers. These students’ hend texts better.32 Another study taught
eyes sometimes glaze over the words on students to make connections between
new text information and prior knowledge,
29. Blanchowicz and Ogle (2001); Harvey and make predictions about the content of the
Goudvis (2000); Keene (2006); Keene and Zim- text, and draw inferences.33 This finding
merman (1997); McLaughlin and Allen (2001); is consistent with those from the National
Oczkus (2004); Outsen and Yulga (2002); Stebick Reading Panel, which also found benefits
and Dain (2007); Tovani (2004); Wilhelm (2001); from teaching students to use more than
Zwiers (2004). one strategy to improve their reading com-
30. Brown et al. (1996); Cross and Paris (1988); prehension skills.34
Dewitz, Carr, and Patberg (1987); Idol (1987);
Klingner, Vaughn, and Schumm (1998); Paris,
32. Katims and Harris (1997).
Cross, and Lipson (1984); Pressley (1976); Re-
utzel (1985). 33. Hansen and Pearson (1983).
31. Gersten et al. (2001); Pressley et al. (1987). 34. National Reading Panel (2000a).

( 17 )


Direct and explicit instruction is a power- 1. Select carefully the text to use when first
ful delivery system for teaching compre- beginning to teach a given strategy. Although
hension strategies. This finding comes strategies can be applied to many different
from one of the five strong studies and texts, they cannot be applied blindly to all
from a number of other studies.35 Direct texts. for example, using main-idea summa-
and explicit instruction involves a series rizing is difficult to do with narrative texts
of steps that include explaining and mod- because narrative texts do not have clear
eling the strategy, using the strategy for main ideas. Main-idea summarizing should
guided practice, and using the strategy be used with informational texts, such as a
for independent practice. Explaining and content-area textbook or a nonfiction trade
modeling include defining each of the book. Similarly, asking questions about a
strategies for students and showing them text is more easily applied to some texts
how to use those strategies when reading than to others.
a text. Guided practice involves the teacher
and students working together to apply the 2. Show students how to apply the strate-
strategies to texts they are reading. This gies they are learning to different texts, not
may involve extensive interaction between just to one text. Applying the strategies to
the teacher and students when students different texts encourages students to learn
are applying the strategies to see how to use the strategies flexibly.36 It also allows
well they understand the particular text students to learn when and where to apply
they are reading. Or, it may involve having the strategies and when and where the strat-
students practice applying the strategies egies are inappropriate.37
to various texts in small groups. Indepen-
dent practice occurs once the teacher is 3. Ensure that the text is appropriate for the
convinced that students can use the strat- reading level of students. A text that is too
egies on their own. At that point, students difficult to read makes using the strategy
independently practice applying the strat- difficult because students are struggling
egies to a new text. with the text itself. Likewise, a text that is
too easy eliminates the need for strategies
How to carry out the in the first place. Begin teaching strategies
recommendation by using a single text followed by students’
applying them to appropriate texts at their
Upper elementary, middle, and second- reading level.
ary school teachers can take several ac-
tion steps to implement explicit strategy 4. use direct and explicit instruction for
instruction, which involves helping stu- teaching students how to use comprehen-
dents actively engage in the texts they sion strategies. As the lesson begins, it is
read. A number of different strategies can important for teachers to tell students spe-
be taught directly and explicitly to stu- cifically what strategies they are going to
dents and applied to content-area texts learn, tell them why it is important for them
they read. Assisting students in learn- to learn the strategies,38 model how to use
ing how to apply these strategies to their the strategies by thinking aloud with a text,39
texts will empower them and give them provide guided practice with feedback so
more control over their reading and un- that students have opportunities to practice
derstanding. Specifically, to implement
explicit strategy instruction, teachers can 36. Pressley and Afflerbach (1995).
do the following: 37. Duffy (2002); Paris et al. (1983).

38. Brown et al. (1981)
35. Duffy et al. (1987); Fuchs et al. (1997); Kling-
ner et al. (1998); Schumaker and Deshler (1992). 39. Bereiter and Bird (1985)

( 18 )


using the strategies, provide independent Potential roadblocks and solutions
practice using the strategies, and discuss
with students when and where they should 1. Most teachers lack the skills to provide di-
apply the strategies when they read and rect and explicit comprehension strategy in-
the importance of having the will to use the struction. Most teacher education programs
strategies along with the skill. Even if stu- do not prepare preservice teachers to teach
dents know how to use strategies as they strategies. In addition, teachers may find it
read, research demonstrates that they have particularly challenging to model their own
to make the effort to actually use them when thinking by providing thinkaloud of how
they read on their own.40 they use strategies as they read. Many teach-
ers use various strategies automatically as
5. Provide the appropriate amount of guided they read and are not aware of how they
practice depending on the difficulty level of use the strategies they are teaching. Profes-
the strategies that the students are learn- sional development in direct and explicit in-
ing. for example, the strategy of predict- struction of comprehension strategies will
ing can be demonstrated briefly and with assist all teachers, including language arts
a few examples. however, summarizing a and content-area teachers, in learning how
paragraph or a passage may require several to teach strategies. One component of pro-
steps within guided practice. first, provide fessional development should be coaching
support for students in cooperative learning teachers in the classroom as they teach. In
groups. As students work in these groups, addition, it is often helpful for teachers to
assist them directly if necessary by modeling practice thinking aloud on their own. They
how to use a given strategy again or by ask- can take a text and practice explaining how
ing questions to generate ideas about how they would go about summarizing the text
they would use it. If necessary, give students or finding the main idea. Teachers will need
direct answers and have them repeat those to become conscious of many of the reading
answers. Second, as students become better processes that are automatic for them.
at using the strategies, gradually reduce the
support, perhaps by asking them to break 2. Content-area teachers may believe that they
the cooperative learning groups into pairs are not responsible for teaching comprehen-
so they have fewer peers to rely on. Third, sion strategies to their students. They may
reduce support further by asking students also believe that they do not have enough
to use the strategies on their own with texts time to teach these strategies because they
they read independently.41 have to cover the content presented in their
curriculum guides and textbooks. Because
6. When teaching comprehension strategies, teaching comprehension strategies improves
make sure students understand that the goal students’ ability to comprehend their text-
is to understand the content of the text. Too books, it is a valuable classroom activity for
much focus on the process of learning the content-area teachers, not just language arts
strategies can take away from students’ un- teachers. Teaching comprehension strategies
derstanding of the text itself.42 Instead, show should expand students’ long-term learning
students how using the strategies can help abilities. Although it may take a short time
them understand the text they are reading. to teach several strategies, that time should
The goal should always be comprehending pay off in the long term by helping students
texts—not using strategies. learn more independently from their text-
books and other source material they are
40. Paris et al. (1991); Pressley et al. (1987) asked to read in their classrooms. After all,
the goal of using comprehension strategies
41. Brown et al. (1981)
is improved comprehension—of all text ma-
42. Pearson and Dole (1987) terials that students read.
( 19 )


3. Some teachers and students may “lose the A critically important part of professional
forest for the trees.” Teachers may misunder- development is the focus on the end goal
stand or misinterpret the research on teach- of comprehension. As teachers learn how
ing comprehension strategies, such that they to teach the various strategies, they need
think teaching comprehension is all about to keep this goal in mind. Likewise, teach-
teaching a specific sequence of comprehen- ers need to emphasize to students the idea
sion strategies, one after the other. Likewise, that the end goal of strategy use is compre-
students too may misunderstand and misin- hension, not just the use of many strate-
terpret teachers’ emphasis on strategies, such gies. It is important for teachers to ensure
that they inappropriately apply strategies to that students understand that using strat-
the texts they are reading. Teachers and stu- egies is a way to accomplish the goal of
dents may miss the larger point of the strate- comprehension.
gies, that is, active comprehension.

( 20 )

Recommendation 3. the quasi-experimental studies45 as well
Provide opportunities as the large correlational study is that the
quality of written responses to writing
for extended discussion prompts was the outcome assessment,
of text meaning and rather than a more direct standardized
test of reading comprehension. Among the
interpretation four quasi-experimental studies, one used
rigorous design that demonstrated pretest
group equivalence46 and the other three
Teachers should provide opportunities used less rigorous designs with low inter-
for students to engage in high- nal validity. 47 The small body of research
quality discussions of the meaning identified to directly support this recom-
and interpretation of texts in various mendation is supplemented by a recently
content areas as one important way to completed meta-analysis of 43 studies
improve their reading comprehension. that used slightly more lenient inclusion
These discussions can occur in whole criteria than the literature search for this
classroom groups or in small student practice guide,48 as well as a large descrip-
groups under the general guidance tive study of middle and high schools that
of the teacher. Discussions that are were selected because they were “beating
particularly effective in promoting the odds” in terms of their student literacy
students’ comprehension of complex text outcomes.49
are those that focus on building a deeper
understanding of the author’s meaning Brief summary of evidence to
or critically analyzing and perhaps support the recommendation
challenging the author’s conclusions
through reasoning or applying Arguably the most important goal for lit-
personal experiences and knowledge. eracy instruction with adolescents is to
In effective discussions students have increase their ability to comprehend com-
the opportunity to have sustained plex text. Further, the goal is not simply
exchanges with the teacher or other to enable students to obtain facts or lit-
students, present and defend individual eral meaning from text (although that is
interpretations and points of view, use clearly desirable), but also to make deeper
text content, background knowledge, interpretations, generalizations, and con-
and reasoning to support interpretations clusions. Most state and national literacy
and conclusions, and listen to the points standards require middle and high school
of view and reasoned arguments of students to go considerably beyond literal
others participating in the discussion. comprehension to be considered proficient
readers. For example, the revised frame-
Level of evidence: Moderate work for the NAEP indicates that 8th grad-
ers who read at the proficient level should
The panel considers the level of evidence be able to “summarize major ideas, pro-
for this recommendation to be moderate, on vide evidence in support of an argument,
the basis of four small quasi-experimental
studies 43 and one large correlational
45. Reznitskaya et al. (2001).
study.44 A potential limitation in one of

47. Bird (1984); Heinl (1988); Yeazell (1982).
43. Bird (1984); Heinl (1988); Reznitskaya et al.
(2001); Yeazell (1982). 48. Murphy et al. (2007).
44. Applebee et al. (2003). 49. Langer (2001).

( 21 )

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

and analyze and interpret implicit causal students’ interactions with one another,
relations.”50 They should also be able to and with the teacher as they apply various
“analyze character motivation, make in- strategies give students multiple opportu-
ferences…, and identify similarities across nities to discover new ways of interpreting
texts.”51 and constructing the meaning of text. One
brief study of strategy instruction with a
The theory underpinning discussion- diverse group of 4th graders mentioned
based approaches to improve reading explicitly that the assignment to practice
comprehension rests on the idea that stu- making predictions, clarifying confusions,
dents can, and will, internalize thinking and paraphrasing in small groups was a
processes experienced repeatedly during very useful way to stimulate high-quality
discussions. In high-quality discussions discussions of the meaning of texts.52
students have the opportunity to express
their own interpretations of text and to The most convincing evidence for the
have those positions challenged by others. effectiveness of discussion-oriented ap-
They also have the opportunity to defend proaches to improve reading comprehen-
their positions and to listen as others de- sion comes from studies that focused on
fend different positions. Good discussions developing interpretations of text events
give students opportunities to identify or content or on a critical analysis of text
specific text material that supports their content.53 Within these general guidelines,
position and to listen as other students do one feature of effective discussions is that
the same. In the course of an effective dis- they involve sustained interactions that
cussion students are presented with mul- explore a topic or an idea in some depth
tiple examples of how meaning can be con- rather than quick question and answer
structed from text. Thus, for teachers one exchanges between the teacher and stu-
key to improving comprehension through dents.54 One large study of the extent of
discussion is to ensure that students expe- this type of sustained discussion in lan-
rience productive ways of thinking about guage arts classes in middle and high
text that can serve as models for them to schools found, on average, only 1.7 min-
use during their own reading. utes out of 60 devoted to this type of ex-
change, with classrooms varying between
A challenge to finding empirical research 0 and slightly more than 14 minutes. Class-
to demonstrate the unique value of high- rooms that were more discussion-oriented
quality discussions in improving compre- produced higher literacy growth during
hension is that in instructional research, the year than those in which sustained
discussion is often combined with strategy discussions were less frequent.55
instruction. Most successful applications
of strategy instruction involve extended Another characteristic of high-quality dis-
opportunities for discussing texts while cussions is that they are usually based on
students are learning to independently text that is specifically selected to stimu-
apply such strategies as summarizing,
making predictions, generating and an-
swering questions, and linking text to pre-
vious experience and knowledge. In effect,
52. Klingner et al. (1998).

53. Murphy et al. (2007).
50. National Assessment Governing Board (2007,
p. 46). 54. Applebee et al. (2003); Reznitskaya et al.
(2001).
51. National Assessment Governing Board (2007,
p. 46). 55. Applebee et al. (2003).

( 22 )


late an engaging discussion.56 Questions 1. Carefully prepare for the discussion. In
that lead to good discussions are fre- classes where a choice of reading selections
quently described as “authentic” in that is possible, look for selections that are en-
they ask a real question that may be open gaging for students and describe situations
to multiple points of view, such as “Did or content that can stimulate and have mul-
the way John treat Alex in this story seem tiple interpretations. In content-area classes
fair to you?” or “What is the author trying that depend on a textbook, teachers can
to say here?” or “How does that informa- identify in advance the issues or content that
tion connect with what the author wrote might be difficult or misunderstood or sec-
before?”57 Very different from questions tions that might be ambiguous or subject to
asked primarily to test student knowledge, multiple interpretations. Alternatively, brief
this type of question is designed to pro- selections from the Internet or other sources
vide an opportunity for exploration and that contain similar content but positions
discussion. Although it should be possible that allow for critical analysis or controversy
to identify expository texts that could be can also be used as a stimulus for extended
the basis for productive discussion, most discussions.
experimental studies of discussion-based
approaches thus far have used narrative Another form of preparation involves se-
texts, a limitation in the research base at lecting and developing questions that can
present. stimulate students to think reflectively
about the text and make high-level connec-
Discussions that have an impact on stu- tions or inferences. These are questions
dent reading comprehension feature ex- that an intelligent reader might actually
changes between teachers and students wonder about—they are not the kind of
or among students, where students are questions that teachers often ask to de-
asked to defend their statements either by termine what students have learned from
reasoning or by referring to information the text. Further, the types of discussion
in the text.58 In a large-scale investigation questions appropriate for history texts
of classrooms that produced strong liter- would probably be different from those
acy outcomes, it was noted that teachers for science texts, as would those for social
provided many opportunities for student studies texts or novels. Because part of the
to work together to “sharpen their under- goal of discussion-based approaches is
standings with, against, and from each to model for students the ways that good
other.”59 readers construct meaning from texts, it
seems reasonable to suggest that discus-
How to carry out the sions of history texts might be framed dif-
recommendation ferently from those of science texts.

To engage students in high-quality discus- 2. Ask follow-up questions that help pro-
sions of text meaning and interpretation, vide continuity and extend the discussion.
teachers can: Questions that are used to frame discussions
are typically followed by other questions
56. Bird (1984); Heinl (1988); Reznitskaya et al. about a different interpretation, an expla-
(2001); Yeazell (1982). nation of reasoning, or an identification of
the content from the text that supports the
57. Applebee et al. (2003); Bird (1984); Heinl
student’s position. In a sustained discussion
(1988); Reznitskaya et al. (2001); Yeazell (1982).
initial questions are likely to be followed
58. Bird (1984); Heinl (1988); Reznitskaya et al. by other questions that respond to the stu-
(2001); Yeazell (1982).
dent’s answer and lead to further thinking
59. Langer (2001, p. 872). and elaboration.
( 23 )


If the reading comprehension standards their positions and the reasoning behind
that students are expected to meet in- them, model reasoning processes by think-
volve making inferences or connections ing out loud, propose counter arguments or
across different parts of a text or using positions, recognize good reasoning when
background knowledge and experience it occurs, and summarize the flow and main
to evaluate conclusions, students should ideas of a discussion as it draws to a close.
routinely have the opportunity to discuss To be effective these types of discussions
answers to these types of questions in all do not need to reach consensus; they just
their reading and content-area classes. need to give students the opportunity to
think more deeply about the meaning of
3. Provide a task, or a discussion format, that what they are reading.
students can follow when they discuss texts
together in small groups. for example, as- Potential roadblocks and solutions
sign students to read selections together and
practice using the comprehension strategies 1. Students do not readily contribute their
that have been taught and demonstrated. In ideas during discussions because they are
these groups students can take turns playing either not engaged by the topic or afraid of
various roles, such as leading the discussion, getting negative feedback from the teacher
predicting what the section might be about, or other students. Students might not ac-
identifying words that are confusing, and tively participate in text-based discussions
summarizing. As these roles are completed, for a number of reasons, but these two are
other students can then respond with other the most important. One strategy to deal
predictions, other things that are confusing, with the first problem is to create opportu-
or different ways of summarizing the main nities for discussion by using text that has
idea. While students are working together, a very high interest level for students in the
the teacher should actively circulate among class but may only be tangentially related to
the groups to redirect discussions that have the topic of the class. for example, a news-
gone astray, model thinking strategies, or paper article on the problem of teen preg-
ask students additional questions to probe nancy might be integrated in a biology class,
the meaning of the text at deeper levels. one on racial profiling in a social studies
class, or one on child labor practices in a his-
4. Develop and practice the use of a specific tory class. Students typically find discussion
“discussion protocol.” Because it is challeng- and interaction rewarding, and once a good
ing to lead the type of discussion that has an pattern is established, it can be generalized
impact on students’ reading comprehension, to more standard textbook content.
it may be helpful for teachers to identify a
specific set of steps from the research or best It is also important to establish a non-
practice literature.60 This could be done ei- threatening and supportive environment
ther individually or collaboratively in grade- from the first class meeting. As part of this
level or subject-area teams. An example of supportive environment, it is important
a discussion protocol is provided in one of to model and encourage acceptance of di-
the research studies used to support this verse viewpoints and discourage criticism
recommendation.61 In this study teachers and negative feedback on ideas. Teachers
were trained to follow five guidelines: ask can help students participate by calling
questions that require students to explain on students who may not otherwise con-
tribute, while asking questions they know
these students can answer.
60. Adler and Rougle (2005); Beck and McKeown
(2006).
Student-led discussions in small groups
61. Reznitskaya et al. (2001). can be another solution for students who
( 24 )


are hesitant to engage in whole-classroom discussions can create challenges for class-
discussions. As mentioned before, the room control that may not occur in other in-
quality of these discussions can be instructional formats. Most teachers will need
creased, and student participation broad- some form of professional development to
ened, if teachers provide an organizing build their skills as discussion leaders or
task or activity that students can focus on organizers. Within schools, it could be very
as discuss the content of a text. helpful for content-area teachers to experi-
ence these kinds of discussions themselves
2. Discussions take classroom time, and too as a way of learning what it feels like to par-
much time spent on an extended discussion ticipate in effective, open discussions. Also, a
of a single topic may interfere with cover- number of useful books on this topic can be
age of all the content in the curriculum. This the basis for teacher book study groups. The
problem may require district- or state-level following resources provide helpful informa-
intervention. If curriculum standards require tion and strategies related to improving the
shallow coverage of a very wide range of quality of discussions about the meaning
content, the pressure teachers feel to teach and interpretation of texts:
the curriculum may limit opportunities for
extended discussion of particular issues. • Adler, M., & Rougle, E. (2005). Building
Pressure to cover a very broad curriculum literacy through classroom discussion:
could also limit teachers’ freedom to bring Research-based strategies for devel-
in additional material on a specific topic that oping critical readers and thoughtful
might help stimulate more engaging discus- writers in middle school. New York:
sions. however, if literacy standards require Scholastic.
students to think deeply (that is, to make
connections, criticize conclusions, and draw • Applebee, A. N. (1996). Curriculum as
inferences), many students will require the conversation: Transforming traditions
opportunity to acquire these skills by being of teaching and learning. Chicago: Uni-
able to observe models of this type of think- versity of Chicago Press.
ing during discussions. In the absence of ad-
justments to the curriculum, teachers should • Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2006). Im-
carefully identify a few of the most impor- proving comprehension with Question-
tant ideas in their content area for deeper ing the Author: A fresh and expanded
consideration through extended classroom view of a powerful approach. New York:
discussion that focuses on building mean- Guilford.
ing from text.
• Beers, K. (2003). When kids can’t
3. Teachers lack the skills in behavior man- read—what teachers can do: A guide
agement, discussion techniques, or critical for teachers 6–12. Portsmouth, NH:
thinking to guide productive discussion and Heinemann.
analysis of text meanings. Leading instruc-
tive discussions requires a set of teaching • Langer, J. A. (1995). Envisioning litera-
skills that is different from the skills required ture: Literary understanding and liter-
to present a lecture or question students in ature instruction. New York: Teachers
a typical recitation format. It is also true that College Press.

( 25 )

Recommendation 4. two meta-analyses66 also provided addi-
Increase student tional evidence to support this recommen-
dation.67 The recommendation to improve
motivation and adolescent literacy through classroom in-
engagement in structional practices that promote motiva-
tion and engagement is further supported
literacy learning by substantial theoretical support for the
role of motivation and engagement to sup-
port long-term growth in complex literacy
To foster improvement in adolescent skills.68
literacy, teachers should use strategies
to enhance students’ motivation to Brief summary of evidence to
read and engagement in the learning support the recommendation
process. Teachers should help students
build confidence in their ability to Although the words motivation and en-
comprehend and learn from content- gagement are often used interchangeably,
area texts. They should provide a they are not always synonymous. Whereas
supportive environment that views motivation refers to the desire, reason, or
mistakes as growth opportunities, predisposition to become involved in a
encourages self-determination, and task or activity, engagement refers to the
provides informational feedback about degree to which a student processes text
the usefulness of reading strategies deeply through the use of active strategies
and how the strategies can be and thought processes and prior knowl-
modified to fit various tasks. Teachers edge. It is possible to be motivated to
should also make literacy experiences complete a task without being engaged be-
more relevant to students’ interests, cause the task is either too easy or too dif-
everyday life, or important current ficult. Research shows that the messages
events. teachers communicate to students—inten-
tionally or unintentionally—can affect stu-
Level of evidence: Moderate dents’ learning goals and outcomes.69

The panel considers the level of evidence to Correlational evidence suggests that moti-
support this recommendation to be moder- vation to read school-related texts declines
ate, on the basis of two experiments62 and as students progress from elementary to
one quasi-experimental study that had no
major flaws to internal validity other that
considered low because the reasoning measures
lack of demonstrated baseline equiva-
included did not directly measure literacy skills.
lence.63 Three studies of weaker design,64
six experimental and quasi-experimental 66. Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999); Tang and
studies with low external validity,65 and Hall (1995). The meta-analyses described in these
two articles were considered to have low exter-
nal validity because they focused on the general
psychological concept of the motivation to learn
62. Schunk and Rice (1992). This article contains rather than the motivation to read or improve-
two studies. ment in literacy skills.

63. Guthrie et al. (1999). 67. Graham and Golan (1991); Grolnick and Ryan
(1987); Guthrie et al. (2000).
64. Graham and Golan (1991); Grolnick and Ryan
(1987); Guthrie, Wigfield, and VonSecker (2000). 68. See, for example, Sweet, Guthrie, and Ng
(1998).
65. Mueller and Dweck (1998). The external valid-
ity of the six studies detailed in this article was 69. Graham and Golan (1991).

( 26 )

4. InCREASE STuDEnT MOTIvATIOn AnD EngAgEMEnT In LITERACy LEARnIng

middle school.70 The strongest decline is their achievement is an indicator of their
observed among struggling students.71 To intelligence or ability. These students are
promote students’ motivation to engage in likely to develop performance goals—
literacy activities, teachers should use infor example, the goal of achieving good
structional strategies that spark students’ grades or looking smart. When faced with
interest. Initial curiosity (or “situational failure, students with performance goals
interest”) can then serve as a hook to cre- might infer that they do not have the re-
ate long-term, personal interest (or “gen- quired ability and seek only those oppor-
erative interest”). tunities that make them look smart. On
the other hand, students praised for their
Teachers may believe that they can en- effort might view ability as an expandable
courage students’ learning by emphasiz- entity that depends on their effort. These
ing external incentives and reminding stu- students are likely to develop learning
dents of the impact of learning on grades. goals—for example, the goal of enjoying
However, research has suggested that this explorations and challenges or acquiring
strategy actually has detrimental effects new skills and knowledge. They might in-
on students’ motivation and engagement. terpret failure as an indicator of their lack
When teachers put pressure on students of effort rather than lack of ability. 75
to work hard to achieve good grades, stu-
dents’ levels of text recall and reading Research also shows that when teachers
comprehension are lower than when teach- stress performance outcomes, students
ers note that they are interested in the develop performance goals. Likewise,
amount of information that students can when teachers put more emphasis on the
remember and understand and that it is learning process and provide a supportive
up to students to determine how much environment where mistakes are viewed
they would like to engage in learning.72 as growth opportunities instead of fail-
Two meta-analyses of the literature have ures, students are more likely to develop
shown that providing extrinsic rewards learning goals. Studies have consistently
to students may increase students’ initial shown that students who have learning
motivation to read as well as their plea- goals are more motivated and engaged
sure and interest in learning about the and have better reading test scores than
world.73 Earning tangible rewards, such students who have performance goals.76
as toys, food, and prizes, and avoiding In one experimental study researchers
punishments were found to have more randomly assigned students to one of two
detrimental effects than receiving verbal conditions. In the first condition they told
rewards.74 students that many people make mistakes
at the beginning of a task and become
Verbal rewards or praises for student edu- better with practice. They encouraged
cational performance can be categorized students to see the task as a challenge
by focus: ability or effort. Praising stu- and to have fun trying to master it. In the
dents for being smart, fast, or knowledge- other condition students were told that
able can lead to students’ perception that people are either good or not so good at
certain tasks and that their completion
of the task would indicate how good they
70. Gottfried (1985).
are at it. The researchers found that stu-
71. Harter, Whitesell, and Kowalski (1992).

72. Grolnick and Ryan (1987).
75. Mueller and Dweck (1998).
73. Deci et al. (1999); Tang and Hall (1995).
74. Deci et al. (1999). (1987); Schunk (2003).

( 27 )


dents in the first condition put more effort processes relevant to the discipline. Provide
into deep processing of semantic meaning explicit feedback to students about their
of words and had better memory of the progress. When teachers set goals to reach
words learned.77 a certain standard, students are likely to
sustain their efforts until they achieve that
The points raised above emphasize the standard. Learning goals may be set by the
importance of helping students acquire teacher or the student. however, if students
authentic, personally meaningful learning set their own goals, they are more apt to be
goals. An important part of the process in- fully engaged in the activities required to
volves teacher feedback. Students’ motiva- achieve them.
tion is highest when they receive feedback
that is informational but not controlling— 2. Provide a positive learning environment
for example, when it is not perceived as that promotes students’ autonomy in learn-
pressure to attain a particular outcome.78 ing. Allowing students some choice of com-
Students benefit from informational feed- plementary books and types of reading and
back that conveys realistic expectations, writing activities has a positive impact on
links performance to effort, details step students’ engagement and reading compre-
by step how to apply a reading strategy, hension.81 Empowering students to make
and explains why and when this strategy is decisions about topics, forms of communi-
useful and how to modify it to fit different cation, and selections of materials encour-
tasks.79 Students who receive such feed- ages them to assume greater ownership
back believe more in their ability to apply and responsibility for their engagement in
reading strategies in different contexts learning.82
and have better reading performance than
students who do not receive this kind of 3. Make literacy experiences more relevant
feedback.80 This is not to say that teachers to students’ interests, everyday life, or im-
should prioritize the process over the de- portant current events.83 Look for opportuni-
sired outcome—increased knowledge and ties to bridge the activities outside and inside
skill. On the contrary, teachers should help the classroom. Tune into the lives of students
students engage in a process that achieves to find out what they think is relevant and
stronger outcomes by developing learning why, and then use this information to design
rather than performance goals. instruction and learning opportunities that
will be more relevant to students.84 Consider
How to carry out the constructing an integrated approach to in-
recommendation struction that ties a rich conceptual theme
to a real-world application. for example, use
1. Establish meaningful and engaging con- a science topic in the news or one that stu-
tent learning goals around the essential dents are currently studying, such as adoles-
ideas of a discipline as well as the specific cent health issues, to build students’ reading,
learning processes students use to access writing, and discourse skills.
those ideas. Monitor students’ progress over
time as they read for comprehension and 4. Build in certain instructional conditions,
develop more control over their thinking such as student goal setting, self-directed
learning, and collaborative learning, to
77. Graham and Golan (1991).
81. Guthrie et al. (1999).
78. Ryan (1982).
82. Guthrie and McCann (1997).
79. Henderlong and Lepper (2002); Schunk and
Rice (1992). 83. Guthrie et al. (2000).
80. Schunk and Rice (1992). 84. Biancarosa and Snow (2004).

( 28 )

4. Increase student motIvatIon and engagement In lIteracy learnIng

increase reading engagement and concep- 2. some students may think that textbooks
tual learning for students.85 this type of im- are boring and beyond their ability to un-
plementation has several common themes: derstand. many high school texts do not
have enough supplementary explanation
• Connections between disciplines, such that fleshes out disconnected information,
as science and language arts, taught which might contribute to difficulty in com-
through conceptual themes. prehension. If students cannot comprehend
the text that they read and the textbook is
• Connections among strategies for the basis of curriculum, their sense of fail-
learning, such as searching, compre- ure grows larger. complementary materials
hending, interpreting, composing, and should be available to students, including a
teaching content knowledge. set of reading materials on the same topic
that range from very easy to very challeng-
• Connections among classroom activi- ing or supplemental trade materials, to pro-
ties that support motivation and social vide resources on various content topics to
and cognitive development. help students develop deeper background
knowledge relevant to course content.
Potential roadblocks and solutions
3. many content-area teachers do not real-
1. some teachers think that motivational ac- ize the importance of teaching the read-
tivities must entertain students and there- ing strategies and thinking processes that
fore create fun activities that are not nec- skilled readers use in different academic
essarily focused on learning. rewarding disciplines and do not recognize the benefi-
students through contests, competitions, cial effects of such instruction on students’
and points might entice them to do home- ability to engage with their learning. too few
work, complete tasks, and participate in content-area teachers know how to empha-
class. though meaningful goals, these might size the reading and writing practices spe-
not result in meaningful learning. teachers cific to their disciplines, so students are not
are often exhausted from running contests encouraged to read and write and reason like
to get students to read, and the external mo- historians, scientists, and mathematicians.
tivation of such activities often makes stu- literacy coaches should emphasize the role
dents dependent on the teacher or activity of content-area teachers, especially in sec-
to benefit from reading.86 teachers should ondary schools in promoting literacy skills,
help students become more internally moti- and the role of reading skills in promoting
vated. they should closely connect instruc- performance in various content areas such
tional practice and student performance to as history, science and social sciences. this
learning goals. teachers should set the bar can be accomplished through a coordinated
high and provide informational feedback for schoolwide approach that provides profes-
depth of learning, complex thinking, risk tak- sional development in content literacy. many
ing, and teamwork. students should be en- resources available on the Internet provide
couraged to reflect on how they learn, what information about strategic reading in con-
they do well, and what they need to improve tent areas. content-area teachers should also
on. the more students know themselves as develop formative assessments that allow
learners, the more confident they will be- students to make their thinking visible and
come and the better able they will be to set that provide evidence of the problem-solving
their own goals for learning. and critical-thinking strategies students use
to comprehend and construct meaning.
teachers can use these assessments to make
85. Guthrie et al. (1999); Guthrie et al. (2000).
informed decisions about lesson planning,
86. Guthrie and Humenick (2004). instructional practices and materials, and
( 29 )


activities that will be more appropriate and through learning about and understanding
engaging for students. students’ reading histories. These activities
will help teachers get to know their students.
4. Adolescent students who struggle in read- for many students, having a personal con-
ing do not expect to do well in class. As nection with at least one teacher can make a
these students progress through school, difference in their response to school. know-
most teachers do not expect them to do well ing students’ interests makes it easier for
either and often remark that they should teachers to choose materials that will hook
have learned the material in earlier grades. students and motivate them to engage in
Many adolescents do not express confidence their own learning. Teachers should provide
in their own ability—they do not trust or multiple learning opportunities in which stu-
value their own thinking. The strengths of dents can experience success and can begin
students can be identified through interest to build confidence in their ability to read,
surveys, interviews, and discussions, and write, and think at high levels.

( 30 )

Recommendation 5. of knowledge and skill required for
the comprehension of complex texts.
Make available These elements include: fundamental
intensive and skills such as phonemic awareness,
phonemic decoding, and other word
individualized analysis skills that support word
interventions for reading accuracy; text reading fluency;
strategies for building vocabulary;
struggling readers strategies for understanding and
that can be provided using the specific textual features
that distinguish different genres;
by trained specialists and self-regulated use of reading
comprehension strategies. Determining
Some adolescents need more support students’ skill levels, helping students
to increase literacy skills than regular learn specific reading strategies, and
classroom teachers can provide. providing intensive and individualized
Students who are unable to meet instruction appear to be especially
grade-level standards in literacy often promising methods for improving the
require supplemental, intensive, and outcomes of struggling readers. for
individualized reading intervention to example, students who have difficulty
improve their skills. Such interventions using the skills needed to recognize
are most often provided by reading words need different intervention than
specialists or teachers who have do students whose primary deficits are
undergone thorough training to help figuring out the meaning of unfamiliar
them understand the program or words or comprehension of extended
approach they will use and to deepen prose.
their understanding of adolescent
struggling readers. Level of evidence: Strong

The panel considers the level of evidence
The purpose of intensive supporting this recommendation to be
interventions is to accelerate literacy strong, based on 12 small experimental
development so that students are design studies,87 1 well-designed quasi-
able to make substantial progress experimental study,88 and 1 meta-analysis
toward accomplishing reading tasks study.89 Comparative and correlational
appropriate for their current grade research provided additional support.
level. Placement in interventions is Together, the studies examined various
often a two-step process, beginning methods for improving literacy outcomes
with an initial screening assessment to of struggling adolescent readers. In some
identify those students who need extra studies the participants were characterized
help. This step should be followed by
assessment with diagnostic tests to 87. Allinder et al. (2001); Bos and Anders (1990);
provide a profile of literacy strengths DiCecco and Gleason (2002); Johnson, Graham,
and weaknesses. 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.
Because the cause of adolescents’ (1994); Xin and Reith (2001).
difficulties in reading may differ from
88. Englert and Mariage (1991).
student to student, interventions may
focus on any of the critical elements 89. Scammacca et al. (2007).

( 31 )

5. MAkE AvAILABLE InTEnSIvE AnD InDIvIDuALIzED InTERvEnTIOnS fOR STRuggLIng READERS

as students with learning disabilities, while special study of oral reading showed that
in others the participants struggled in 4th grade students reading below the basic
reading for various reasons. The interven- level demonstrated low accuracy when
tions evaluated in the studies took place they were asked to read a passage aloud.92
in different contexts, including urban and This suggests that they have not reached
suburban schools and clinical treatment the level of word-reading ability typical for
facilities, and served struggling readers their grade. A recent meta-analytic study,93
from a variety of socioeconomic and racial which used slightly more lenient criteria
and ethnic backgrounds. Several common for selecting studies than were used for
strategies and practices emerged from this this guide, supports the appropriateness
body of evidence and provide a framework of word-level interventions for middle and
for helping educators carry out the recom- high school students. The study demon-
mendation in practice. strated that interventions focused at the
word level resulted in both improved read-
Brief summary of evidence to ing accuracy and improved reading com-
support the recommendation prehension in older struggling students.
Further, a small experimental study of
On the most recent NAEP reading assess- students with reading disabilities showed
ment in 2007, about a third (33 percent) of that systematic training in metacognitive
4th graders and over a fourth (26 percent) decoding skills, such as subsyllabic seg-
of 8th graders in the United States per- mentation, transferred to accurate read-
formed below the basic level, meaning that ing of regular and irregular multisyllabic
those students have only partial mastery of words.94
the prerequisite knowledge and skills that
are fundamental for reading at their grade Descriptive and correlational evidence
level.90 For students who perform below suggests that struggling adolescent read-
the basic level, the panel recommends in- ers tend to use less efficient reading com-
tensive supplemental interventions in addi- prehension strategies than do more skill-
tion to the reading support they might re- ful readers. In light of these observations,
ceive in their regular classrooms. Because it is not surprising that many interventions
failure to read at grade level may be caused in the studies that we reviewed tended to
by several different factors, including de- include efforts to help struggling readers
ficiencies in decoding skills, vocabulary, become more engaged, active, and stra-
background knowledge, and inefficient use tegic readers. This body of evidence also
of comprehension strategies,91 the choice suggests that educators can use multiple
of supplemental interventions needs to be approaches to help struggling readers be-
guided by initial formative assessments come more active and strategic readers.
that gauge the specific learning needs of The approaches should involve structured
struggling readers and individualized to and explicit instruction where teachers
meet students’ identified needs. model and explain the specific strategies
being taught and provide feedback on stu-
There is accumulating evidence that an dents’ use of the strategies. Instructional
inadequate ability to decode printed text activities should provide scaffolding to
accurately and fluently may be one rea- ensure that students understand the skills
son for students’ failure to meet grade- they need to acquire.
level standards in reading. A 2002 NAEP
92. Daane et al. (2005).
90. Lee et al. (2007). 93. Scammacca et al. (2007).
91. Riddle Buly and Valencia (2002). 94. Lovett and Steinbach (1997).

( 32 )


Research, such as that conducted on recip- As noted in another source, instruction
rocal teaching (dialogue which students with a focus on the theme of stories and
and teachers take turns leading; this in- on the potential application of the theme
volves summarizing, generating ques- beyond the stories enabled students to
tions, clarifying, and predicting),95 sug- learn higher-order comprehension skills
gests that the most effective instructional and generalize what they had learned to
approach is to provide explicit instruction other reading material and to their real-life
on strategies proven to help students read experiences.99 Likewise, after adolescents
and comprehend material more effectively with reading disabilities received specific
than they had in the past. Student collab- instruction on text structures, organiza-
oration in comprehension strategies has tional patterns, and linguistic conventions
also shown promise, effectively transfer- commonly found in expository texts, they
ring control of strategy instruction to the were able to transfer these skills to inde-
students themselves.96 This approach, pendent reading tasks with unfamiliar ex-
like reciprocal teaching, relies on teacher- pository material.100
guided instruction and interaction among
students to promote the internalization of These strategies, shown to be effective
reading strategies, development of self- in experimental studies that were often
regulation, and transfer of strategy control designed to test single interventions and
from teachers to students. with populations of students who had
been diagnosed as learning disabled, pres-
Other experimental studies have also high- ent a catalog of possible ways to help ado-
lighted the promising effects of helping lescents become more active and efficient
students organize the information pre- readers of diverse kinds of text. Integrated
sented within the classroom. For instance, into regular classroom instruction and
two studies demonstrated the promise into classes designed to improve students’
of intensive instruction and the use of reading, these strategies can help many
graphic organizers to help students at- students become stronger readers.
tain relational knowledge from exposi-
tory text.97 Creating graphic organizers, Many struggling readers, however, need
which are visual portrayals or maps of more intensive, explicit instruction ad-
the relationships among key concepts dressing their specific deficiencies, ac-
represented in texts, can help struggling companied by extensive guided practice
readers integrate and process informa- to ensure that they understand and can
tion. Other methods for helping struggling apply the new strategies. Struggling read-
readers organize and process written and ers can be identified by initial screen-
oral information were demonstrated by ing measures or consistently low scores
another set of researchers, whose experi- on yearly reading tests. Students falling
mental work suggested that using themes, below a designated threshold are often
messages, or morals attached to a core assigned to an intervention class without
concept within stories, could help strug- further testing. Although it is a costly ap-
gling readers improve comprehension.98 proach, initial identification of students
who are struggling with reading should
95. Englert and Mariage (1991); Lovett et al. be followed by a group or individually- ad-
(1996). ministered diagnostic assessment to deter-
mine students’ specific needs. Intervention
96. Englert and Mariage (1991).

97. DiCecco and Gleason (2002); Lovett et al.
(1996). 99. Wilder and Williams (2001).

98. Williams et al. (1994). 100. Lovett et al. (1996).

( 33 )


models have been investigated in some severe needs group-administered, standard-
experimental studies, but their impacts, ized or criterion-referenced tests can serve
while promising, have not been fully con- as a starting point for determining an appro-
firmed. Programs such as Talent Develop- priate intervention.103 Individually or group-
ment101 and the Enhanced Reading Op- administered tests provide information that
portunities102 (ERO) model have shown allows the specialist to perform the in-depth
promise in increasing students’ reading diagnosis that is often needed to match inter-
achievement and potentially their aca- vention approaches to students’ needs.
demic achievement as well. In Talent Devel-
opment schools half a semester of English 2. The identification of students’ learning
is replaced by double blocks of reading needs should be followed by the selection
instruction, followed by a transition back of an intervention that provides an explicit
to regular English instruction. In the ERO instructional focus targeted to meet those
model a full year of intense reading in- needs. Such instruction might include vary-
struction (approximately 225 minutes per ing areas of need and rely on teaching dif-
week) is offered as a supplement to regular ferent strategies to meet them. however, the
English or language arts instruction. Mod- teaching strategies selected should provide
els such as these and others are currently students with explicit strategies, techniques,
being studied in the federally funded Striv- principles, knowledge, or rules that enable
ing Readers evaluation as well as in other them to solve problems and complete tasks
programs. independently.104

How to carry out the Central to the effective use of an inter-
recommendation vention is working with students to set
goals for improvement, followed by a de-
Supplemental interventions for struggling scription of the strategy to be mastered,
readers can offer the learning opportuni- modeling of the strategy verbal, continued
ties that student need to make substantial practice and feedback, and generalization
progress toward grade-level standards. of the strategy to other tasks.105 Provid-
However, because adolescents’ reading ing students with learning aids can help
needs are varied and complex, schools them understand the purpose of the les-
should first take steps to understand the son, a rationale for the lesson, the learning
learning needs they must address. expectations, and how the content to be
taught relates to what they have learned
1. Although classroom teachers can some- previously and what they may learn in the
times pinpoint students’ learning needs by future.106 Examples of these include ad-
using informal assessment tools or even ob- vance organizers to prepare them for read-
servation, a more reliable method for iden- ing and activate prior knowledge, graphic
tifying struggling readers includes use of organizers or maps to track ideas during
an initial screening test or a threshold score reading, and graphic displays that encour-
on a required reading test and subsequent age students to make link between what
use of a diagnostic reading test that must
be administered, scored, and interpreted 103. Allinder et al. (2001); Bos and Anders (1990);
by a specialist. for some students, formal, Englert and Mariage (1991).
individually administered diagnostic as-
104. Allinder et al. (2001); Bos and Anders (1990);
sessments are needed; for others with less
Englert and Mariage (1991).

105. Ellis et al. (1991).
101. Kemple, Herlihy, and Smith (2005).
106. DiCecco and Gleason (2002); Wilder and Wil-
102. Kemple et al. (2008). liams (2001); Williams et al. (1994).

( 34 )


they know and the content about which Potential roadblocks and solutions
they are reading.
1. Some middle and high schools may not
3. Even though explicit strategy instruction have the specialized personnel, time, and
and various forms of structuring effective resources to conduct efficient screening
strategy instruction show promise, it also assessments for students to identify their
seems clear that many struggling readers reading needs. Timely and proper screen-
require more intensive efforts than do stu- ing, diagnosis, and treatment of the source
dents who are performing at or near grade of struggling readers’ difficulties are central
level.107 The intensiveness of the intervention to the success of an intervention strategy.
should be matched to the needs of students Teacher recommendations can be the moti-
who struggle—the greater the instructional vation for initiating assignment to an inter-
need, the more intensive the intervention. vention, but it is more likely that students
Two methods for increasing the intensity of will be identified through a screening test
instruction are to provide additional instruc- or data analysis of reading tests to identify
tion time or to work with students individu- scores falling below a specific threshold. In
ally or in small groups. The most practical some cases students might have an individu-
method for increasing instructional intensity alized education plan that contains informa-
for smaller numbers of struggling readers is tion about previous testing.
to provide supplemental small group instruc-
tion, usually for extended periods of time or For the most seriously disabled readers,
as a distinct pull-out class. Within these small however, it is crucial that the major source
groups, teachers can more readily monitor of the students’ reading difficulties be
student progress and help students learn the identified so that interventions can be
particular strategies that will help them at- targeted to the most critical areas. Previ-
tain grade-level reading skills. All the studies ous results from standardized tests can
that informed this recommendation offered be used as a baseline to determine which
interventions that provided more intensive students are reading below grade level. If
instruction for struggling readers through such data are unavailable, regular middle
smaller classes, increased time for learning, and high school teachers can administer
or both. group screening tests that will indicate
which students may be having reading
4. Additionally, intensive interventions problems. After students with severe read-
might involve repeated reading, provision ing difficulties are identified, further test-
of adjunct questions to scaffold comprehen- ing is usually needed. This testing should
sion, and questioning for understanding to be administered and interpreted by read-
improve the reading outcomes of adoles- ing specialists or special education teach-
cents.108 These strategies can be offered in ers with advanced knowledge of reading
small group intervention sessions. Although difficulties.
not as interventions per se, these strategies
also serve the needs of poorly prepared Finding the resources to administer and
readers when adopted for use in content- interpret these various formal and infor-
area classrooms. mal assessments can be a challenge. We
suggest that educators consider reallocat-
ing resources to carry out timely assess-
ments and avoid far more serious future
costs to the system, such as retentions in
107. Gersten et al. (2001). grade, and costs to individual students,
108. Peverly and Wood (2001); Therrien et al. including dropping out of school.
(2006).

( 35 )


Acquiring appropriate intervention ma- designed to make content-area texts more
terials, equipment, and programs; train- accessible to all students, including those
ing teachers in use of the interventions; who struggle with literacy. Professional de-
and allocating space for instruction of velopment sessions that provide clear, easy-
individuals and small groups also pose to-understand information about the extent
challenges in many schools. But the im- of the reading difficulties that students ex-
portance of addressing and remediat- perience and about the steps that all teach-
ing students’ deficits in reading cannot ers can take to address students’ problems
be underestimated. The resources can emphasize that a school faculty as a whole
come from programs such as Title I and has responsibilities for meeting the needs
other supplemental state and local fund- of all students. Professional development,
ing sources, or professional development which needs to acknowledge the demands
initiatives can be supported by Title II of all content areas, can include the model-
dollars. Business partnerships, private ing and reinforcement of effective strategies
grants, and other parent and commu- to increase students’ abilities to comprehend
nity-based fundraising initiatives may their textbooks and other resource materi-
also help augment existing resources. als. Content-area teachers can use teaching
Finally, establishing strong administra- aids and devices that will help struggling
tion and faculty support to make literacy readers better understand and remember
a schoolwide priority will certainly help the content they are teaching. for instance,
raise awareness about the importance of graphic organizers, organizing themes, and
supporting these efforts and will garner guided discussions can help students under-
greater commitment to make the needed stand and master the curriculum content. If
alterations to schedules and resources. schoolwide coordination is achieved through
professional development, common plan-
2. Many middle and high school content-area ning periods, and informal opportunities for
teachers, in areas such as science, math, and teachers to collaborate and communicate
social studies, do not possess the informa- across the content areas, teachers can more
tion or skills needed to teach reading and easily provide mutually reinforcing reading
do not believe that it is their job to teach opportunities to better prepare students to
reading strategies. To compound this prob- meet identified standards in all areas. Ide-
lem, the typical departmental structure of ally, content-area teachers should work with
secondary schools combined with the lack language arts teachers, literacy specialists,
of regular communication among teachers and other content-area teachers to provide
across departments can lead to a lack of coherent and consistent instruction that en-
coordination across the curricula. Content- ables students to succeed in reading across
area teachers should not be responsible the curriculum.
for carrying out intensive interventions for
struggling readers. however, content-area
teachers can be taught to use strategies

( 36 )

Conclusion readers that the final recommendation in
this guide is directed. Strengthening the lit-
This practice guide presents five recom- eracy skills of struggling adolescent read-
mendations that are supported by re- ers is not easy, and improvement usually
search. The NAEP data discussed in the does not come quickly. Assessing students’
overview make it clear that many adoles- literacy strengths and weaknesses is often
cents lack the robust literacy skills they a necessary first step in determining the
need for success in school and in the work- appropriate interventions to use. Some
place. Many of these students can benefit students’ deficiencies are so complex that
tremendously when their classroom teach- a diagnostic assessment, administered
ers adjust their instruction in ways that and interpreted by a specialist, is needed
this practice guide recommends. The first to provide a profile of what these students
four recommendations provide evidence- can and cannot do. The resulting profiles
based strategies that can usually be imple- will point toward interventions focused on
mented by regular classroom teachers, identified weaknesses. Some adolescent
those who teach content areas to students. struggling readers might need help with
Three of the recommendations—providing the most basic reading skills required to
explicit vocabulary instruction, direct and decode words, whereas others might bene-
explicit comprehension strategy instruc- fit from explicit and intense work on strate-
tion, and opportunities for discussion gies to increase vocabulary or deepen com-
of text—are relatively easy to implement prehension. Whatever the needs, it is often
within English language arts and other necessary for the intervention to be tar-
content-area classrooms. These strategies geted, intense, and provided by a specialist
help content-area teachers adapt their in- who can monitor students’ progress more
struction so that all students, even those effectively than a classroom teacher.
who struggle with reading, have easier ac-
cess to the special language and text struc- For those struggling readers who have
ture of content-area materials. less severe deficiencies, interventions of
a more general nature—for example, a
The fourth recommendation concerns program designed to strengthen compre-
the importance of increasing students’ hension and vocabulary skills in general—
motivation for and engagement with lit- might boost their skills enough to more
eracy learning. Motivation and engage- successfully participate in school. Such
ment seem to decline as students enter programs, often offered as supplementary
adolescence. This is especially true for courses or electives, provide the help stu-
those students who have experienced dents need to build on existing reading
many years of instruction and often many skills. When classroom teachers provide
years of frustration as they try to make complementary instruction because they
sense of literacy activities. When teach- have adapted their instruction with strate-
ers make efforts to build motivation and gies such as those presented in this prac-
engagement, students are more likely to tice guide, students benefit even more.
establish and act on personally meaning-
ful learning goals, becoming autonomous, Overall, this practice guide recognizes
self-directed learners. the needs of all adolescent readers, those
whose weak literacy skills require individ-
However, the data also show that there is ualized and intense intervention and those
a cohort of students whose reading skills remaining students whose skills can be
are so deficient that they need help beyond strengthened when content-area teachers
what classroom teachers alone can pro- make practical alterations to their regular
vide. It is toward this cohort of struggling instructional practices.
( 37 )

Appendix A. particular types of studies for drawing
Postscript from causal conclusions about what works.
Thus, one typically finds that a strong
the Institute of level of evidence is drawn from a body of
Education Sciences randomized controlled trials, the moder-
ate level from well designed studies that
do not involve randomization, and the
What is a practice guide? low level from the opinions of respected
authorities. Levels of evidence can also be
The health care professions have em- constructed around the value of particular
braced a mechanism for assembling and types of studies for other goals, such as the
communicating evidence-based advice to reliability and validity of assessments.
practitioners about care for specific clini-
cal conditions. Variously called practice Practice guides can also be distinguished
guidelines, treatment protocols, critical from systematic reviews or meta-analyses,
pathways, best practice guides, or simply which employ statistical methods to sum-
practice guides, these documents are sys- marize the results of studies obtained
tematically developed recommendations from a rule-based search of the literature.
about the course of care for frequently en- Authors of practice guides seldom conduct
countered problems, ranging from physi- the types of systematic literature searches
cal conditions, such as foot ulcers, to psy- that are the backbone of a meta-analysis,
chosocial conditions, such as adolescent although they take advantage of such work
development.1 when it is already published. Instead, au-
thors use their expertise to identify the
Practice guides are similar to the prod- most important research with respect to
ucts of typical expert consensus panels their recommendations, augmented by a
in reflecting the views of those serving search of recent publications to assure that
on the panel and the social decisions that the research citations are up-to-date. Fur-
come into play as the positions of individ- thermore, the characterization of the qual-
ual panel members are forged into state- ity and direction of evidence underlying a
ments that all panel members are willing recommendation in a practice guide relies
to endorse. Practice guides, however, are less on a tight set of rules and statistical al-
generated under three constraints that do gorithms and more on the judgment of the
not typically apply to consensus panels. authors than would be the case in a high-
The first is that a practice guide consists quality meta-analysis. Another distinction
of a list of discrete recommendations that is that a practice guide, because it aims for
are actionable. The second is that those a comprehensive and coherent approach,
recommendations taken together are in- operates with more numerous and more
tended to be a coherent approach to a contextualized statements of what works
multifaceted problem. The third, which is than does a typical meta-analysis.
most important, is that each recommen-
dation is explicitly connected to the level Thus practice guides sit somewhere be-
of evidence supporting it, with the level tween consensus reports and meta-analyses
represented by a grade (strong, moder- in the degree to which systematic pro-
ate, low). cesses are used for locating relevant re-
search and characterizing its meaning.
The levels of evidence, or grades, are Practice guides are more like consensus
usually constructed around the value of panel reports than meta-analyses in the
breadth and complexity of the topic that
1. Field and Lohr (1990). is addressed. Practice guides are different
( 38 )

APPEnDIx A. POSTSCRIPT fROM ThE InSTITuTE fOR EDuCATIOn SCIEnCES

from both consensus reports and meta- of the panelists be a practitioner with
analyses in providing advice at the level considerable experience relevant to the
of specific action steps along a pathway topic being addressed. The chair and the
that represents a more-or-less coherent panelists are provided a general template
and comprehensive approach to a multi- for a practice guide along the lines of the
faceted problem. information provided in this postscript.
They are also provided with examples
Practice guides in education at the of practice guides. The practice guide
Institute of Education Sciences panel works under a short deadline of 6–9
months to produce a draft document. The
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) expert panel interacts with and receives
publishes practice guides in education to feedback from staff at IES during the de-
bring the best available evidence and ex- velopment of the practice guide, but they
pertise to bear on the types of systemic understand that they are the authors and,
challenges that cannot be addressed by thus, responsible for the final product.
single interventions or approaches. Al-
though IES has taken advantage of the One unique feature of IES-sponsored prac-
history of practice guides in health care to tice guides is that they are subjected to
provide models of how to proceed in edu- rigorous external peer review through the
cation, education is different from health same office that is responsible for inde-
care in ways that may require that prac- pendent review of other IES publications.
tice guides in education have somewhat A critical task of the peer reviewers of a
different designs. Even within health care, practice guide is to determine whether the
where practice guides now number in the evidence cited in support of particular rec-
thousands, there is no single template in ommendations is up-to-date and whether
use. Rather, one finds descriptions of gen- studies of similar or better quality that
eral design features that permit substan- point in a different direction have not been
tial variation in the realization of practice ignored. Peer reviewers also are asked to
guides across subspecialties and panels evaluate whether the evidence grade as-
of experts.2 Accordingly, the templates signed to particular recommendations by
for IES practice guides may vary across the practice guide authors is appropriate.
practice guides and change over time and A practice guide is revised as necessary to
with experience. meet the concerns of external peer reviews
and gain the approval of the standards and
The steps involved in producing an IES- review staff at IES. The process of external
sponsored practice guide are first to se- peer review is carried out independent of
lect a topic, which is informed by formal the office and staff within IES that initiated
surveys of practitioners and spontaneous the practice guide.
requests from the field. Next, a panel chair
is recruited who has a national reputa- Because practice guides depend on the
tion and up-to-date expertise in the topic. expertise of their authors and their group
Third, the chair, working in collaboration decision-making, the content of a practice
with IES, selects a small number of panel- guide is not and should not be viewed as a
ists to co-author the practice guide. These set of recommendations that in every case
are people the chair believes can work well depends on and flows inevitably from sci-
together and have the requisite expertise entific research. It is not only possible but
to be a convincing source of recommen- also likely that two teams of recognized
dations. IES recommends that at least one experts working independently to produce
a practice guide on the same topic would
2. American Psychological Association (2002). generate products that differ in important
( 39 )

APPEnDIx A. POSTSCRIPT fROM ThE InSTITuTE fOR EDuCATIOn SCIEnCES

respects. Thus, consumers of practice the authors are national authorities who
guides need to understand that they are, have to reach agreement among them-
in effect, getting the advice of consultants. selves, justify their recommendations in
These consultants should, on average, pro- terms of supporting evidence, and un-
vide substantially better advice than edu- dergo rigorous independent peer review
cators might obtain on their own because of their product.

Institute of Education Sciences

( 40 )

Appendix B. Cathleen C. Kral is the instructional
About the Authors leader of literacy and the director of lit-
eracy coaching for Boston Public Schools.
She earned an M.Ed. in curriculum and
Michael L. Kamil is a professor of educa- instruction from Lesley University and an
tion at Stanford University. He is a mem- M.A. in English from Northeastern Univer-
ber of the Psychological Studies in Edu- sity. She has written articles and presented
cation Committee and is on the faculty widely on Boston’s professional develop-
of the Learning, Design, and Technology ment coaching model, Collaborative Coach-
Program. He earned his Ph.D. in psychol- ing and Learning. In addition to her work
ogy from the University of Wisconsin— in Boston Public Schools, she contributes
Madison. His current research focuses to adolescent literacy and literacy coaching
on the effects of recreational reading on at the national level.
reading achievement, instruction for Eng-
lish language learners, and the effects Terry Salinger is a managing director
of technology on literacy and literacy and chief scientist for reading research at
instruction. the American Institutes for Research. She
earned her Ph.D. in reading, with dual em-
Geoffrey D. Borman is a professor in the phases on Statistics and Curriculum De-
Departments of Educational Leadership sign, from New Mexico State University.
and Policy Analysis, Educational Psychol- Her research focuses on reading and liter-
ogy, and Educational Policy Studies at the acy instruction and assessment. Dr. Salin-
University of Wisconsin—Madison. He ger previously held positions as a school
earned his Ph.D. in measurement, evalua- teacher, a professor of reading and early
tion, and statistical analysis from the Uni- childhood education, and a researcher at
versity of Chicago. His main substantive Educational Testing Service.
research interests focus on social stratifi-
cation and the ways in which educational Joseph Torgesen is the Morcom Profes-
policies and practices can help address sor of psychology and education at Florida
and overcome inequality. State University and director emeritus of
the Florida Center for Reading Research.
Janice Dole is director of the Utah Cen- He also serves as the director of reading
ter for Reading and Literacy and associate for the Center on Instruction K–12 in Read-
professor of education at the University ing, Math, and Science. He earned his Ph.D.
of Utah. She earned her Ph.D. in reading in developmental and clinical psychol-
education from the University of Colorado. ogy from the University of Michigan. His
Her research focuses on comprehension research has focused on the psychology
instruction, professional development in of reading and interventions for students
reading, and school reform in reading. with reading difficulties.

( 41 )

Appendix C. further muted by the requirement that
Disclosure of potential they ground their recommendations in
evidence that is documented in the prac-
conflicts of interest tice guide. In addition, the practice guide
undergoes independent external peer
Practice guide panels are composed of in- review prior to publication, with par-
dividuals who are nationally recognized ticular focus on whether the evidence
experts on the topics about which they related to the recommendations in the
are rendering recommendations. The In- practice guide has been appropriately
stitute of Education Sciences (IES) expects presented.
that such experts will be involved profes-
sionally in a variety of matters that relate The professional engagements reported
to their work as a panel. Panel members by each panel member that appear most
are asked to disclose their professional closely associated with the panel recom-
involvements and to institute deliberative mendations are noted below.
processes that encourage critical exami-
nation of the views of panel members as Dr. Dole is a coauthor of a basal reading
they relate to the content of the practice program for elementary grades (K–6), but
guide. The potential influence of panel this program is not referenced in the prac-
members’ professional engagements is tice guide.

( 42 )

Appendix D. districts throughout the United States.
Technical information About 33 percent of the studies showed a
positive impact specifically for students
on the studies reading below grade level.

Recommendation 1. Several of the studies taught students to
Provide explicit vocabulary become independent learners by analyz-
instruction ing semantic and syntactic features of
words and building on relationships be-
Level of evidence: Strong tween new words and previously acquired
vocabulary.4 In addition, several stud-
The panel considers the level of evidence ies used multiple methods (for example,
that supports this recommendation to be syntactic and semantic analysis, context
strong. This rating is based on six random- clues and semantic analysis, semantic
ized controlled experiments and three well analysis and multiple sensory experiences)
designed quasi- experiments that dem- to promote vocabulary acquisition.5 In
onstrated group equivalence at pretest.1 one study, middle school students with
An additional six studies provided direct learning disabilities were randomly as-
evidence to support this recommenda- signed to one of four conditions: seman-
tion but were weaker for various reasons, tic mapping, semantic feature analysis,
such as quasi-experimental studies that semantic/syntactic feature analysis, and
did not show equivalence between inter- definition instruction.6 Immediate post-
vention and control groups at pretest, a test and follow-up findings showed that
lack of a comparison group, and a teacher- interactive instruction (that is, semantic
intervention confound.2 Moreover, a single mapping, semantic feature analysis, se-
subject design study with a counter-bal- mantic/syntactic feature analysis) is more
anced time-series design also provided effective than just learning and practicing
evidence about the effect of vocabulary the meaning of words in helping students
instruction on students’ outcomes.3 Of understand the context-related meaning
this body of scientific evidence, nine stud- of vocabulary presented in a passage. In
ies included students in upper elementary addition, students in the interactive con-
schools, and the remaining seven studies ditions outperformed students in the def-
focused on students in middle and high inition instruction condition on reading
schools. The body of evidence supporting comprehension. In a second study, middle
explicit vocabulary instruction represents school students were randomly assigned
student populations from low, middle, to either a semantic mapping instruction
and upper-middle socioeconomic sta- group or a context-clue instruction group.7
tus in urban, suburban, and rural school Results favored students in the semantic
mapping group over students in the con-
1. Barron and Melnik (1973); Baumann et al. text clue group on a vocabulary test and
(2002); Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders a researcher-developed definitions test.
(1990); Brett et al. (1996); Lieberman (1967); Mar-
gosein et al. (1982); Nelson and Stage (2007); Xin
4. For example, Baumann et al. (2002); Baumann
and Reith (2001).
et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990); Margosein
2. Beck et al. (1982); Jenkins et al. (1989); Koury et al. (1982) .
(1996); Ruddell and Shearer (2002); Stump et al.
5. Beck et al. (1982); Brett et al. (1996); Lieberman
(1992); Terrill et al. (2004).
(1967); Xin and Rieth (2001).
3. Malone and McLaughlin (1997). The standards
6. Bos and Anders (1990).
for judging the quality of a single subject design
study are currently being developed. 7. Margosein et al. (1982).

( 43 )

APPEnDIx D. TEChnICAL InfORMATIOn On ThE STuDIES

In another study students in upper ele- context and morphemic clues, teachers
mentary school with learning disabilities directed students to look for definitions
were randomly assigned to either vocab- in their textbook glossaries or the class-
ulary instruction with video technology room dictionaries.10 To motivate students
or vocabulary instruction without video in both conditions to focus on vocabulary,
technology.8 Students who received video- the researchers constructed the lessons
assisted vocabulary instruction outper- around an adaptation of the television se-
formed students who received the same ries The X-Files. The students were asked to
instruction without video technology on be Vocabulary-Files (V-Files) agents. They
a word definitions vocabulary test. were part of the Federal Vocabulary Insti-
tute (FVI) and their mission was to figure
out the meaning of words as they learned
Example of an intervention that uses about the Civil War.
explicit vocabulary instruction
According to the study authors, the results
In the example study a research team con- of this study showed that students in the
ducted a randomized controlled trial with TV group showed a better acquisition of
157 5th-grade students in ethnically di- textbook vocabulary than students in the
verse classrooms from four urban schools MC group. This result was statistically sig-
in the Southeast.9 Whole classrooms were nificant. However, students in the MC group
assigned to conditions and explicit vo- were better able to figure out the meanings
cabulary instruction was provided, using of vocabulary that could be deciphered by
morphemic and contextual analysis in- using morphemes presented in isolation
struction (MC) or the more traditional text- than students in the TV group. This result
book vocabulary instruction (TV). For 25 was also statistically significant. Other out-
instructional days vocabulary instruction comes investigated in this study (effects
was embedded within 45-minute social on students’ understanding of words in
studies periods and delivered by regular context, students’ comprehension of two
classroom teachers in both conditions. chapters from the textbook, and students’
Within each lesson, in both conditions, comprehension of new social studies text)
teachers focused on the social studies showed no differences between the differ-
textbook content for 30 minutes and on ent conditions, and the effect sizes were
vocabulary instruction for 15 minutes. relatively small. In this study explicit vo-
Students in the MC group received instruc- cabulary instruction was used in both con-
tion in morphemic and contextual analysis ditions and showed a positive impact on
strategies. Morphemic analysis included different vocabulary outcomes. Because a
looking for word-part clues (root words, business as usual control group was not
prefixes, suffixes). Contextual analysis adopted, the study did not directly address
included looking for different types of the impact of explicit vocabulary instruc-
context clues (definitions, synonyms, ant- tion on literacy development. Rather, it
onyms, examples, general clues) in the
sentences around the word. Students in
the TV group received the same amount 10. Some of the strategies taught in the interven-
of vocabulary instruction as the MC group. tion condition—engaging in prior knowledge and
prediction activities—were taught in the com-
However, instead of teaching students
parison condition as well. For example, students
how to derive the meaning of words from
completed a know, want to know, and learned
chart (Ogle 1986, as cited in Baumann et al. 2003),
responded to questions, constructed a semantic
8. Xin and Rieth (2001).
map, and made an entry in their vocabulary logs
9. Baumann et al. (2003). with illustrations related to the reading.

( 44 )


demonstrated the relative merits of differ- reading level as well as literal and inferen-
ent types of explicit vocabulary instruction tial questions about a common story not
on reading achievement. at the students’ reading level. The literal
questions could be answered by using in-
Recommendation 2. formation verbatim from the story. The in-
Provide direct and explicit ferential questions could only be answered
comprehension strategy instruction by interpreting the text using other knowl-
edge. In addition to being scored “correct”
Level of evidence: Strong or “incorrect,” the inferential questions
were also scored using a weighting scheme
The panel considers the level of evidence to incorporate the quality of the students’
that supports this recommendation to responses. Results indicated that for the
be strong. This rating is based on five story at the students’ reading level, the
experiments,11 with additional evidence intervention group significantly outper-
from a single subject design study with formed the control group on the literal
multiple probe design across students.12 questions and the inferential questions
Of this body of scientific evidence, two for the poor readers only. For the com-
studies included students in upper ele- mon story, the intervention group scored
mentary schools, and the remaining stud- statistically significantly better than the
ies focused on students in middle and high control group on the inferential questions
schools. The body of evidence supporting and the weighted inferential questions for
explicit comprehension strategy instruc- both good and poor readers.13 In a second
tion represents student populations in study the researchers examined the effects
urban, suburban, and rural school dis- of summarizing and paraphrasing on the
tricts in the Northeastern, Central, and reading comprehension test scores of low
other regions of the United States. About socioeconomic status 7th-grade students
67 percent of the studies showed a posi- and found that the intervention group
tive impact specifically for students read- scored statistically significantly better
ing below grade level. than a comparison group.14 In another
study the effect of a graphic organizer (se-
Most of the studies shared common fea- mantic mapping) on the comprehension
tures of implementation: direct and ex- and vocabulary achievements of 7th- and
plicit comprehension strategy instruction, 8th-grade students was examined. The re-
question answering, and summarization searchers found that students in the inter-
strategies. In one study the researchers vention group scored statistically signifi-
examined the effects of teaching 4th-grade cantly better on measures of vocabulary
students comprehension strategies—in- but not comprehension.15
cluding activating background knowledge,
answering questions, and making predic-
tions—on the students’ comprehension Example of an intervention that
achievements. The authors asked good uses comprehension strategies for
and poor readers literal and inferential expository texts
questions about a story at the students’
In the example study a research team
11. Hansen and Pearson (1983); Katims and Har- conducted a randomized controlled trial
ris (1997); Margosein et al. (1982); Peverly and
Wood (2001); Raphael and McKinney (1983).
13. Hansen and Pearson (1983).
12. Jitendra et al. (1988). The standards for judg-
ing the quality of a single subject design study
are currently being developed. 15. Margosein et al. (1982).

( 45 )


with 10 classes of 7th-grade students (N = comprehension scores than students in
207) from a low socioeconomic district.16 the control group. This result was statisti-
Twelve percent of the students had learn- cally significant.
ing disabilities. Because the intervention
was designed to help students who had Recommendation 3.
problematic comprehension strategies for Provide opportunities for extended
expository texts, 21 students who had a discussion of text meaning and
score at or above 90 percent on the com- interpretation
prehension test using passages from Timed
Readings17 were excluded from the data Level of evidence: Moderate
analysis. Literacy instruction using summa-
rizing and paraphrasing to promote read- The panel considers the level of evidence
ing comprehension was provided. As part that supports this recommendation to be
of the intervention, students in the control moderate. This rating is based on one well
group were given the district-mandated designed quasi-experiment19 that demon-
Reading Workshop,18 which gave students strated group equivalence at pretest and
learning opportunities in reading, writing, one large correlational study with strong
and discussion experiences using both fic- statistical controls.20 Three additional
tion and nonfiction reading materials. In quasi-experimental studies provided direct
addition to Reading Workshop, students in evidence to support this recommendation
the intervention group were taught the cog- but were not ideal for various reasons in-
nitive strategy of paraphrasing for 20 min- volving study design (for example, teacher
utes every other school day over a course confound, lack of baseline equivalence).21
of six weeks. The intervention emphasized Additionally, a recent meta-analysis22 and
summarizing and paraphrasing strategies. a large descriptive study23 provided evi-
Students practiced identifying the main dence to support this recommendation. Of
idea and learned how to ask questions in this body of scientific evidence, four stud-
three simple steps: reading a paragraph, ies included students in late elementary
asking questions, and putting the infor- schools, and the remaining studies focused
mation in their own words. During the in- on students in middle and high schools.
tervention, the teacher first described and The body of evidence supporting text dis-
modeled the strategies to be used, followed cussion represents student populations in
by students’ verbal practice of the strate- urban, suburban, and rural school districts
gies using grade-level and advanced grade- in all five regions of the United States (West,
level passages. In addition, cue cards and Southwest, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast).
large posters prompted students to use the About 50 percent of the studies showed a
strategies they had learned. Reading com- positive impact specifically for students
prehension was measured at the start and reading below grade level.
end of the intervention with 10 comprehen-
sion questions using expository texts. Most of the studies shared common fea-
tures of implementation: training of teach-
According to the study authors, the re- ers prior to implementation, collaborative
sults of this study indicated that students
receiving the intervention showed higher

20. Applebee et al. (2003).
21. Bird (1984); Heinl (1988); Yeazell (1982).
17. Spargo (1989).
22. Murphy et al. (2007).
18. Atwell (1987), as cited in Katims and Harris
(1997). 23. Langer (2001).

( 46 )


group discussion and learning, a focus on issues in stories they had read, taking po-
interpretive and logical thinking, summa- sitions on issues and providing supporting
rization, and engaging reading material. In evidence from the story for their positions.
one study, one of the intervention groups The teacher’s role was to encourage stu-
participated in shared inquiry and discov- dents to think reflectively about what they
ery by reading a narrative literature selec- had read, to expose students to formal ar-
tion and engaging in group interpretation gument devices, and to coach students (to
and discussion. Students who participated challenge others’ viewpoints, to provide
in these discussions showed greater im- counterarguments, to respond using rebut-
provements on a standardized measure tals). In addition to these regular discussion
of reading comprehension than those periods, students in the intervention group
who did not, but the effect was statisti- also participated in twice weekly 15-min-
cally significant only for the lower ability ute discussions with all other participating
students in the group.24 In a second study classrooms, using web-based technology.
students discussed controversial issues in
the selections they read and wrote a per- According to the study authors, the results
suasive essay about a particular story at of this study indicated that students engag-
the end of the intervention. Analysis of the ing in collaborative reasoning showed better
written essays indicated that the interven- persuasive arguments as indicated by the
tion group significantly outperformed the number of arguments, counterarguments,
comparison group in terms of variables rebuttals, and use of textual information in
such as number of arguments, counter- essays that the students had written. This
arguments, rebuttals, formal argument result was statistically significant.
devices, and textual information.25
Recommendation 4.
Increase student motivation and
Example of an intervention that uses engagement in literacy learning
text discussion
Level of evidence: Moderate
In the example study a research team con-
ducted a quasi-experimental study with se- The panel considers the level of evidence
lected classrooms from four public schools that supports this recommendation to be
serving students of diverse ethnic and so- moderate. This rating is based on two ex-
cioeconomic backgrounds.26 In this study, periments27 and one quasi-experimental
literacy instruction to promote the persua- study that did not show equivalence be-
siveness of written arguments used an oral tween intervention and comparison groups
discussion technique known as collabora- at pretest but had no other major flaws
tive reasoning. As part of the intervention, threatening its internal validity.28 Three ad-
students in the collaborative reasoning ditional studies provided direct evidence
group met in small groups twice a week to support this recommendation but were
for 15- to 20-minute discussions over five weaker for various reasons, such as lack
weeks. During these discussion sessions, of an eligible outcome (that is, measured
students openly participated (that is, they motivation rather than literacy).29 Six addi-
did not need to be called on by a teacher)
in oral discussions about controversial
27. Schunk and Rice (1992), which contains two
studies; Mueller and Dweck (1998).
24. Heinl (1988).
26. Reznitskaya et al. (2001). (1987); Guthrie et al. (2000). Some of these studies

( 47 )


tional experimental and quasi-experimental students with opportunities to generate
design studies30 provided indirect evidence questions, discuss text meaning and inter-
for this practice. Although these studies pretation, and communicate their under-
did not focus on literacy skills, they dem- standings throughout the process. Results
onstrated a direct link between the quality indicated that students using CORI signifi-
of a teacher’s praise and students’ motiva- cantly increased their strategy use, con-
tion. Finally, two meta-analyses of the re- ceptual learning, and text comprehension
search about the general effects of extrinsic compared with students taught using a tra-
rewards on students’ motivation were also ditional approach.33 In a second study stu-
considered for the purpose of this review.31 dents processed words using one of three
Although the meta-analyses of the litera- levels that ranged from shallow to deep
ture included secondary school students, and then participated in one of two condi-
all other empirical studies reviewed here tions that manipulated their motivational
focused on students in elementary schools. state (task-focused or ego-focused). Results
The body of evidence supporting motiva- indicated that students in the task-focused
tion and engagement represents student group had significantly higher cued recall
populations in urban and suburban school scores than students in the ego-focused
districts in multiple geographical regions of group.34 In another study students’ mo-
the United States. About 33 percent of the tivation was manipulated by leading stu-
studies that focused on literacy outcomes dents to believe that they would be graded
showed a positive impact specifically for on their performance (controlling directed
students reading below grade level. In addi- learning), not graded but asked questions
tion to the empirical studies, a literature re- (noncontrolling directed learning), or asked
view and an article summarizing a series of questions to assess their enjoyment and
research studies provided direct evidence attitudes (nondirected spontaneous learn-
to support this recommendation.32 ing). The researchers found that students in
the controlling and noncontrolling directed
Some of the studies shared common fea- learning groups had better rote learning
tures of implementation: a yearlong imple- than students in the nondirected group.
mentation, a focus on interdisciplinary But students in the noncontrolling directed
themes, a phased approach to teaching the learning group also had statistically signifi-
practice, a focus on extrinsic motivation cantly better learning than students in the
or intrinsic motivation for the interven- controlling directed group.35
tion group(s), and the linking of correct
responses to comprehension questions to
the correct use of a taught strategy. In one Example of an intervention that uses
study, an interdisciplinary approach called Concept Oriented Reading Instruction36
Concept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI)
was used over one year to teach students In our example a research team conducted
life and earth science topics using a four- two quasi- experimental studies37 with
phase teaching framework that provided

also failed on duration as defined in the adolescent 34. Graham and Golan (1991).
literacy protocol (that is, at least four weeks) but
35. Grolnick and Ryan (1987).
were deemed to be of sufficient length to provide
additional support for the recommendation. 36. This nonbranded program is included be-
cause it contains many relevant motivation and
30. Mueller and Dweck (1998).
engagement practices and strategies.
31. Deci et al. (1999); Tang and Hall (1995).
37. One study was initially reported briefly in
32. Guthrie and McCann (1997); Schunk (2003). Guthrie and McCann (1997) and was described in

( 48 )


3rd- and 5th-grade students from class- the CORI teachers met to discuss infor-
rooms of mixed races and ethnicities near mation related to progress, strategies,
a large city in a mid-Atlantic state.38 In and challenges. The teachers used a four-
this study literacy instruction to promote phase approach in the instructional units
motivation for literacy, conceptual under- taught over the year: observe and per-
standing, strategies for learning, and so- sonalize (hands-on activities and student-
cial interaction was provided using Con- developed questions), search and retrieve
cept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI). (searching for answers to questions and
CORI is based on seven instructional information from varied sources), com-
characteristics: prehend and integrate (direct strategies on
how to integrate information learned from
• Conceptual theme: theme about which each source), and communicate (students
learning is organized. communicate what they have learned
using various media). In the fall the teach-
• Observation: use of hands-on activities ers taught a series of instructional units
and real-life experiences for learning. about the life cycles of plants and animals;
in the spring, the units focused on earth
• Self-direction: supports to student in science, including the solar system and
being autonomous in their learning. geological cycles.39 In the traditional class-
rooms teachers used the teachers’ guides
• Strategy instruction: supports to stu- and manuals. Teachers in both the CORI
dent in guided discovery. classrooms and the traditional classrooms
had the same instructional goals for lan-
• Collaboration: support to help stu- guage arts and science. In one study40 stu-
dents work together to learn. dents were assessed over a weeklong pe-
riod using a performance assessment that
• Self-expression: support to assist stu- tested them either on familiar or unfamil-
dents describe their understanding to iar topics to determine their prior knowl-
others. edge, strategy use, conceptual learning
(drawing and writing), conceptual trans-
• Coherence: the link between con- fer, informational text comprehension,
ceptual understanding and real-life and narrative interpretation abilities. In
experiences. the other study41 students were assessed
on their intrinsic motivation (curiosity, in-
As part of the intervention, CORI was volvement, and preference for challenge),
taught over the course of a year by inte- extrinsic motivation (recognition and com-
grating science and language arts. The petition), and strategy use.
CORI teachers participated in a summer
workshop for 10 half-day sessions to plan According to the study authors, the results
the instruction for the year. Each month, of the first study42 indicated that students

detail in Guthrie et al. (1999). The other study was 39. This was the content taught in Guthrie et al.
described in Guthrie et al. (2000). This section of (1999). In Guthrie et al. (2000), teachers taught
the technical appendix is based on information environmental adaptation (life science theme)
from all three articles. in the fall and weather (earth science theme) in
the spring.
38. Although the studies included 3rd- and 5th-
grade students, this practice guide focuses only 40. Guthrie et al. (1999).
on the results for the 5th-grade students because
of the age range specified in the Adolescent Lit-
eracy protocol. 42. Guthrie et al. (1999).

( 49 )


receiving CORI showed greater conceptual other types of disabilities, such as speech-
learning, motivated strategy use, informa- language impairment, and one study in-
tional text comprehension, and narrative cluded students without disabilities who
comprehension than students in the tra- were deemed at risk for failure in reading.
ditional classrooms. These results were It is often difficult to determine whether
statistically significant. Other outcomes in- adolescent struggling readers are in fact
vestigated in this study (conceptual trans- learning disabled because the characteris-
fer) showed no statistically significant tics of their difficulties are often similar.
differences between the different condi-
tions. Results for the other study43demon- The body of evidence supporting intensive
strated that students who had participated and individualized interventions for strug-
in CORI scored statistically significantly gling readers represents student popula-
higher than students from traditional tions located in mostly urban and subur-
classrooms on measures of curiosity and ban areas across the United States and in
strategy use. Other outcomes investigated one province in Canada (Ontario). Overall,
in this study (involvement, recognition, several studies demonstrated a positive
and competition) showed no statistically relationship between strategic interven-
significant differences between the differ- tions and student outcomes when com-
ent conditions. pared with business-as-usual approaches,
but comparisons among different types of
Recommendation 5. strategic intervention did not lead to any
Make intensive and individualized clear conclusions about the superiority of
interventions available for one approach over another.
struggling readers that can be
provided by trained specialists The interventions implemented in these
studies included such diverse approaches
Level of evidence: Strong as fluency strategies, semantic mapping
and semantic feature analysis to show
The panel considers the level of evidence relationships among words, graphic rep-
that supports this recommendation to resentations of ideas in text, goal setting,
be strong. This rating is based on 12 ex- self-instruction, question answering, iden-
periments and one well designed quasi- tification of themes, phonological analysis
experiment that demonstrated group com- and blending, word identification, text con-
parability at pretest.44 Of this body of tent and structure, and reciprocal teach-
scientific evidence, 12 studies included ing. Several interventions combined two
students in upper-elementary or middle or more of these strategies. The most suc-
school; the remaining study focused on cessful approaches used semantic map-
students in high school. All the studies ping, semantic feature analysis, thematic
included students with learning disabili- or graphic organizers appropriate to genre,
ties including specific reading impair- identification of themes, phonological anal-
ments. Two also included students with ysis and blending, word identification, text
content and structure, or reciprocal teach-
43. Guthrie et al. (2000). ing. In one study students45 using semantic

44. Allinder et al. (2001); Bos and Anders (1990);
DiCecco and Gleason (2002); Englert and Mariage 45. The students had a discrepancy between
(1991); Johnson et al. (1997); Lovett et al. (1996); their intellectual functioning in one or more aca-
Lovett and Steinbach (1997); Peverly and Wood demic area and one or more deficits in cognitive
(2001); Rooney (1997); Therrien et al. (2006); processing. Additionally, the students had aver-
Wilder and Williams (2001); Williams et al. (1994); age intelligence but reading was identified as a
Xin and Reith (2001). focus for remediation.

( 50 )


mapping or semantic feature analysis ap- students were receiving educational sup-
proaches outperformed students receiving ports for their learning disabilities through
typical direct instruction on immediate and either resource or self-contained settings.
delayed tests of reading comprehension.46 Individual students were assigned to one
In a second study47 students who used re- of four intervention conditions: Definition
peated reading and answered factual and Instruction (DI), Semantic Mapping (SM),
inferential comprehension questions made Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA), or Se-
greater gains on a test of basic literacy skills mantic/Syntactic Feature Analysis (SSFA).
than their peers who did not receive the in- Students met in groups of 6–12 for eight
tervention.48 In another study students49 50-minute sessions spread out over ap-
who used an organizing strategy followed proximately seven weeks.
by theme identification and generalization
of story themes to real life performed bet- The DI condition involved directly teach-
ter on measures of comprehension than ing students the meaning of vocabulary
students who received typical instruc- words by using a written list of the words
tion.50 All the successful approaches used with their definitions. The other three in-
the chosen intervention over the course of terventions were based on interactive in-
a month or more, although they varied in structional models. In the SM condition the
intensity from just under an hour a week teacher worked with students to construct
to two hours a day. a hierarchical relationship map for the vo-
cabulary words based on their meaning.
In the SFA condition the teacher worked
Example of an intervention for with students using a matrix to predict
struggling readers relationships among the concepts repre-
sented by the vocabulary words. The ma-
In the example study researchers con- trix was created by placing superordinate
ducted a randomized controlled trial vocabulary at the head of the matrix and
with 61 junior high school students with then subordinate vocabulary below. The
learning disabilities from two middle- and SSFA condition was identical to the SFA
lower-middle-class school districts in the condition except that students also used
Southwest United States.51 Participating the matrix to guide them in predicting the
answers for cloze-type sentences.
46. Bos and Anders (1990).
According to the study authors, students
47. About half of the students had a reading in the SM condition developed better read-
learning disability and half were at risk for reading comprehension than students in the
ing failure (that is, reading at least two grade lev-
DI condition by the time of posttest. This
els below actual grade level).
effect was statistically significant. In a de-
48. Therrien et al. (2006). layed reading comprehension follow up,
49. All students had identified learning dis- students in the SFA and SSFA conditions
abilities and discrepancies between actual and outperformed those in the DI condition.
expected levels of reading achievement were These effects were statistically significant.
greater than 1.5 grade levels. Additionally, the For all the outcomes above, there were no
students scored at the 11th percentile on the significant differences between the perfor-
Degrees of Reading Power Test, a test of reading
mances of the students across the three
comprehension.
interactive conditions.
50. Wilder and Williams (2001).

51. Bos and Anders (1990); the students had a deficits in cognitive processing. Additionally, the
discrepancy between their intellectual function- students had average intelligence but reading
ing in one or more academic area and one or more was identified as a focus for remediation.

( 51 )

References report (pp. 46–52). Syracuse, NY: Syra-
cuse University, Reading and Language
ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: Arts Center.
What the ACT reveals about college read- Barry, A. L. (1997.) High school reading pro-
iness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author. grams revisited. Journal of Adolescent
Adler, M., & Rougle, E. (2005). Building and Adult Literacy, 40(7), 524–31.
literacy through classroom discussion: Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland, E.
Research-based strategies for developing M., Olejnik, S., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2003).
critical readers and thoughtful writers in Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction
middle school. New York: Scholastic. in morphology and context on fifth-
Allinder, R. M., Dunse, L., Brunken, C. D. grade students’ ability to derive and
& Obermiller-Krolikowski, H. J. (2001). infer word meanings. American Educa-
Improving fluency in at-risk readers tional Research Journal, 40(2), 447–94.
and students with learning disabilities. Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Font, G.,
Remedial and Special Education, 22(1), Tereshinski, C. A., Kame’enui, E. J., &
48–54. Olejnik, S. (2002). Teaching morphemic
American Educational Research Associa- and contextual analysis to fifth-grade
tion, American Psychological Associa- students. Reading Research Quarterly,
tion, & National Council on Measure- 37(2), 150–76.
ment in Education. (1999). Standards for Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2006). Im-
educational and psychological testing. proving comprehension with question-
Washington, DC: American Educational ing the author: A fresh and expanded
Research Association Publications. view of a powerful approach. New York:
American Psychological Association. Scholastic.
(2002). Criteria for practice guideline Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G.
development and evaluation. American (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary
Psychologist, 57, 1048–51. instruction on lexical access and read-
Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., ing comprehension. Journal of Educa-
& Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based tional Psychology, 74(4), 506–21.
approaches to developing understand- Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of think-
ing: Classroom instruction and student ing aloud in identification and teach-
performance in middle and high school ing of reading comprehension strate-
English. American Educational Research gies. Cognition and Instruction, 2(2),
Journal, 40(3), 685–730. 91–130.
Artley, S. (1944). A study of certain re- Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Read-
lationships existing between general ing next—A vision for action and re-
reading comprehension and reading search in middle and high school liter-
comprehension in a specific subject acy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of
matter area. Journal of Educational Re- New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for
search, 37, 464–73. Excellent Education.
Ausubel, D. P., & Youssef, M. (1965). The ef- Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Read-
fect of spaced repetition on meaningful ing next—A vision for action and re-
retention. Journal of General Psychol- search in middle and high school liter-
ogy, 73, 147–50. acy: A report to Carnegie Corporation
Barron, R. F., & Melnik, R. (1973). The ef- of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:
fects of discussion upon learning vo- Alliance for Excellent Education.
cabulary meanings and relationships Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in
in tenth grade biology. In H. L. Herber vocabulary development: Implications
& R. F. Barron (Eds.), Research in read- for choosing words for primary grade
ing in the content areas, second year vocabulary instruction. In E. Hiebert
( 52 )

REfEREnCES

& M. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learn- NAEP 2002 special study of oral read-
ing vocabulary: Bringing research to ing (NCES 2006-469). Washington, DC:
practice (pp. 223–42). Mahwah, NJ: U.S. Department of Education, Institute
Erlbaum. of Education Sciences, National Center
Bird, J. J. (1984). Effects on fifth graders’ for Education Statistics.
attitudes and critical thinking/read- Darwin, M. (2003). High school reading
ing skills resulting from a Junior Great specialist pathways. In R. Bean (Ed.),
Books program. Unpublished doctoral The reading specialist: Leadership for
dissertation. Rutgers University, New the classroom, school, and community.
Brunswick, NJ. New York: Guilford.
Blanchowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2001). Reading Deci, E., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. (1999). A
comprehension: Strategies for indepen- meta-analytic review of experiments
dent learners. New York: Guilford. examining the effects of extrinsic re-
Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of wards on intrinsic motivation. Psycho-
interactive vocabulary instruction on logical Bulletin, 125(6), 627–68.
the vocabulary learning and reading Dewitz, P., Carr, E. M., & Patberg, J. P. (1987).
comprehension of junior-high learning Effects of inference training on compre-
disabled students. Learning Disability hension and comprehension monitor-
Quarterly, 13(1), 31–42. ing. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(1),
Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). 99–121.
Vocabulary acquisition from listen- DiCecco, V. M., & Gleason, M. M. (2002).
ing to stories and explanations of tar- Using graphic organizers to attain re-
get words. Elementary School Journal, lational knowledge from expository
96(4), 415–22. text. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
Brown, A. D., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. 35(4), 306–20.
(1981). Learning to learn: On training Dole, J. A., Duffy, G., Roehler, L. R., & Pear-
students to learn from text. Educational son, P. D. P. (1991). Moving from the old
Researcher, 10(2), 14–21. to the new: Research on reading com-
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & prehension instruction. Review of Edu-
Shuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental cational Research, 61(2), 239–64.
validation of transactional strategies Duffy, G. G. (2002). The case for direct ex-
instruction with low-achieving second- planation of strategies. In C. C. Block & M.
graders. Journal of Educational Psychol- Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruc-
ogy, 88(1), 18–37. tion (pp. 28–41). New York: Guilford.
Center on Education Policy. (2007). Answer- Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rack-
ing the question that matters most: Has liffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus,
student achievement increased since L. G., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., &
No Child Left Behind? Washington, DC: Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining
Author. the reasoning associated with using
Chall, J. S., & Conrad, S. S. (1991). Should reading strategies. Reading Research
textbooks challenge students? New York: Quarterly, 22(3), 347–68.
Teachers College Press. Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S.,
Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Develop- Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L.,
mental and instructional analyses of Means, B., Murphy, R., Penuel, W., Javitz,
children’s metacognition and reading H., Emery, D., and Sussex, W. (2007). Ef-
comprehension. Journal of Educational fectiveness of reading and mathematics
Psychology, 80(2), 131–42. software products: Findings from the
Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., first student cohort. Washington, DC:
Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005). U.S. Department of Education, Institute
Fourth-grade students reading aloud: of Education Sciences.
( 53 )

REfEREnCES

Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D., Lenz, B. K., Schu- In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Read-
maker, J. B., & Clark, F. L. (1991). An in- ing engagement: Motivating readers
structional model for teaching learning through integrated instruction (pp. 128–
strategies. Focus on Exceptional Chil- 48). Newark, DE: International Reading
dren, 23(6), 1–24. Association.
Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1991). Mak- Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C.
ing students partners in the comprehen- (2000). Effects of integrated instruction
sion process: Organizing the reading on motivation and strategy use in read-
‘posse.’ Learning Disability Quarterly, ing. Journal of Educational Psychology,
14(2), 123–38. 92(2), 331–41.
Field, M. J., & Lohr, K. N. (Eds.). (1990). Clini- Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., &
cal practice guidelines: Directions for a Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of con-
new program. Washington, DC: National cept-oriented reading instruction on
Academy Press. strategy use and conceptual learning
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. H., & Sim- from text. Elementary School Journal,
mons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted strate- 99(4), 343–66.
gies: Making classrooms more respon- Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An in-
sive to diversity. American Educational structional study: Improving the infer-
Research Journal, 34(1), 174–206. ential comprehension of good and poor
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educa-
Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading com- tional Psychology, 75(6), 821–29.
prehension strategies to students with Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Kowalski, P.
learning disabilities: A review of the re- (1992). Individual differences in the ef-
search. Review of Educational Research, fects of educational transition on young
71(2), 279–320. adolescent’s perceptions of competence
Gottfried, A. W. (1985). Measures of socio- and motivational orientation. American
economic status in child development Educational Research Journal, 29(4),
research: Data and recommendations. 777–807.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31(1), 85–92. Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies
Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational that work: Teaching comprehension to
influences on cognition: Task involve- enhance understanding. Portland, ME:
ment, ego involvement, and depth of Stenhouse Publishers.
information processing. Journal of Edu- Heinl, A. M. (1988). The effects of the Junior
cational Psychology, 83(2), 187–94. Great Books program on literal and in-
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Au- ferential comprehension. Unpublished
tonomy in children’s learning: An ex- master’s thesis. University of Toledo,
perimental and individual differences Toledo, OH.
investigation. Journal of Personality and Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. L. (2007). Literacy
Social Psychology, 52(5), 890–98. instruction in the content areas: Getting
Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004). to the core of middle and high school
Motivating students to read: Evidence improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance
for classroom practices that increase for Excellent Education.
reading motivation and achievement. Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. (2002). The
In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic
voice of evidence in reading research motivation: A review and synthesis. Psy-
(pp. 329–54). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. chological Bulletin, 128(5), 774–95.
Brookes Publishing. Hiebert, E. H. (2005). In pursuit of an ef-
Guthrie, J. T., & McCann, A. D. (1997). Char- fective, efficient vocabulary curriculum
acteristics of classrooms that promote for elementary students. In E. H. Hie-
motivations and strategies for learning. bert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and
( 54 )

REfEREnCES

learning vocabulary: Bringing research Kemple, J. J., Herlihy, C. M., & Smith, T. J.
to practice (pp. 243–63). Mahwah, NJ: (2005). Making progress toward gradu-
Erlbaum. ation: Evidence from the talent devel-
Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A opment high school model. New York:
comprehension strategy for both skilled Manpower Demonstration Research
and unskilled readers. Journal of Learn- Corporation.
ing Disabilities, 20(4), 196–205. Kemple, J. J., Corrin, W., Nelson, E., Salin-
International Reading Association. (2006). ger, T., Hermann, S., & Drummond, K.
Standards for middle and high school lit- (2008). Enhanced reading opportunity
eracy coaches. Newark, DE: Author. study: Early impact and implementation
Jenkins, J. R., Matlock, B., & Slocum, T. A. findings (NCEE 2008-4015). Washington,
(1989). Two approaches to vocabulary DC: U.S. Department of Education, In-
instruction: The teaching of individual stitute of Education Sciences.
word meanings and practice in deriving Kingery, E. (2000). Teaching metacogni-
word meaning from context. Reading tive strategies to enhance higher level
Research Quarterly, 24(2), 215–35. thinking in adolescents. In P. E. Linder,
Jitendra, A., Cole, C., Hoppes, M., & Wilson, E. G. Sturtevant, W. M. Linek, & J. R.
B. (1998). Effects of a direct instruction Dugan (Eds.), Literacy at a new horizon:
main idea summarization program and The twenty-secondary yearbook. (pp.
self-monitoring on reading comprehen- 74–85) Commerce, TX: College Reading
sion of middle school students with Association.
learning disabilities. Reading and Writ- Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S.
ing Quarterly, 14(4), 379–96. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading
Johnson, L., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. during social studies in heterogeneous
(1997). The effects of goal setting and fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary
self-instruction on learning a reading School Journal, 99(1), 3–22.
comprehension strategy: A study of stu- Koury, K. A. (1996). The impact of pre-
dents with learning disabilities. Journal teaching science content vocabulary
of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 80–91. using integrated media for knowledge
Kame’enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C., Chard, D., acquisition in a collaborative class-
& Dickson, S. (1997). Direct-instruction room. Journal of Computing in Child-
reading. In S. A. Stahl & D. A. Hayes hood Education, 7(3–4), 179–97.
(Eds.), Instructional models in reading Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teach-
(pp. 59–84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ing middle and high school students to
Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and lit- read and write well. American Educa-
eracy: Reading for the 21st century. tional Research Journal, 38(4), 837–80.
Washington DC: Alliance for Excellent Lee, J., Griggs, W. S., & Donahue, P. L.
Education. (2007). Nation’s report card: Reading
Katims, D. S., & Harris, S. (1997). Improv- (NCES 2007-496). Washington, DC: U.S.
ing the reading comprehension of mid- Department of Education, Institute of
dle school students in inclusive class- Education Sciences, National Center for
rooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Education Statistics.
Literacy, 41(2), 116–23. Lenz, B. K., Alley, G. R., & Schumaker, J. B.
Keene, E. (2006). Assessing comprehension (1987). Activating the inactive learner:
thinking strategies. Huntington Beach, Advance organizers in the secondary
CA: Shell Educational Publishing. content classroom. Learning Disability
Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mo- Quarterly, 10(1), 53–67.
saic of thought: Teaching comprehension Lieberman, J. E. (1967). The effects of direct
in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: instruction in vocabulary concepts on
Heinemann. reading achievement. (ED 010 985)
( 55 )

REfEREnCES

Lovett, M., & Steinbach, K. (1997). The ef- National Assessment Governing Board.
fectiveness of remedial programs for (2007). Reading framework for the 2009
reading disabled children of differ- National Assessment of Educational
ent ages: Does the benefit decrease Progress. Washington, DC: American
for older children? Learning Disability Institutes for Research.
Quarterly, 20(3), 189–210. National Reading Panel. (2000a). Teaching
Lovett, M. W., Borden, S., Warren-Chaplin, children to read: An evidence-based as-
P., Lacerenza, L., DeLuca, T., & Giovi- sessment of the scientific research litera-
nazzo, R. (1996). Text comprehension ture on reading and its implications for
training for disabled readers: An eval- reading instruction (NIH Publication No.
uation of reciprocal teaching and text 00-4769). Washington DC: U.S. Depart-
analysis training programs. Brain and ment of Health and Human Services,
Language, 54(3), 447–80. National Institute of Child Health and
Malone, R. A., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1997). Human Development.
The effects of reciprocal peer tutoring National Reading Panel. (2000b). Teach-
with a group contingency on quiz per- ing children to read: Reports of the sub-
formance in vocabulary with seventh- groups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754).
and eighth-grade students. Behavioral Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Interventions, 12(1), 27–40. Health and Human Services, National
Margosein, C. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Pflaum, Institute of Child Health and Human
S. W. (1982). The effects of instruction Development.
using semantic mapping on vocabulary Nelson, J. R., & Stage, S. A. (2007). Fostering
and comprehension. Journal of Early the development of vocabulary knowl-
Adolescence, 2(2), 185–94. edge and reading comprehension though
McLaughlin, M., & Allen, M. B. (2001). Guided contextually-based multiple meaning
comprehension: A teaching model for vocabulary instruction. Education &
grades 3–8. Newark: DE: International Treatment of Children, 30(1), 1–22.
Reading Association. O’Brien, D. G., Moje, E. B., and Stewart, R.
Moore, D., Readence, J., & Rickman, R. (2001.) Exploring the context of second-
(1983). An historical explanation of con- ary literacy: Literacy in people’s every-
tent area reading instruction. Reading day school lives. In E. B. Moje & D. G.
Research Quarterly, 18(4), 419–38. O’Brien (Eds.), Construction of literacy:
Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Studies of teaching and learning in and
Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: out of secondary schools (pp. 105–24.)
A position statement for the commission Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
on Adolescent Literacy of the Interna- Oczkus, L. D. (2004). Super six comprehen-
tional Reading Association. Newark, DE: sion strategies: 35 lessons and more for
International Reading Association. reading success with CD-Rom. Norwood,
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
for intelligence can undermine chil- Outsen, N., & Yulga, S. (2002). Teaching
dren’s motivation and performance. comprehension strategies all readers
Journal of Personality and Social Psy- need: Mini-lessons that introduce, ex-
chology, 75(1), 33–52. tend, and deepen reading skills and pro-
Murphy, K. P., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, mote a lifelong love of literature. New
A., Hennessey, M. H., & Alexander, York: Scholastic.
J. F. (2007). What the studies tell us: Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Re-
An examination of the effects of class- ciprocal teaching of comprehension-
room discussion on students’ high-level fostering and comprehension-monitor-
comprehension of text. Manuscript in ing activities. Cognition and Instruction,
submission. 1(2), 117–75.
( 56 )

REfEREnCES

Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. Pressley, G. M. (1976). Mental imagery
(1984). Informed strategies for learn- helps eight-year-olds remember what
ing: A program to improve children’s they read. Journal of Educational Psy-
reading awareness and comprehension. chology, 68(3), 355–59.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Ver-
1239–52. bal protocols of reading: The nature of
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. constructively responsive reading. Hills-
(1983). Becoming a strategic reader. dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, Pressley, M., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull,
8(3), 293–316. T. (1987). How can good strategy use
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. be taught to children? Evaluation of
(1991). The development of strategic six alternative approaches. In S. M.
readers. In R. Barr, P. D. Pearson, M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Trans-
Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook fer of learning: Contemporary research
of reading research (pp. 609–40). New and applications. New York: Academic
York: Longman. Press.
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., &
comprehension instruction: A review of Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruc-
research and a new conceptualization tion research comes of age. Learning
of instruction. Elementary School Jour- Disability Quarterly, 12(1), 16–30.
nal, 88(2), 151–65. Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S.,
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Com- McGoldrick, J. A., & Kurita, J. A. (1989).
prehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. Strategies that improve children’s mem-
L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pear- ory and comprehension of text. Elemen-
son (Eds.), Handbook of reading re- tary School Journal, 90(1), 3–32.
search Volume II (pp. 815–60). New York: Raphael, T. E., & McKinney, J. (1983). An
Longman. examination of fifth and eighth-grade
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The children’s question-answering behav-
instruction of reading comprehension. ior: An instructional study in metacog-
Contemporary Educational Psychology, nition. Journal of Reading Behavior,
8(3), 317–44. 15(3), 67–86.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. Reutzel, D. R. (1985). Story maps improve
(2004). Pennsylvania reading require- comprehension. The Reading Teacher,
ments for school, the workplace and 38(4), 400–04.
society: Executive summary of findings. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen,
Harrisburg, PA: Author. B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., &
Perie, M., & Moran, R. (2005). NAEP 2004 Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discus-
trends in academic progress: Three sion on written argument. Discourse
decades of student performance in read- Processes, 32(2&3), 155–75.
ing and mathematics (NCES 2005-464). Riddle Buly, M., & Valencia, S. W. (2002).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Below the bar: Profiles of students who
Education, Institute of Education Sci- fail state reading assessments. Educa-
ences, National Center for Education tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
Statistics. 24(3), 219–39.
Peverly, S. T., & Wood, R. (2001). The effects Rooney, J. (1997). The effects of story
of adjunct questions and feedback on grammar strategy training on the story
improving the reading comprehension comprehension, self-efficacy and attri-
skills of learning-disabled adolescents. butions of learning disabled students.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, Dissertation Abstracts International,
26(1), 25–43. 58(5-A), 1642. (UMI No. 9732965)
( 57 )

REfEREnCES

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Recip- Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.).
rocal teaching: A review of the research. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties
Review of Educational Research, 64(4), in young children. Washington, DC: Na-
479–530. tional Academy Press.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, Spargo, E. (1989). Timed readings (3rd
S. (1996). Teaching students to gener- ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: Jamestown
ate questions: A review of intervention Publishers.
studies. Review of Educational Research, Stebick, D. M., & Dain, J. M. (2007). Compre-
66(2), 181–221. hension strategies for your K–6 literacy
Ruddell, M. R., & Shearer, B. A. (2002). “Ex- classroom: Thinking before, during, and
traordinary,” “tremendous,” “exhilarat- after reading. Thousand Oaks, CA: Cor-
ing,” “magnificent”: Middle school at-risk win Press.
students become avid word learners Stump, C. S., Lovitt, T. C., Fister, S., Kemp,
with the vocabulary self-collection K., Moore, R., & Shroeder, B. (1992). Vo-
strategy (VSS). Journal of Adolescent & cabulary intervention for secondary-
Adult Literacy, 45(5), 352–63. level youth. Learning Disability Quar-
Ryan, R. (1982). Control and information in terly, 15(3), 207–22.
the intrapersonal sphere: An extension Swanborn M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999).
of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal Incidental word learning while reading:
of Personality and Social Psychology, A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
43(3), 450–61. Research, 69(3), 261–85.
Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Sweet, A. P., Guthrie, J. T., & Ng, M. M.
Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. (1998). Teacher perceptions and student
K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Interventions reading motivation. Journal of Educa-
for adolescent struggling readers: A tional Psychology, 90(2), 210–23.
meta-analysis with implications for prac- Tang, S., & Hall, V. (1995). The overjustifi-
tice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research cation effect: A meta-analysis. Applied
Corporation, Center on Instruction. Cognitive Psychology, 9(5), 365–404.
Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Terrill, M., Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M.
Hurwitz, L. (1999). Reading for under- (2004). SAT vocabulary instruction for
standing: A guide to improving reading high school students with learning dis-
in the middle and high school class- abilities. Intervention in School & Clinic,
rooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 39(5), 288–94.
Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1992). Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K.
Validation of learning strategy interven- (2006). Effect of a combined repeated
tions for students with LD: Results of a reading and question generation In-
programmatic research effort. In B. Y. struction on reading achievement.
L. Wong (Ed.), Intervention research with Learning Disabilities Research and Prac-
students with learning disabilities. New tice, 21(2), 89–97.
York: Springer-Verlag. Torgesen, J. K. (1982). The learning dis-
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for read- abled child as an inactive learner: Edu-
ing and writing: Influence of model- cational implications. Topics in Learning
ing, goal setting, and self-evaluation. and Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 45–52.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), Tovani, C. (2004). Do I really have to teach
159–72. reading? Content comprehension,
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1992). Influence grades 6–12. Portland, ME: Stenhouse
of reading-comprehension strategy in- Publishers.
formation on children’s achievement Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The
outcomes. Learning Disability Quar- teaching of learning strategies. In M.
terly, 15(1), 51–64. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research
( 58 )

REfEREnCES

on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315–27). New (Metametrics Technical Report). Re-
York: Macmillan. trieved October 2005, from http://www.
Wilder, A. A., & Williams, J. P. (2001). Stu- lexile.com/lexilearticles/Student%20
dents with severe learning disabilities Readiness%20for%20Postsecondary%20
can learn higher order comprehension Options%20(v4_1).pdf
skills. Journal of Educational Psychol- Xin, J. F., & Rieth, H. (2001). Video-assisted
ogy, 93(2), 268–78. vocabulary instruction for elementary
Wilhelm, J. (2001). Improving comprehen- school students with learning disabili-
sion with think-aloud strategies: Model- ties. Information Technology in Child-
ing what good readers do. New York: hood Education Annual, 1, 87–103.
Scholastic. Yeazell, M. I. (1982). Improving reading
Williams, J. P., Brown, L. G., Silverstein, A. comprehension through philosophy for
K., & deCani, J. S. (1994). An instruc- children. Reading Psychology: An Inter-
tional program in comprehension of national Quarterly, 3(3), 239–46.
narrative themes for adolescents with Zwiers, J. (2004). Building reading compre-
learning disabilities. Learning Disability hension habits in grades 6–12: A toolkit
Quarterly, 17(3), 205–21. of classroom activities. Newark, DE: In-
Williamson, G. L. (2004). Student read- ternational Reading Association.
iness for postsecondary options.

( 59 )

Improving adolescent literacy

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Improving adolescent literacy

More from gnonewleaders

Recently uploaded

Improving adolescent literacy