special education

Intervention in School and Clinic 2015, Vol. 50(3) 142 –149 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1053451214542042

isc.sagepub.com

Feature Article

According to the National Assessment of Academic Progress (NAEP), only 34% of fourth and eighth graders are reading at or above a proficient level (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2011). Despite the fact that many adolescents lag behind, in most states, all adoles- cents graduating from high school are expected to meet rig- orous standards, such as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) to become competitive in the workplace and other postsec- ondary endeavors (Haager & Vaughn, 2013). To meet such standards, teachers must prepare students to learn to read and make sense of increasingly complex content area expository text. This requires students to be capable of (a) engaging in higher-order thinking and reasoning skills, (b) connecting prior knowledge to new information, (c) identi- fying key concepts and vocabulary, and (d) employing com- prehension strategies when appropriate (Bulgren, Graner, & Deshler, 2013; Flynn, Zheng, & Swanson, 2012).

Because secondary teachers face challenges, such as having heterogeneous classes of students who have a wide variety of needs, they may be tempted to bypass the use of text altogether in an effort to make instruction less daunting (McCulley, Katz, & Vaughn, 2013). Circumventing the use of text, however, is precarious as it has been documented

that a way to increase content-area knowledge, background knowledge, comprehension, and vocabulary is through reading expository text (E. Swanson, Edmonds, & Hairrell, 2011).

What Can Teachers Do to Prepare Adolescent Struggling Readers?

Although the CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) provides guidance regarding what students should be able to do to reach academic success, the stan- dards do not suggest specific instructional practices to sup- port students. The Institute of Education Science’s (IES) practice guide, however, synthesizes the literature and pro- vides recommendations regarding evidence-based adoles- cent literacy practices for students who struggle with

542042 ISCXXX10.1177/1053451214542042Intervention in School and ClinicWexler et al. research-article2014

1University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA 2Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Corresponding Author: Jade Wexler, Ph.D., University of Maryland, 1308 Benjamin Building, College Park, MD 20742, USA. Email: [email protected]

Implementing an Evidence-Based Instructional Routine to Enhance Comprehension of Expository Text

Jade Wexler, PhD1, Deborah K. Reed, PhD2, Marisa Mitchell, MEd1, Brie Doyle, MEd1, and Erin Clancy, MEd1

Abstract To graduate from high school and become competitive in the workplace and other postsecondary endeavors, adolescents are required to meet rigorous standards, such as the Common Core State Standards. To meet such standards, teachers must teach students to read and make sense of increasingly complex content-area expository text. Secondary teachers, however, face several challenges that make it difficult to prepare students adequately to read and comprehend content- area text. In this article, a practical evidence-based reading strategy instructional routine to enhance adolescent students’ comprehension of expository text is presented.

Keywords strategy instruction, adolescents, reading instruction

Wexler et al. 143

reading (Kamil et al., 2008). The authors of the guide rec- ommend that teachers do the following:

•• Provide explicit vocabulary instruction, •• Provide direct and explicit comprehension strategy

instruction, •• Provide opportunities for extended discussion of text

meaning and interpretation, •• Increase student motivation and engagement in lit-

eracy learning, and •• Make available intensive and individualized inter-

ventions for struggling readers that can be provided by trained specialists.

Furthermore, many students will require intensive and systematic instruction in reading strategies and content knowledge necessary for them to comprehend text as well as ample opportunities to practice reading and applying these strategies with immediate and corrective feedback (Mol & Bus, 2011; Vaughn, Wanzek, Murray, & Roberts, 2012).

Because of the difficulties associated with preparing adolescents to read and comprehend expository text, teach- ers can implement a relatively simple evidence-based instructional practice routine to enhance students’ compre- hension of content area text (Kamil et al., 2008; Mol & Bus, 2011; Vaughn et al., 2012). The purpose of this article is to provide teachers with a four-step instructional routine that includes providing the following:

•• Explicit instruction of background knowledge related to the content in the text,

•• Explicit vocabulary instruction of words necessary to comprehend the text (Apthorp et al., 2012; Nash & Snowling, 2006),

•• Main idea instruction and opportunities to practice generating main idea statements through peer-medi- ated practice (Klingner & Vaughn, 1998; Klingner, Vaughn, Dimino, Schumm, & Bryant, 2001), and

•• Opportunities for students to discuss and interpret text with peers (Kunsch, Jitendra, & Sood, 2007).

Table 1 depicts the alignment of the instructional routine to the IES guide recommendations and the CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).

Step 1: Explicit Instruction of Background Knowledge

Step 1 in this instructional routine is to provide brief but explicit instruction in the background knowledge necessary for students to understand the text. Teachers can briefly (e.g.,

approximately 3–5 min) provide background knowledge on a content area topic (e.g., women in the American Revolution) to create a more thorough understanding of concepts to ulti- mately enhance comprehension. Note that providing back- ground knowledge, as opposed to openly soliciting ideas about what students know about a topic, may be more effi- cient, as teachers may waste valuable instructional time fielding ideas that may be incorrect or not aligned with instructional goals.

Examples include showing a short video clip or pictures on a particular topic, orienting students geographically using a map, or playing a short game or activity to provide stu- dents some background on the topic they will subsequently be expected to read about. Consider the example below as one way to provide explicit background knowledge.

Instructional Routine Example. Ms. Cornejo is beginning a unit on the American Revolution with her ninth-grade social studies class, and the first text that her students will read is a text about the role of women in the American Revolution. Given that many of her students are struggling readers and have had few exposures to content-area text or the content she will focus on in the lesson, she knows she needs to pro- vide explicit background knowledge about this period in history to enhance their comprehension. She might intro- duce the topic in this way (see Note 1):

Today we will read a text titled “Women in the American Revolution.” Revolution has many meanings. In science, we might learn about the earth making many revolutions, or spinning on its axis around the sun. In social studies, we might hear about revolutions having to do with social change. For example, in the 1960s, there was a revolution to change the way people of different races were treated. Today, we are going learn about the colonists who came to early America and how they declared war against Britain. In the passage we will read today, revolution means the overthrow of a political government by force. We are going to focus on how women helped during the American Revolution.

Step 2: Explicit Vocabulary Instruction

Step 2 in this instructional routine is to preteach essential vocabulary. Preteaching essential vocabulary is critical because knowing the meaning of words relates strongly to comprehension and overall academic success (e.g., Baumann, Kame’enui, & Ash, 2003; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). For example, on recent NAEP assessments (NCES, 2011), students who performed higher on comprehension assessments in 4th, 8th, and 12th grades also performed higher on measures of vocabulary. Of notable concern related to these findings is that on these same assessments, those students from lower socioeconomic populations, students with disabilities, and

144 Intervention in School and Clinic 50(3)

students who were English language learners consistently underperformed when compared to their peers on measures of both comprehension and vocabulary. In light of the NAEP findings (NCES, 2011), the emphasis on vocabulary from the CCSS, and the important relationship between vocabu- lary knowledge and overall reading comprehension, there is an urgent need to effectively and efficiently foster the devel- opment of vocabulary knowledge in adolescent readers, especially with those students with disabilities who struggle in the area of literacy.

Teachers must carefully consider the types of words that are most important to teach in order to effectively influence students’ comprehension. The IRIS Center, a center that develops resources about evidence-based instructional and intervention practices in collaboration with nationally recog- nized researchers and education experts, suggests a helpful heuristic for selecting a variety of word types to explicitly teach to adolescent students (see http://iris.peabody.vander- bilt.edu/module/sec-rdng/). These types of words are uncommon words, multiple-meaning words, instructional or academic words, and sophisticated synonyms (see Figure 1).

After selecting words to teach, teachers should provide explicit instruction in teaching word meanings (e.g., Apthorp et al., 2012; Baumann, Ware, & Edwards, 2007; Carlo et al., 2004; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Perfetti, 1983; Nash & Snowling, 2006; National Institute of Child and Human Development, 2000). In the instructional rou- tine described in this article, providing explicit instruction includes explicitly defining and contextualizing terms using student-friendly definitions, helping students to actively process words, and providing multiple exposures to vocab- ulary. The teacher might provide explicit vocabulary instruction that looks something like the following.

Instructional Routine Example. Not only did Ms. Cornejo worry about her students’ lack of background knowledge, but she also knew that they would likely struggle with the upper-level content-area vocabulary in the passage they were expected to read. She selected three words that she believed were critical to her students’ understanding of the text. Ms. Cornejo relied on the IRIS module’s guidelines regarding selection of words. To introduce each word, she

Table 1. Alignment of Instructional Routine to IES Guide and Common Core State Standards.

Instructional routine IES guide recommendation Sample Common Core State Standard

Teacher-led connect and build background knowledge and vocabulary

1, 2 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.6.4 Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they

are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings.

Peer-mediated main idea generation 2 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.6.5 Analyze how a particular sentence, paragraph, chapter,

or section fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the ideas.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.8.2 Determine a central idea of a text and analyze its

development over the course of the text, including its relationship to supporting ideas; provide an objective summary of the text.

Provide extended time for discussion and text interpretation through peer-mediated practice

3 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.6.6 Determine an author’s point of view or purpose in a

text and explain how it is conveyed in the text. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.7.1 Cite several pieces of textual evidence to support

analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.8.3 Analyze how a text makes connections among and

distinctions between individuals, ideas, or events (e.g., through comparisons, analogies, or categories).

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.6-8.1 Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of

primary and secondary sources.

Source: IES practice guide recommendations (Kamil et al., 2008); Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Note: IES = Institute of Education Sciences.

Wexler et al. 145

introduced the type of word (e.g., sophisticated synonym) and had students repeat the word. Next, she explicitly defined the word using a student-friendly definition, a synonym, and sample student-friendly example sentence. Then, she contex- tualized the word in the context of the lesson by providing an example sentence directly from the text. Last, she had the students interact with the word to provide multiple expo- sures. Ms. Cornejo shared this information on PowerPoint slides during her instruction, including related graphics. Ms. Cornejo’s instruction for each word sounded like this:

Now I am going to review important vocabulary concepts that will help us understand the text we are going to read. The first word is impending. Impending is sophisticated synonym. Everyone say it: impending. Impending means about to occur or appear. A synonym for impending is upcoming. For instance, in June, it is hard to concentrate on school with the impending summer vacation. All I can focus on is having free time and fewer classes.

In the text, we will learn how women in the time of the American Revolution prepared for the impending war, or the war that was about to occur. You will see the word used many times in the text. For example, it is used in the following sentence: “There were other young women who braved danger to warn of impending British attacks.” Turn and tell your partner about something important to you that is impending. Make sure to use the word impending in your discussion.

Step 3: Explicit Main Idea Instruction

Step 3 in this instructional routine is to teach students to generate the main idea of a paragraph or multiparagraph section of a text. Main idea generation is an effective way that students can monitor their own comprehension while reading complex expository text (Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007; Jitendra, Hoppes, & Xin, 2000; Mathes, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 1995; Pressley, 2000; Vaughn & Edmonds, 2006). Many strategies for finding the main idea of text exist;

Figure 2. Main idea rubric checklist students use during instruction to self-check their main idea statement.

Figure 1. Four types of words to explicitly teach during vocabulary instruction. Source: The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements (2012).

1. Uncommon words: Words that do not typically occur in a student’s vocabulary, though they may be important to a particular lesson or unit of instruction.

2. Multiple meaning words: Words that might be the same as those used every day but that have an entirely different and unfamiliar meaning when associated with particular content.

3. Instructional or academic words: Terms commonly used at school and work (e.g., giving directions or asking questions).

4. Sophisticated synonyms: Words used in instruction that have more common terms.

however, one method that is well established is the “Get the Gist” strategy (Klingner et al., 2001; Klingner & Vaughn, 1998). In this three-step method, readers first identify the who or what the section of text is about. Next, readers select the most important information about the who or what. Last, the reader combines information from Steps 1 and 2 (who or what and the most important information about the who or what) into one complete sentence that is approximately 10 to 15 words long. The sentence should be paraphrased with- out stating “The main idea is . . .” or “The passage is about . . . .”

Teaching students to generate a main idea statement typ- ically requires explicit instruction with modeling and “thinking aloud” to ensure students’ success (Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2011). During a think-aloud session, the teacher reveals his or her thought process as he or she demonstrates use of the strategy. The teacher progresses through a sequence of modeling (I do), modeling combined with prac- tice with his or her students in order to provide adequate feedback as well as monitor progress (we do), and then pro- viding opportunities for students to practice independently (you do) (Archer & Hughes, 2011). Students can use a rubric (see Figure 2) to check their main idea statement for the necessary components after they have written it.

Instructional Routine Example. Ms. Cornejo’s main idea instruction might look something like the following when she models the main idea generation strategy with the help of a “main idea log” (see Figure 3):

Listen as I model how I generate a main idea statement. I’m going to read the first section in our text, titled “Warnings.” [She reads the passage as students follow along.] There is a lot of information in this paragraph, but let’s see if we can figure out what it is mostly about. I think the most important who or what is a what and that what is “warnings” because many of the ideas in the paragraph are about different warnings that women gave in the war.

146 Intervention in School and Clinic 50(3)

Ms. Cornejo would then write warnings in the “Who or What” section on the main idea log.

The second part of developing a main idea statement is to state the most important thing about the who or what. There are a few important things about warnings. One is that even though we mostly hear about men giving warnings in the war, some women have given warnings too.

Ms. Cornejo writes, “Men and women helped give warn- ings in the Revolutionary War” on the main idea log in the second column with the heading “Most Important Information About the Who or What.” Next, she next adds two other important pieces of information under this state- ment in the same column: “Women braved danger and spied on soldiers,” and “Three women warned the American sol- diers of attacks by the British.”

Ms. Cornejo then explains how to analyze the informa- tion recorded in the main idea log in order to create a main idea statement.

I think the most important thing is that women helped in the Revolutionary War by warning the American soldiers of British attacks. Main idea statements should be about 10 to 15 words so we don’t include too many unnecessary details. I like to use my fingers to count it out before I write it down to make sure I am following this rule.

Ms. Cornejo records the following on the main idea log: “Women helped American soldiers in the Revolutionary War by warning them of British attacks.” Then she asks,

Is that about 10 to 15 words? [She models using fingers to count the words.] It doesn’t have all the details, but it will help me remember the most important idea from the passage. Also, the main idea statement has to be a complete sentence. Let’s look at our rubric to check if we met all five criteria.

To wrap up this portion of the instructional routine, Ms. Cornejo models the use of the rubric to check her work (see Figure 2).

Figure 3. Main idea log that scaffolds writing of student’s personal main idea statements and joint main idea statement with his or her partner.

Wexler et al. 147

Step 4: Peer-Mediated Practice

It is hard to imagine adolescents who struggle with reading becoming better readers without intensive explicit and sys- tematic instruction in strategies designed to improve their overall comprehension. It is also difficult to imagine these stu- dents making adequate progress without extensive time to practice applying these strategies with guided feedback. Peer- mediated practice is one way to provide students opportuni- ties to practice reading and applying strategies in connected text. It is also an effective way to capitalize on classrooms full of heterogeneous learners as it provides students an opportu- nity to engage in extended discussion and interpretation of text while accessing guidance and feedback from a peer (Wexler, Reed, Pyle, Mitchell, & Barton, in press).

To engage in peer-mediated practice, students of the same age work together as partners or in small groups to complete assignments (Maheady, Harper, & Sacca, 1988). Although the research base on peer-mediated instruction at the secondary level is not as extensive as it is at the elemen- tary level (e.g., Fuchs et al., 1997; Klingner & Vaughn, 1996), systematic reviews have examined the effects of available peer-mediated interventions on the academic out- comes of secondary students with academic difficulties, and those in special education reported evidence of effective- ness (Kunsch et al., 2007; Okilwa & Shelby, 2010; Stenhoff & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2007, Wexler et al., in press).

Instructional Routine Example. Once Ms. Cornejo teaches her students how to generate a main idea statement with model- ing and practice, she knows her students are ready to prac- tice applying this strategy with a partner. To scaffold the task, she divides the text into approximately one- to two- paragraph sections that contain information about one key point that would form a cohesive main idea. Headings or subheadings may already be a part of the text structure, which may help in dividing the text sections. After reaching the end of a section by engaging in partner reading, students can work together to answer brief discussion questions and then generate a main idea statement as described above.

Discussion questions should force students to return to the text to use textual evidence to support their answers. This rep- resents a shift in the CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) toward close reading, which includes provid- ing text sources as evidence to support thoughts and ideas (Haager & Vaughn, 2013). For example, Ms. Cornejo puts a Post-it note after the first section with the following discus- sion question: “What role did women play in warning about the impending war?” She instructs her students to stop at each of these sections and use the text to discuss the question. By answering discussion questions with the use of textual evi- dence, students are entering the first stage of information gathering needed to generate a main idea statement.

Figure 4. Instructional procedures that students go through in creating their main idea. Teacher may post these so students are clear on procedures.

Main Idea Generation with Partners

1. Partner 1 reads. 2. Partner 2 re-reads. 3. On the main idea log, students (a) individually record who/

what text is about, (b) indicate the most important thing about “who/what,” and (c) write the main idea statement in 10 words or less.

4. Students compare answers and come to a consensus. They write one main idea statement.

5. Students use the rubric to “grade” their main idea statement. They make revisions if necessary.

After brief discussion, students can generate a main idea statement for a section or sections of the text using the main idea log. In this instructional routine, students would first complete their main idea log independently and then work with a partner to come up with the best main idea statement. The pairs would progress through the routine shown in Figure 4 for the rest of the text, stopping to discuss and generate main idea statements.

Ms. Cornejo’s directions might sound something like the following:

I have marked each section of the text with a sticky note. Partner 1 should read the section first while Partner 2 follows along. Then, Partner 2 should read first section of the text again while Partner 1 follows along. Next, stop and discuss the question on the Post-it note with your partner. Remember to use evidence from the text to support your answers. After you discuss the answer, independently record your own main idea statement on the log. Next, compare your main idea statement with your partner and generate one main idea statement that you think is the best combination of both. You can call this your super-duper main idea statement! Use the main idea rubric to evaluate your main idea statement and make revisions if necessary. Then, repeat this process with each section until you finish reading the whole text.

Summary

Many adolescents struggle to read and comprehend com- plex expository text due to a lack of necessary skills (e.g., higher-order thinking) that typically support the demands of understanding this text (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2010; H. Swanson & Deshler, 2003). In light of these students’ continuing challenges as well as the mounting pressure for all students to meet state standards and the CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), it is necessary for teachers to incorporate explicit instruction and practice in using evidence-based strategies for students to read and

148 Intervention in School and Clinic 50(3)

comprehend text to enhance outcomes and prepare students to be competitive in postsecondary endeavors (Haager & Vaughn, 2013). Instead of circumventing the use of text altogether (e.g., McCulley et al., 2013), content-area teach- ers can strengthen outcomes by integrating instruction and practice of reading into their courses through the implemen- tation of user-friendly instructional routines (Biancorosa & Snow, 2006; Seifert & Espin, 2012).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a University of Maryland College of Education seed grant, Support Program for Advancing Research and Collaboration (SPARC).

Note

1. The situation described in the vignettes is a fictionalized account drawn from several authentic situations and put together as an aggregated scenario.

References

Apthorp, H., Randel, B., Cherasaro, T., Clark, T., McKeown, M., & Beck, I. (2012). Effects of a supplemental vocabu- lary program on word knowledge and passage comprehen- sion. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5, 160–188. doi:10.1080/19345747.2012.660240

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Baumann, J. F., Kame’enui, E. J., & Ash, G. E. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 752–785). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baumann, J. F., Ware, D., & Edwards, E. C. (2007). “Bumping into spicy, tasty words that catch your tongue”: A formative experiment on vocabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 61, 108–122. doi:10.1598/RT.61.2.1

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2006). Reading Next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Bulgren, J. A., Graner, P. S., & Deshler, D. D. (2013). Literacy challenges and opportunities for students with learning disabilities in social studies and history. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 28(1), 17–27.

Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., . . . White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English language

learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188–206. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.2.3

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2011). Coaching middle-level teachers to think aloud improves comprehension instruction and student reading achievement. Teacher Educator, 46(3), 231–243.

Flynn, L. J., Zheng, X., & Swanson, H. (2012). Instructing strug- gling older readers: A selective meta-analysis of intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27(1), 21–32.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle and high school. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 22–28.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (1997). Enhancing students’ helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathemati- cal explanations. Elementary School Journal, 97, 223–249.

Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210–225.

Haager, D., & Vaughn, S. (2013). The common core state stan- dards and reading: Interpretations and implications for elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 28(1), 5–16.

The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements. (2012). Secondary reading instruction: Teaching vocabulary and comprehen- sion in the content areas. Retrieved from http://iris.peabody. vanderbilt.edu/module/sec-rdng/

Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M., & Xin, Y. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruc- tion. Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 127.

Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of read- ing comprehension strategies for students with learning dis- abilities who use English as a second language. Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 275–293.

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Collaborative strategic read- ing (CSR): Involving all students in content area learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30, 32–37.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Dimino, J., Schumm, J. S., & Bryant, D. (2001). Collaborative strategic reading: Strategies for improving comprehension. Frederick, CO: Sopris West.

Kunsch, C. A., Jitendra, A. K., & Sood, S. (2007). The effects of peer-mediated instruction in mathematics for students with learning problems: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22(1), 1–12.

Maheady, L., Harper, G. F., & Sacca, M. K. (1988). Peer-mediated instruction: A promising approach to meeting the diverse needs of LD adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(2), 108–113.

Wexler et al. 149

Mathes, P. G., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1995). Accommodating diversity through Peabody classwide peer tutoring. Intervention in School and Clinic, 31(1), 46–50.

McCulley, L. V., Katz, S., & Vaughn, S. (2013). Reading instruc- tion and students with learning disabilities. In J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Practice concerns and students with LD (Advances in Special Education) (Vol. 25, pp. 19–43). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1983). The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 3–18.

Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta- analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 267–296. doi:10.1037/a0021890

Nash, H., & Snowling, M. (2006). Teaching new words to children with poor existing vocabulary knowledge: A controlled eval- uation of the definition and context methods. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 41, 335–354. doi:10.1080/13682820600602295

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s report card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012-457). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.corestan- dards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assess- ment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups

(Report of the National Reading Panel, NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Okilwa, S. A., & Shelby, L. (2010). The effects of peer tutoring on academic performance of students with disabilities in Grades 6 through 12: A synthesis of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 31(6), 450–463. doi:10.1177/0741932509355991

Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Seifert, K., & Espin, C. (2012). Improving reading of science text for secondary students with learning disabilities: Effects of text reading, vocabulary learning, and combined approaches to instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(4), 236–247.

Stenhoff, D. M., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2007). A review of the effects of peer tutoring on students with mild disabilities in secondary settings. Exceptional Children, 74(1), 8–30.

Swanson, E., Edmonds, M., & Hairrell, A. (2011). Applying a cohesive set of comprehension strategies to content area instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(5), 266–272.

Swanson, H. L., & Deshler, D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to prac- tice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 124–135.

Vaughn, S., & Edmonds, M. (2006). Reading comprehension for older readers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(3), 131–137.

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C. S., & Roberts, G. (2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

Wexler, J., Reed, D. K., Pyle, N., & Mitchell, M. (in press). A syn- thesis of the effects peer mediated instruction has on adoles- cents’ academic outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities.