Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2015; 36(01): 17-30
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1396443
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Improving Text Comprehension: Scaffolding Adolescents into Strategic Reading

Teresa A. Ukrainetz
1   Division of Communication Disorders, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 January 2015 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Understanding and learning from academic texts involves purposeful, strategic reading. Adolescent readers, particularly poor readers, benefit from explicit instruction in text comprehension strategies, such as text preview, summarization, and comprehension monitoring, as part of a comprehensive reading program. However, strategies are difficult to teach within subject area lessons where content instruction must take primacy. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) have the expertise and service delivery options to support middle and high school students in learning to use comprehension strategies in their academic reading and learning. This article presents the research evidence on what strategies to teach and how best to teach them, including the use of explicit instruction, spoken interactions around text, cognitive modeling, peer learning, classroom connections, and disciplinary literacy. The article focuses on how to move comprehension strategies from being teaching tools of the SLP to becoming learning tools of the student. SLPs can provide the instruction and support needed for students to learn and apply of this important component of academic reading.

Keywords

Reading comprehension - text comprehension - strategies - speech-language pathologist - language intervention - adolescent
 

  • References

  • 1 National Reading Panel. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (NIH Publication 00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Kamil ML, Borman GD, Dole J, Kral CC, Salinger T, Torgesen J. Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices: A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008–4027). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Ukrainetz TA, Fresquez EF. “What isn't language?”: a qualitative study of the role of the school speech–language pathologist. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2003; 34: 284-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. Springfield, MA: Author; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Kutner M, Greenberg E, Baer J. National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006–470). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Alvermann DE, Wilson AA. Comprehension strategy instruction for multimodal texts in science. Theory Pract 2011; 50: 116-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 RAND Reading Study Group; Reading for Understanding: Toward a Research and Development Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Gersten R, Fuchs LS, Williams JP, Baker S. Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: a review of research. Rev Educ Res 2001; 71: 279-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rosenshine B, Meister C. Reciprocal teaching: a review of the research. Rev Educ Res 1994; 64: 479-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rosenshine B, Meister C, Chapman S. Teaching students to generate questions: a review of the intervention studies. Rev Educ Res 1996; 66: 181-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Solis M, Ciullo S, Vaughn S, Pyle N, Hassaram B, Leroux A. Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities: a synthesis of 30 years of research. J Learn Disabil 2012; 45 (4) 327-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Swanson E, Hairrell A, Kent S, Ciullo S, Wanzek JA, Vaughn S. A synthesis and meta-analysis of reading interventions using social studies content for students with learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil 2014; 47 (2) 178-195
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Paris SG, Wasik BA, Turner JC. The developmental of strategic readers. In: Barr R, Kamil ML, Mosenthal PB, Pearson PD, , eds. Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. II. New York, NY: Longman; 1991: 609-640
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Leontiev AN. The problem of activity in psychology. In Wertsch JV, , ed. The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. New York: M.E. Sharpe; 1981: 37-71
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Ukrainetz TA. Assessment and intervention within a contextualized skill framework. In: Ukrainetz TA, , ed. Contextualized Language Intervention. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2006: 59-94
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Mason LH. Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. J Educ Psychol 2004; 96: 283-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Swanson PN, de la Paz S. Teaching effective comprehension strategies for students with learning and reading disabilities. Interv Sch Cl 1998; 33: 209-218
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Swanson HL, Hoskyn M. Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: a meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Rev Educ Res 1998; 68: 277-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pearson PD, Fielding L. Comprehension instruction. In: Barr R, Kamil ML, Mosenthal PB, Pearson PD, , eds. Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. II. New York, NY: Longman; 1991: 815-860
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Baker S, Gersten R, Scanlon D. Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies. Learn Disabil Res Pract 2002; 17: 65-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 McKeown MG, Beck IL, Blake RGK. Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: a comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Read Res Q 2009; 44: 218-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Palincsar AS, Brown AL. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cogn Instr 1984; 1: 117-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shanahan T, Callison K, Carriere C , et al. Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten through 3rd Grade: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2010–4038). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Chan LKS, Cole PG. The effects of comprehension monitoring training on the reading competence of learning disabled and regular class students. Remedial Spec Educ 1986; 7: 33-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mason LH, Meadan H, Hedin L, Corso L. Self-regulated strategy development instruction for expository text comprehension. Teach Except Child 2006; 38: 47-52
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Graham S, Harris KR. Assessment and intervention in overcoming writing difficulties: an illustration from the self-regulated strategy development model. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 1999; 30: 255-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Crabtree T, Alber-Morgan SR, Konrad M. The effects of self-monitoring of story elements on the reading comprehension of high school seniors with learning disabilities. Educ Treat Child 2010; 22: 187-203
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Armbruster BB, Anderson TH, Meyer JL. Improving content-area reading using instructional graphics. Read Res Q 1991; 26: 393-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Scanlon D, Deshler DD, Schumaker JB. Can a strategy be taught and learned in secondary inclusive classrooms?. Learn Disabil Res Pract 1996; 11: 41-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ukrainetz TA, Ross CL. Text comprehension: facilitating active and strategic engagement. In: Ukrainetz TA, , ed. Contextualized Language Intervention: Scaffolding Prek–12 Literacy Achievement. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2006: 503-564
    Google Scholar
  • 31 August DL, Flavell JH, Clift R. Comparison of comprehension monitoring of skilled and less skilled readers. Read Res Q 1984; 20: 39-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Garner R, Reis R. Monitoring and resolving comprehension obstacles: an investigation of spontaneous text lookbacks among upper-grade good and poor readers' comprehension. Read Res Q 1981; 16: 569-582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Garner R, Hare VC, Alexander P, Haynes J, Winograd P. Inducing use of a text lookback strategy among unsuccessful readers. Am Educ Res J 1984; 21: 789-798
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bazerman C. Physicists reading physics. Writ Commun 1985; 2: 3-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Been TW, Steenwyk FL. The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth graders' summary writing and comprehension. J Read Behav 1984; 16: 297-306
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Wong BYL, Wong R, Perry N, Sawatsky D. The efficacy of a self-questioning summarization strategy for use by underachievers and learning disabled adolescents in social studies. Learn Disabil Focus 1986; 2: 20-35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Shanahan T, Shanahan C. Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: rethinking content-area literacy. Harv Educ Rev 2008; 78: 40-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hiebert EH. QuickReads: A Research-Based Fluency Program. Parsippany, NJ: Pearson; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Oakhill JV, Petrides A. Sex differences in the effects of interest on boys' and girls' reading comprehension. Br J Psychol 2007; 98 (Pt 2) 223-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Van Cleave J. 202 Oozing, Bubbling, Dripping, and Bouncing Experiments. New York, NY: Wiley; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Vaughn S, Wexler J, Leroux A , et al. Effects of intensive reading intervention for eighth-grade students with persistently inadequate response to intervention. J Learn Disabil 2012; 45 (6) 515-525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Laing Gillam S, Fargo JD, St Clair Robertson K. Comprehension of expository text: insights gained from think-aloud data. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2009; 18 (1) 82-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Guthrie JT, Klauda SL, Ho AN. Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Read Res Q 2013; 48: 9-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Graham S, Golan S. Motivational influences on cognition: task involvement, ego involvement, and depth of information processing. J Educ Psychol 1991; 83: 187-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Grolnick WS, Ryan RM. Autonomy in children's learning: an experimental and individual difference investigation. J Pers Soc Psychol 1987; 52 (5) 890-898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Ainley M, Hillman K, Hidi S. Gender and interest processes in response to literary texts: situational and individual interest. Learn Instr 2002; 12: 411-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar