539566

research-article2014

JLDXXX10.1177/0022219414539566Journal of Learning DisabilitiesCiullo et al.

Article

A Synthesis of Research on Informational Text Reading Interventions for Elementary Students With Learning Disabilities

Journal of Learning Disabilities 1­–15 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0022219414539566 journaloflearningdisabilities.sagepub.com

Stephen Ciullo, PhD1, Yu-Ling Sabrina Lo, MA2, Jeanne Wanzek, PhD3, and Deborah K. Reed, PhD3

Abstract This research synthesis was conducted to understand the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve learning from informational text for students with learning disabilities in elementary school (K–5). The authors identified 18 studies through a comprehensive search. The interventions were evaluated to determine treatment effects and to understand implementation and methodological variables that influenced outcomes. Moderate to large effect sizes on researcherdeveloped measures for cognitive strategy interventions were reported. Interventions that utilized graphic organizers as study guides to support social studies learning were also associated with improved outcomes. The findings are considered within the context of limited implementation of standardized measures. The authors extend findings from previous research by reporting a paucity of interventions to enhance higher-level cognitive and comprehension skills. The majority of reviewed studies targeted fact acquisition and main idea identification, and overall encouraging findings were noted for these skills. Implications for future research are discussed. Keywords learning disabilities, expository text, reading, elementary Reading comprehension is a process of gaining meaning from text. Several models of comprehension have specifically emphasized the role of the student in reading and understanding text (e.g., Cromley & Azevedo, 2007; Gough & Tunmer, 1986). Reader characteristics including background knowledge, strategy use, inference ability, word reading/fluency skills, language and vocabulary capabilities, and the reader’s purpose and motivation may influence understanding (van den Broek, 2005). Other comprehension models have more explicitly discussed the interaction of these reader characteristics with text features (Kintsch, 1998; van den Broek, Young, Tzeng, & Linderholm, 1999). For example, text cohesion, or the extent to which information and ideas in a text are explicitly related, may be relevant in the reading process as they interact with learner characteristics to produce comprehension (McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch, 1996). Thus, it may be necessary to attend to reader capabilities as well as text features when considering comprehension processes. The integral role of text is also a focal point of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English language arts (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). The standards emphasize proficiency in

reading and understanding a wide variety of challenging and complex texts that systematically increase in difficulty. Of note, informational text receives equal attention to literary text at all grade levels in the K to 5 standards (Haager & Vaughn, 2013). For example, in addition to identifying story structure in narrative texts, students in kindergarten are expected to describe the connection between ideas in informational text and identify the reasons an author provides to support ideas. At the upper elementary level, example standards include explaining the relationships and interactions between concepts and describing how an author uses evidence to support main ideas while reading grade-level text with proficiency. Of importance, the equal balance of literary and informational text is a shift from the previously documented practice of focusing elementary 1

Texas State University, San Marcos, USA University of Texas at Austin, USA 3 Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA 2

Corresponding Author: Stephen Ciullo, College of Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, ED Bldg., Room 3075, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA. Email: [email protected]

2 reading instruction largely on narrative text (e.g., Duke, 2000).

The Challenges of Informational Text for Students With LD The standards’ emphasis on informational text may present unique challenges for readers, particularly students with learning disabilities (LD; Haager & Vaughn, 2013). Students with LD have difficulty effectively accessing text manifested through problems with decoding and/or comprehending print (H. L. Swanson & Alexander, 1997). Poor readers often encounter problems with obtaining and retaining germane concepts and background knowledge (Cain, Oakhill, Barnes, & Bryant, 2001), affecting their ability to draw on complex ideas. In addition, students with reading disabilities have difficulty monitoring their comprehension, affecting their ability to understand and recall key information (Nation, 2005). These students may lack the strategies utilized by good readers or may not appropriately apply the strategies they have learned (H. L. Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999). Given these difficulties, students with LD are likely to require considerable support. Informational text may be composed of several different text structures and can be more problematic than narrative text (Williams, 2005). Informational and content-area text is also more likely to contain low frequency, technical words that are pertinent to the meaning of the text (Lee & Spratley, 2010). These words may carry specialized meanings that may not match the everyday, common language meaning. In addition, the structure, density of ideas, amount of ambiguous information, and increased use of details that are unrelated to main ideas can make some forms of informational text problematic (Lee & Spratley, 2010). These complex texts can hinder comprehension for students with word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, background knowledge, or inference difficulties (Hiebert & Pearson, 2010). Therefore, providing students with intensive supports can offer avenues for increasing students’ abilities to acquire knowledge and gain meaning, contributing to skill development and content acquisition.

Related Research Previous syntheses of intervention research including informational text have largely focused on students in Grades 6 to 12, with noticeably less information on elementary students (Berkeley, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2010; Flynn, Zheng, & Swanson, 2012; Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007; Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, & Whedon, 1996; E. Swanson et al., 2014). Mastropieri et al. (1996) noted large effects for interventions assisting students with LD in accessing informational text;

Journal of Learning Disabilities  however, intervention or methodological variables were not analyzed because the purpose was to identify and summarize best practices for instruction. Gersten et al. (2001) reported that single-component strategy interventions assisted students with LD across all grade levels in understanding narrative and informational text, but multicomponent interventions appeared to be beneficial only with informational text. Berkeley et al. (2010) examined comprehension effects across all text types for students with LD in Grades K to 12 from 1995 to 2006, and noted that effect sizes on normreferenced tests differed by type of text, with informational text associated with lower effect sizes. In Berkeley et al. unpublished dissertation studies were analyzed along with articles in peer-reviewed journals. More than 20% of the studies included in the analysis were dissertation studies. Although narrative and informational texts were included, none of the peer-reviewed elementary interventions (K–5) included in Berkeley et al. used informational text exclusively, or the results were not disaggregated by grade or age (e.g., unknown percentage of elementary vs. middle school students). These issues make the articles ineligible for inclusion in this current synthesis. Gajria et al. (2007) conducted a synthesis of interventions designed to improve the comprehension of informational text for students with LD. Across all grades and interventions, a large effect of 1.64 was reported. Content enhancements such as graphic organizers or mnemonics were utilized in 11 studies, with a mean effect size of 1.06. Ten studies examined a single cognitive strategy, resulting in a large mean effect of 1.83. However, larger effects (mean ES = 2.11) were noted for studies implementing interventions with multiple cognitive strategies (e.g., previewing and questioning rather than questioning alone). Gajria et al. examined results by elementary, middle, and high school students, but only six of the studies were for elementary students. Effects for all grade levels were large, though studies at the elementary grades had the lowest mean effects (ES = 1.04). Specific characteristics and treatment components of the elementary studies were not further examined. Gajria et al. suggested further investigation of expository text instruction for Grades K to 5. Most recently, E. Swanson et al. (2014) evaluated reading interventions using social studies text for students with LD; however, nearly all of the studies were conducted at the secondary school level. An overall effect size of 1.02 was reported for reading interventions on students’ social studies content learning or reading comprehension. Of 27 studies reviewed, only 5 included students in elementary grades. Methodological or instructional variables of the 5 studies that examined elementary students were not evaluated separately. The current synthesis extends on the aforementioned reviews in several ways and contributes novel information. First, we expand the Berkeley et al. (2010) and Gajria et al.

3

Ciullo et al. (2007) syntheses by providing a systematic examination of the research as it relates exclusively to students in Grades K to 5. Specifically, we analyzed 12 studies there were not included in Gajria et al., and 18 studies not reviewed in Berkeley et al. due to our exclusive focus on informational text, exclusion of articles not published in peer-reviewed journals, and inclusion of single-case research following trends of recently published syntheses (e.g., Solis et al., 2012; Wexler, Reed, Pyle, Mitchell, & Barton, 2013; Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn, & Ciullo, 2010). This article extends the work of E. Swanson et al. (2014) by including informational text used in any content area to consider future research and provide a comprehensive review. As a result, we sought to understand specific instructional practices that influence the comprehension outcomes of students with LD in the elementary grades.

Purpose and Research Questions Given the necessity to read content-area material with proficiency to enhance learning and readiness for middle school and the widespread implementation of the CCSS, an examination of treatments for improving informational text reading in elementary school is warranted. Identifying research-based practices in this area can assist teachers in improving outcomes for students with LD who are often educated in inclusive settings. Three research questions were evaluated: 1. What specific types of interventions have been investigated for enhancing the understanding of informational text for students with LD in Grades K to 5? 2. How effective were the interventions for improving learning? 3. Are specific instructional or methodological variables (e.g., peer mediation, fidelity) associated with different outcomes? Which study features are associated with the most promising outcomes?

Method The following inclusion criteria guided our literature search. First, we accepted studies conducted with student participants in Grades K to 5 (or 5–11 years old) with LD. At least 50% of the students in the study had to be students in elementary school with LD, or results had to be disaggregated for students in Grades K to 5 if a majority of the participants were in middle school. Studies identified in previously published reviews were excluded if we were unable to determine the percentage of students in middle school versus elementary school or when results were not delineated by elementary and middle school (e.g., Miranda, Villaescusa, & Vidal-Abarca, 1997). Second, we accepted studies conducted in English and published in peer-reviewed journals

in English. Third, the interventions had to target informational text or content-area reading exclusively, and dependent measures had to assess academics (e.g., comprehension). In studies where text reading was not indicated (e.g., Okolo, Ferretti, & MacArthur, 2007) or when a combination of various text types were used without information about the extent to which informational text was used along with narrative text (e.g., Sáenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005), the study was excluded. Fourth, the intervention had to be conducted in a school; hospitals, clinics, and other settings were excluded. Finally, we accepted studies that used experimental, quasi-experimental, single-group pre/post, or singlecase designs. We implemented a three-step process in searching the earliest studies available through July 2013. First, PsycINFO, ERIC, Academic Search Complete, and Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson) databases were used to search for studies. We used a combination of the following terms for the database search: learning disab*, reading disab*, dyslexia, reading, expository text, informational text, content learning, social studies, and science. Two of the authors conducted the search independently and reviewed the articles to determine whether the studies met criteria. When a question arose regarding inclusion, the article was discussed with the author team until a consensus was reached. Next, we conducted an ancestral search of previous reading syntheses, which included each systematic review described in the introduction. Finally, we conducted a hand search of eight journals of special education from 2011 to 2013.

Data Analysis Coding procedures.  An extensive coding sheet was adapted from two previously published syntheses (E. Swanson et al., 2014; Wanzek et al., 2010). Information included the following: (a) a detailed description of the procedures within treatment and comparison conditions, (b) comprehensive participant information, (c) research design and methodological information (e.g., design, fidelity, reliability), (d) treatment implementation information (e.g., duration, implementer), and (e) all reported statistical and quantitative information required to independently calculate effect sizes and discuss causal inferences. Reliability. To establish interrater reliability, two articles were randomly selected and independently coded by each author. Reliability was calculated with the total agreement divided by the total items and multiplied by 100%. The final agreement among authors was 93%. Each study was subsequently coded independently by two authors (see Table 1). Discrepancies for an individual item were discussed between the two coders with final judgments reached by consensus.

4

Journal of Learning Disabilities 

Table 1.  Summary of K–5 Informational Text Intervention Studies. Study Alexander (1985)

Design Multiple baseline (ABAB)

Participants 3 LD Gender NR Ethnicity NR

Grade NR 11.0

SES NR

Bos & Anders (1992) TreatmentStudy 1 comparison

Upper elementary NR 11.4

Bos & Anders (1992) Study 3

Upper elementary NR 11.7

Bos & Anders (1992) Study 5

Chan (1991)

Darch & Carnine (1986)

Darch & Kame’enui (1987)

Englert & Mariage (1991) Englert et al. (1994)

Ferretti et al. (2001)

Griffin et al. (1991)

Klingner et al. (2004)

Labercane & Battle (1987)

Lederer (2000)

Mason et al. (2006)

42 LD Gender NR Ethnicity NR Treatment47 LD comparison Gender NR Ethnicity NR Treatment40 LD (16 T1, 10 T2, comparison 14 C) Gender NR Ethnicity NR 60 students Experimental: Treatment20 LD, (10 T, 10 C) comparison M 14, F 6 Few ethnic minorities 24 LD Experimental: TreatmentGender NR comparison 9 Caucasian 15 AA 25 LD, 50% T, 50% C Experimental: TreatmentM 17, F 6 comparison 2 AA female 23 Caucasian Treatment28 LD comparison Gender NR Ethnicity NR 109 total Experimental: 78 LD TreatmentGender NR comparison 76 Caucasian 23 AA 10 Hispanic Single group (pre/ 24 LD (28 total) post) M 17, F 11 19 Caucasian 8 AA 1 Hispanic 28 LD Experimental: TreatmentM 24, F 4 comparison 17 Caucasian 11 AA Quasi-experimental: 306 students Treatment29 w/ LD (20 T, 9 C) comparison Gender NR Hispanic 92%–97% LEP: 25.6%–51% Treatment10 LD comparison Partly Indian and Métis M 6, F 4 Quasi-experimental: 128 Treatment25 LD (15 T, 10 C) comparison Gender NR Ethnicity NR

Grade/age

Multiple probe

M 16, F 9 Ethnicity NR 9 students, 2 LD M2 2 Caucasian

5.45 mean grade NR 11.4

Duration/frequency

Implementer

Treatment fidelity

60 days 30–40 min/session (17, 20, 13 sessions) Daily 3 weeks Frequency NR 3 instructional sessions 3 weeks 3 instructional sessions Frequency NR 5 weeks 3 instructional sessions 50 min/session Frequency NR

Researcher

Observer and a checklist

Researchers

NR

Teachers

NR

SPED teachers

NR

5th–6th 11.2

Low-average income

5 daily sessions 40 min/session

Teachers

NR

4th–6th Age NR

NR

9 days, 9 sessions 50 min/session Daily

SPED teachers

NR

4th–6th Age NR

NR

4th–6th Age NR

NR

23 primary 68 upper elem. 17 middle Age NR

NR

12 days Researchers NR 12 sessions (graduate students) 40 min/session Daily 2 months Teachers NR Frequency NR Sessions NR NR, implementers 8 weeks Other (Student observed bi-weekly 24 sessions, 30–40 min/ teaching trained by researchers) session 4 times/week

5th 10.9

NR

5th–6th Age NR

NR

4th Age NR

1 week 4 sessions 45 min/session Daily Free/reduced 1 year lunch 72 sessions 76.1%–83.9% 25–45 min/session 2 sessions/week

Grade NR Low SES Age 9–7 to 12–11

4th–6th Age NR

4th 10–2

8 weeks 33–37 sessions Frequency NR

NR

49% lowincome

Teachers

Informal fidelity field notes

NR Researchers (trainers who were experienced SPED teachers) Teachers

CSR log observations and videotapes, implementation checklists, interviews

14 weeks 28 sessions Avg. 2 per week

NR Researchers (authors and a university student)

15–17 days 15–17 sessions 45 min/session Daily 16 weeks 15 sessions 30 min

Researchers

NR

Researchers

99% check list 97% taperecorded steps

(continued)

5

Ciullo et al. Table 1.  (continued) Study

Design

Participants

Nelson et al. (1992) Multiple baseline

2 LD M2 2 AA

Sinatra et al. (1984)

Single group (pre/ post)

Stagliano & Boon (2009)

Multiple probe

27 LD M 21, F 6 Ethnicity NR 3 LD M3 2 Caucasian 1 AA

Grade/age

SES

4th 9–11

NR

2nd–8th 10–5

NR

4th 10–2

NR

Duration/frequency Duration NR 19 sessions 16–43 min/session Frequency NR 4 months Sessions NR Frequency NR 2 months 24 sessions 15–30 min Daily

Implementer

Treatment fidelity

Teachers

Observation and checklists

Researchers

NR

Researchers

Observation and checklists 97.5%

Note. AA = African American; Age = mean age of participants, year-month; C = comparison or control group; CSR = collaborative strategic reading; F = female; LD = learning disabilities; LEP = limited English proficiency; M = male; NR = not reported; SES = socioeconomic status; SPED = special education; T = treatment.

Effect size calculation. We calculated unbiased effect size estimates using Hedges’s g (Hedges, 1981). The procedure entailed identifying the means and standard deviations from each study, subtracting the control group’s mean from the experimental group, and dividing by the pooled standard deviation. If the mean and the standard deviation were not available, effect sizes were calculated using F- or t test scores provided (e.g., Lederer, 2000). Following previous syntheses (e.g., Flynn et al., 2012), the magnitude of effectiveness was estimated according to Cohen’s (1988) criteria: g = .20–.49 as small, g = .50–.79 as medium, and g = .80 or greater as a large effect size. Effect sizes are presented in Table 2. Single-case studies.  Four single-case studies employing multiple baseline (Alexander, 1985; Nelson, Smith, & Dodd, 1992) and multiple-probe (Mason, Snyder, Sukhram, & Kedem, 2006; Stagliano & Boon, 2009) designs were located. The results were evaluated using two methods: percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) and the percentage of all nonoverlapping data (PAND), which can be converted to calculate a phi effect size. Researchers have not established a universally adopted method of reporting, but PND and PAND/phi are suggested as viable options (Burns, Zaslofsky, Kanive, & Parker, 2012). Thus, we provided both effect sizes. To calculate PND (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998), we divided data points in the intervention phases that were higher than the highest data point during baseline, divided by the total data points in the intervention phases, and then multiplied by 100%. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1998) provide criteria to evaluate PND effectiveness. Effect sizes of 0.90 and greater are suggested to be highly effective treatments, effect sizes of 0.70–0.89 indicate moderate effect, effect sizes of 0.50–0.69 are in a range of minimal effectiveness, and effect sizes of less than 0.50 are not effective.

PAND was calculated and used to develop a phi coefficient. Parker, Hagan-Burke, and Vannest (2007) recommend PAND because it utilizes all data from both phases and PAND can be converted to Pearson’s phi (Cohen, 1988). PAND was computed by counting the total number of baseline and treatment data points, and dividing the number of intervention points that overlap with the highest baseline point by the total number of data points (Parker et al., 2007). To calculate phi, a 2 × 2 table was developed using the percentage of data points in the baseline and intervention phases. In addition, the overlapping data were separated into the “high” scores in a baseline cell and the “low” scores in the treatment cell (Parker et al., 2007, p. 197). The difference across the two cell ratios was calculated for the effect size. Phi of .70 is deemed large, .50–.69 is considered moderate, and .30–.49 is a small effect size (Cohen, 1988).

Results We first present study features (i.e., design, student information) for the corpus of research. Next, intervention categories (i.e., content-enhancement tools, cognitive strategy interventions) are presented along with the relative effects. Finally, the findings are synthesized by key instructional and methodological variables, including a detailed analysis of the dependent variables used.

Study Characteristics Years published and research design.  Table 1 displays key characteristics of the 18 studies meeting criteria. Five studies (28%) were published between 1984 and 1989, eight studies (44%) were published between 1990 and 1999, and five studies (28%) were published since 2000. The majority were group design studies (n = 14; 78%) that employed treatment-comparison designs (n = 12; Bos & Anders,

6

Journal of Learning Disabilities 

Table 2.  Results of Group-Design Studies. Study Bos & Anders (1992) Study 1

  Bos & Anders (1992) Study 3

  Bos & Anders (1992) Study 5           Chan (1991)a  

 

Intervention components

Text

Social studies T: Interactive strategies (semantic mapping, semantic feature analysis, or semantic/syntactic feature analysis) C: Definition instruction for contentarea concepts Social studies T: Interactive strategies (semantic mapping, semantic feature analysis, or semantic/syntactic feature analysis) C: Definition instruction for contentarea concepts T1: Semantic mapping Social studies T2: Semantic feature analysis C: Typical SS Practice w/ “average achieving students”

Self-questioning

    Darch & Kame’enui (1987)  

      Englert & Mariage (1991)b         Englert et al. (1994)

                   

Maintenance ES = 0.84 Researcher-developed comprehension ES = 1.43

  Researcher-developed SS content test T1 vs. C, ES = 0.46, ns T1 vs. C, Maintenance ES = 0.62, ns T2 vs. C, ES = 0.30, ns T2 vs. C, Maintenance ES = 0.06, ns

T1: Explicit instruction in visual display Science and social studies of science and SS content and group studying C: Science and SS text reading and teacher-led discussion

T1 vs. T2, ES = 0.21, ns T1 vs. T2, Maintenance ES = 0.52, ns    

T: DI with modeling, guiding practice and faded support for selfquestioning C: Instruction in how to think and ask questions without DI or guided practice

 

Findings (ES)

Researcher-developed comprehension Post ES = 0.79

General informational Researcher developed text

     

  Darch & Carnine (1986)

Measures

 

Main ideas (cued test) Main ideas (uncued test) Rating importance of sentences (cued test) Rating of importance of sentences (uncued test) Comprehension Researcher-developed content test

T vs. C, ES = 0.28, ns T vs. C, ES = 1.91** T vs. C, ES = −0.28, ns T vs. C, ES = 0.96** T vs. C, ES = 0.38, ns ES = 1.73**

 

Transfer science test T1: DI in three critical thinking and General informational Researcher developed reading skills; support faded gradually text T2: Critical thinking skills (ability to detect faulty generalization, false causality, and invalid testimonial) taught via workbooks and discussion Argument analysis test Embedded argument analysis test Skill classification test T: POSSE comprehension strategy with General informational Researcher developed reciprocal teaching elements integrated text C: Reading and teacher led discussions Written free recall Main ideas Strategy knowledge Researcher developed T: POSSE comprehension strategy with Science scaffolded instruction, dialogue, and collaborative strategy completion C: KWL cognitive organizer Written recall

Instructed passages

Strategy knowledge

Transfer ES = 0.65, ns    

T1 vs. T2, ES = 1.23** T1 vs. T2, ES = 1.83** T1 vs. T2, ES = 1.61**     T vs. C, ES = 1.84** T vs. C, ES = 1.10** T vs. C, ES = 0.83**  

  T vs. C (total recall) ES = 0.58** T vs. C (main idea) ES = 0.47** T vs. C (total recall) ES = 0.55** T vs. C (chunks) ES = 0.38, ns T vs. C, ES = 0.38** (continued)

7

Ciullo et al. Table 2.  (continued) Study

Intervention components b

Ferretti et al. (2001)  

Griffin et al. (1991)               Klingner et al. (2004)a   Labercane & Battle (1987)   Lederer (2000)a         Sinatra et al. (1984)    

(Single group) Strategy-supported project-based learning to support historical understanding T: Science facts taught with graphic organizers and scripted instruction C: Science facts taught with fact list worksheets and scripts

T: CSR for SS text C: Typical SS reading instruction T: Reciprocal teaching and QAR metacognitive strategy instruction C: Not operationally defined T: Reciprocal teaching of SS contentgradually reduced support C: Traditional teacher-directed instruction

(Single-group/multiple strategy study) Semantic mapping used before silent reading Verbal readiness approach; Discussion of story purpose, vocabulary, etc. before reading

Text

Measures

Findings (ES)

Social studies

Researcher developed Multiple-choice knowledge test

Pretest = 25%** Posttest = 58%**

Science

Researcher developed

   

Total units oral free retell Total score Written production Multiple choice Delayed written production Delayed multiple choice General informational Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests text General informational Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests text Social studies

Researcher developed

T vs. C, ES = 0.49, ns T vs. C, ES = 0.42, ns T vs. C, ES = 0.57, ns T vs. C, ES = 0.54, ns T vs. C, ES = −0.16, ns T vs. C, ES = 0.31, ns T vs. C, ES = 0.54, ns   T vs. C, ES = 0.37, ns      

Answering questions Question generation Summary composition General informational Reading comprehension test mean text score

 

nsc nsc T vs. C, ES = 0.87** Semantic mapping = 37.9%**   Verbal readiness = 35.9% Authors report no significant t test differences for main idea, inference, and detail questions

Note. C = comparison or control group; CSR = collaborative strategic reading; DI = direct instruction; KWL = know, want, learned; ns = nonsignificant; POSSE = predict, organize, search, summarize, evaluate; PR = partner reading; QAR = question–answer relationships; SS = social studies; T = treatment. a Studies where students with LD were reported in disaggregated data from the larger sample. bStudies where students with LD were more than 50% of total participants. c Insufficient information provided by authors to reliably calculate effect size. **Significant at α = .05 level.

1992, Studies 1, 3, 5; Chan, 1991; Darch & Carnine, 1986; Darch & Kame’enui, 1987; Englert & Mariage, 1991; Englert, Tarrant, Mariage, & Oxer, 1994; Griffin, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1991; Klingner, Vaughn, Arguelles, Hughes, & Leftwich, 2004; Labercane & Battle, 1987; Lederer, 2000). Two studies were single-group pre/post comparisons (Ferretti, MacArthur, & Okolo, 2001; Sinatra, Stahl-Gemake, & Berg, 1984). Four studies used a singlecase design (22%; Alexander, 1985; Mason et al., 2006; Nelson et al., 1992; Stagliano & Boon, 2009). Participants.  A total of 457 students participated in the studies reviewed. Ten studies reported gender: 122 (72.6%)

participants were male, and 46 (27.4%) were female. Eleven studies reported student ethnicity information. There were 148 Caucasian (67%), 62 African American (28%), and 11 Hispanic (5%) students. The majority of the studies (n = 14; 78%) did not report socioeconomic status (SES). The four studies that reported SES information stated that the participants were students living in poverty (Chan, 1991; Klingner et al., 2004; Labercane & Battle, 1987; Mason et al., 2006). With the exception of two interventions (Lederer, 2000; Sinatra et al., 1984), the authors reported information about how students were classified as LD. Nine studies (50%) reported that students were classified using state standards. The procedure reported was an IQ–academic achievement

8 discrepancy model. However, four authors (Alexander, 1985; Darch & Kame’enui, 1987; Griffin et al., 1991; Stagliano & Boon, 2009) stated that students with LD were identified based on state criteria but did not explain the criteria. In addition, Ferretti et al. (2001) and Mason et al. (2006) stated that multidisciplinary teams identified students as LD, but no further details were reported. Implementation. Teachers implemented the treatment in 9 studies (50%) and researchers delivered the intervention in 8 studies (44%). In one study (6%), student teachers were trained by researchers to teach the intervention (Englert et al., 1994). Fidelity of implementation was reported in 7 (39%) studies, whereas 11 (61%) did not report information on fidelity. Treatment duration was reported in 17 studies and ranged from 5 days to a full academic year, with a mean of 9.5 weeks. One study did not report treatment duration (Nelson et al., 1992). The mean number of sessions was 16 (range = 3–72). Two studies did not report instructional sessions (Englert & Mariage, 1991; Sinatra et al., 1984). Session length extended 15 to 50 min across studies. Researcher developed measures were most commonly used to assess outcomes (n = 16; 89%). Only two studies (11%) employed standardized measures (Klingner et al., 2004; Labercane & Battle, 1987). Text.  Eight studies (44%) did not specify the subject area of the informational text used. Five studies (28%) used social studies text and three studies (17%) utilized science text. Two interventions included a combination of social studies and science text during the intervention. Tables 2 and 3 indicate the text used in each intervention.

Findings by Intervention Category Content-enhancement tools.  Content-enhancement tools are educational supports that allow students to manipulate and study information (graphic organizers, concept maps) or to aid memory (mnemonics). Five of the 12 treatment-comparison studies used a content-enhancing tool, which was a graphic organizer. Two additional studies employed a graphic organizer: one with a single-group pre/post design and one single-case design. When aggregated, 7 of 18 studies (39%) implemented a graphic organizer. Bos and Anders (1992) conducted three studies for which graphic organizers were used and these investigations were implemented with bilingual elementary students with LD. These investigations measured short- and long-term social studies learning. When compared to a control group that learned definitions as a means to acquire content, students in Studies 1 and 3 who used interactive strategies with graphic organizers performed significantly better on a researcher-developed immediate posttest of social studies

Journal of Learning Disabilities  knowledge (Study 1 ES = 0.45; Study 3 ES = 1.25). In Study 5, the results were less favorable. Based on information provided, the comparison of means did not reach statistical significance when comparing the graphic organizer treatment groups to a typical practice social studies condition, as portrayed in Table 2. A graphic organizer was used to enhance learning with social studies and science content in one study (Darch & Carnine, 1986) and with science content alone in another study (Griffin et al., 1991). Griffin et al. (1991) reported that the students in the graphic organizer condition scored higher than students in the comparison condition on science posttests, but the statistical analysis of means were not statistically significant for any of the measures (ES range = −0.16–0.54). Griffin et al. (1991) indicated that the list of science facts studied by students in the comparison group resembled the organizational structure of the graphic organizer and was potentially too similar, and that other types of graphic organizers should be evaluated. Darch and Carnine (1986) reported that students acquired more social studies and science content using graphic organizers when contrasted with students in a comparison condition who read informational text and participated in discussions. Statistically significant results were identified, and a large effect size (ES = 1.73) was present on a social studies and science posttest. Stagliano and Boon (2009) instructed students to use a graphic organizer to understand key ideas from text during a single-case research study. Three students with LD demonstrated a decelerating trend of performance during the baseline condition. Explicit instruction in utilizing the graphic organizer to identify key details from text resulted in improved comprehension scores. No overlap from baseline to treatment occurred, resulting in a PND score of 100% and PAND of 100% (phi ES = 1.0). Sinatra et al. (1984) used thematic maps in combination with cognitive strategy instruction, specifically verbal readiness including a preview of vocabulary and text. The study had a single-group design, so randomization to intervention did not occur and all students were taught each strategy. The maps were introduced before reading to teach classification and attributes of science concepts. On a comprehension posttest, the mean score was 37.9% correct following the semantic mapping and silent reading condition and 35.9% correct following the verbal readiness approach. Sinatra et al. (1984) reported that the t tests indicated that the mean variance was significant for the overall measure, but when analyzing specific questions within the measure (main idea, inference), the means were not statistically significant for those constructs. Cognitive strategy instruction.  Seven of 12 treatment-comparison studies (58 %) included a cognitive strategy. The strategies were self-questioning (Chan, 1991), critical

9

Ciullo et al. Table 3.  Effects of Single-Case Studies. Study

Baseline condition

Alexander (1985)

Previewed list of unfamiliar words before reading. Students read and answered questions.

Mason et al. (2006)*

Baseline probes administered for reading and writing

 

Nelson et al. (1992)

Teacher read text and students wrote summaries and answered questions without strategy use

Treatment

Text

Study skills training in a modified cognitive comprehension strategy; Study, Read, Recite, Review technique. Reading comprehension: TWA cognitive strategy Writing PLANS; selfregulated cognitive strategy; SRSD procedures used to implement intervention Students read science text and used a summarization strategy to write summary sentences

Reading and answering questions without support

Instruction in utilization of graphic organizer to aid comprehension

Findings

General informational text

Oral retelling

PND = 93% PAND = 96.2% phi = .92

Science and social studies

Main ideas in oral retell

PND = 50% PAND = 85.7% phia PND = 100% PAND = 100% phia

Main ideas in written retell

Science

 

Stagliano & Boon (2009)

Measures

General informational text

Summary worksheet

PND = 100% PAND = 100% phi = 1.00

10-item comp questions

PND = 100% PAND = 100% phi = 1.00 PND = 100% PAND = 100% phi = 1.00

Comp questions

Note. comp = comprehension; PAND = percentage of all nonoverlapping data; PLANS = pick goals, list ways, and make notes, sequence notes; PND = percentage of nonoverlapping data; SRSD = self-regulated strategy development; TWA = think before reading, while reading, and after reading. a Not enough data points to calculate phi.

metacognitive skills (Darch & Kame’enui, 1987), reciprocal teaching (Labercane & Battle, 1987; Lederer, 2000), collaborative strategic reading (CSR; Klingner et al., 2004), and multicomponent strategy instruction with summarization (Englert et al., 1994; Englert & Mariage, 1991). In addition, three single-case design studies (Alexander, 1985; Mason, et al., 2006; Nelson et al., 1992; see Table 3) taught a cognitive strategy. A single strategy intervention was employed in two treatment comparison interventions. Students in Chan’s (1991) treatment group were taught with direct instruction a self-questioning procedure. When comparing the intervention to general instruction in thinking about text and asking questions, no statistically significant differences were present on the comparison of means for measures that included prompting students to implement strategies and rate important ideas (ES = 0.28). Significant differences in favor of the self-questioning condition and a large effect size (ES = 1.91) were identified on a main idea test and an unprompted measure of identifying important sentences that connected to the main idea (ES = 0.96). In the Darch and Kame’enui (1987) study, direct instruction in critical thinking skills with gradual reduction of support yielded high effect sizes in favor of the critical thinking group compared to a treatment condition involving comprehension strategy instruction through a discussion-based format (ES range = 1.23–1.61).

The remaining five treatment-comparison studies utilized a multicomponent intervention. The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in social studies was compared to traditional teacher-led instruction (Lederer, 2000). On a summary composition measure, a significant difference in favor of the treatment was reported (ES = 0.86). Not enough information was provided to calculate effect sizes for a question generation measure or a general comprehension measure. However, the author reported that the statistical analyses of between group variances were not significant on those measures. Labercane and Battle (1987) used reciprocal teaching and the question–answer relationship (QAR) strategy to assist students in strategically thinking about key questions during reading. A control group that did not incorporate reciprocal teaching or QAR was included, but the procedures in the control condition were not described. On the Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests, higher mean scores were identified for the treatment (ES = 0.43), but differences failed to reach statistical significance. CSR is a peer-mediated multicomponent intervention that includes similar strategies to reciprocal teaching, and was implemented by Klingner et al. (2004) to compare learning from social studies text versus traditional instruction. The researchers administered the Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests and reported increased comprehension scores for students receiving CSR with a small to moderate effect

10 size (ES = 0.37). The authors stated that the mean differences were not statistically significant for students with LD. POSSE (Englert et al., 1994; Englert & Mariage, 1991) includes predicting, organizing ideas, searching for structure, summarizing, and evaluating. POSSE combined with elements of reciprocal teaching was compared to a condition of text reading and discussion. In the first study (Englert & Mariage, 1991), students receiving intervention demonstrated high effect sizes for main ideas (ES = 1.10), strategy knowledge (ES = 0.83), and written recall of concepts (ES = 1.84). A second study (Englert et al., 1994) that compared POSSE to a group that utilized a KWL (what I know, what I want to know, and what I learned) chart also demonstrated improved performance for written recall (ES = 0.58), instructed passages (ES = 0.55), and strategy use (ES = 0.38). Three single-case design studies also implemented cognitive strategy training. These studies included a technique called “study, read, recite, and review” (Alexander, 1985), TWA (think before, while, and after reading) plus PLANS (pick goals, list ways, make and sequence notes; Mason et al., 2006), and summarization (Nelson et al., 1992). PND and PAND/phi were moderate to large on researcher-developed measures across studies. Oral retell PND was 50% and PAND was 85.7% in Mason et al. (2006). Results for the two students with LD were 100% PND and PAND on written retell, but phi was not calculated due to an insufficient number of data points for students with LD. Phi was calculated for studies that included at least 20 data points for students with LD (Parker et al., 2007). Overall, the findings suggest learning advances compared to baseline in study skills (phi = .92; Alexander, 1985) and summarization (phi = 1.00; Nelson et al., 1992). Project-based learning.  One study implemented an intervention designed to improve social studies learning using peermediated project learning (Ferretti et al., 2001). Students participated in a project-based technology-supported study of U.S. westward migration that involved reading and interpreting evidence, structured discussion, and development of a multimedia presentation to demonstrate historical understanding. On a researcher-designed multiple choice social studies measure, students with LD scored 25% correct on a pretest and 58% correct on the identical posttest (Ferretti et al., 2001).

Instructional and Methodological Features The third research question was developed to evaluate the extent to which instructional and methodological features influenced outcomes. Findings related to key variables across studies of informational text interventions for students with LD in elementary school are presented to offer a comprehensive understanding of the literature and to delineate new research priorities.

Journal of Learning Disabilities  Person implementing treatment. Researchers implemented the intervention in 6 of 12 (50%) treatment comparison experimental studies. The effect sizes were moderate to large when researchers taught the treatment (ES = 0.38– 1.83). Teachers served as the interventionist in 6 experimental studies (50%), and the effects were comparable to the effects of researcher-implemented interventions. Moderate to large effect sizes (ES = 0.37–1.91) in favor of the intervention groups were identified across investigations delivered by teachers. In sum, interventions were effective at improving learning from informational text regardless of the individual that provided the instruction. Researchers implemented three of the four single-case design studies (Alexander, 1985; Mason et al., 2006; Stagliano & Boon, 2009). The results of these experiments were promising as PND and PAND/phi were greater than 0.90 (Alexander, 1985; Stagliano & Boon, 2009). In Mason et al. (2006) PAND was 100% on a written retelling measure, but scores were slightly lower for oral retelling (PAND = 85.7%). Peer-mediated learning. Five experimental studies (42%) contained a collaboration element (Englert et al., 1994; Englert & Mariage, 1991; Klingner et al., 2004; Labercane & Battle, 1987; Lederer, 2000). Despite small to medium effects for students with LD in the treatment groups across these studies, mean differences were not statistically significant in two interventions for which standardized measures were given (Klingner et al., 2004; Labercane & Battle, 1987). In Klingner et al. (2004), effects of CSR were statistically significant for high-achieving students only. Moderate effectiveness for students with LD (ES range = 0.38 –0.86) was present in three experiments that included peer collaboration and dialogue within reciprocal teaching (Lederer, 2000) and POSSE interventions (Englert et al., 1994; Englert & Mariage, 1991). These results offer some evidence that peer-mediated learning is associated with positive outcomes for students with LD in elementary school on researcher-developed measures. Fidelity of implementation. Only one experimental study (Klingner et al., 2004) reported fidelity of implementation. A moderate effect size (ES = 0.54) was present, but authors reported that the analysis was not statistically significant for students with LD. Moderate to large effects for studies that included no information about fidelity of implementation were present. In all four single-case design studies, fidelity of implementation was assessed and the outcomes of these studies were encouraging. Examination of dependent variables. Across the interventions, a wide range of effects was reported (ES range = 0.06–1.91) with the majority of effect sizes falling within the moderate range (Cohen, 1988). Only two investigations employed standardized measures (Klingner et al., 2004;

11

Ciullo et al. Labercane & Battle, 1987), and the effects (ES = 0.47; ES = 0.54) were lower compared to researcher-developed measures. We reviewed the construct measured on each dependent variable (i.e., fact acquisition, main idea and summarization, analytical comprehension), format (i.e., multiple choice), and extent to which technical adequacy/psychometric property details were included (Table 4). Fact acquisition (content identification) was assessed most often (n = 14 measures), and overall moderate to large effect sizes were reported for content learning. Large effects were reported in studies that utilized single-case designs to assess content/fact learning. Multiple-choice formats were used on nine fact acquisition measures; oral recall (n = 3) and written retell (n = 4) were also used. Main idea and summarization were evident in nine dependent measures. This was assessed via writing in five studies with positive results (ES range = 0.38–1.84; PAND = 100%). Critical thinking skills (i.e., classification, argument) were measured in four studies across five dependent measures, and large effect sizes were reported on four of these tests. (ES range = 0.79–1.83). Finally, researchers reported that strategy application (i.e., question generation) occurred in five measures. High effect sizes were reported for three of these measures, whereas in two studies, strategy application failed to reach statistical significance for question generation (Lederer, 2000) and visual display use on a far transfer measure (Darch & Carnine, 1986). We also reviewed technical adequacy reporting (i.e., piloting measures, internal consistency). Only one study for which research-developed measures were used included technical adequacy details (Ferretti et al., 2001). Beyond stating that measures were researcher developed and what constructs were assessed, test development or technical adequacy of measures or questions was not reported in 15 studies. Interrater agreement for scoring measures was reported in most studies. On 17 of the measures, interrater agreement exceeded 80%.

Discussion The purpose of this synthesis was to improve understanding of the research pertaining to informational text interventions for students with LD in elementary grades. The adoption of the CCSS, which raises informational text expectations, presents new challenges for elementary educators (Haager & Vaughn, 2013). The necessity to equip students for the academic rigor of secondary school makes understanding the research in this area essential. In the sections that follow, we summarize the findings, situate those findings within the extant literature, and conclude by discussing limitations and new research priorities.

Key Findings The first research question referred to an examination of what categories of interventions were implemented. Three types of interventions were identified in the current synthesis: content enhancement tools (graphic organizers), cognitive strategy training, and project-based learning. The second research question referred to the relative effects of these interventions. When inspecting the efficacy of content enhancement tools, we found large effect sizes for content acquisition in four studies that implemented graphic organizers as study guides. Improvements using graphic organizers for science content acquisition were not statistically significant (Griffin et al., 1991; Sinatra et al., 1984). In sum, despite encouraging outcomes for social studies learning, more research is needed to understand the effectiveness of using graphic organizers to improve learning from science text. The results of the second research question also suggested that cognitive strategies were associated with improved learning. Cognitive strategy interventions were associated with moderate to high effect sizes in experimental studies on researcher-developed measures when a single strategy was taught and when researchers evaluated multicomponent strategies. Similarly, cognitive strategy interventions implemented within single-case design studies yielded large effects. Because there was only one study examining project-based learning, we were unable to synthesize findings related to this intervention. Students in this study (Ferretti et al., 2001) made gains from pretest to posttest, suggesting future research of this intervention could be beneficial. The third research question was developed to understand instructional and methodological variables that were associated with improved outcomes. We reported minimal effect size variability regardless of the person implementing the intervention. Overall, interventions taught by researchers and practitioners enhanced learning. However, only 2 studies used standardized tests, whereas 15 studies utilized researcher-developed measures. Technical adequacy details regarding measure development were described in one study (Ferretti et al., 2001). In addition, since fidelity of implementation was rarely documented, we were unable to synthesize findings for this variable. Finally, we reported some evidence suggesting that peer-mediated interventions are effective for elementary students with LD.

Relationship With Previous Research Three findings extend results from previous reviews, whereas two aspects differ. First, this synthesis reinforces findings from Gajria et al. (2007) and E. Swanson et al. (2014) pertaining to treatment effects related to the educator

12

Journal of Learning Disabilities 

Table 4.  Dependent Variable Comprehensive Analysis. Construct measured Fact acquisition

Format MC

Oral recall Written recall

Main ideas and summarization

MC

Study

ES range outcome

Technical adequacy

Interrater agreement

ES = 0.79

NR

NR

ES = 1.43

NR

NR

ES = 0.30–0.46, ns

NR

NR

NR Pretest = .47a Posttest = .61a NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

NR 46%–100% 95%–98% 94.55% 96% 100% 83.3%–88.8% 89%–90% >80% 95%

NR NR

100% NR

NR

NR

NR NR NR

82%–100% >80% 95%

NR NR NR NR

94.55% 82%–100% 96% NR

ES = 1.43

NR

NR

NR NR

NRd NR

Englert & Mariage (1991) Englert et al. (1994) Darch & Kame’enui (1987) Lederer (2000) Darch & Carnine (1986) Klingner et al. (2004)

ES = 1.23**–1.83** ES = −0.28, ns (cued) ES = 0.96** (uncued) ES = 0.83** ES = 0.38** ES = 1.61** ns ES = 0.65, ns ES = 0.54, ns

< 80% 81% NR 94.55% NRd 95%

Labercane & Battle (1987)

ES = 0.37, ns

NR NR NR NR NR Alternate form = .85 Item difficulty = .92 to −.93 NR

Bos & Anders (1992) Study 1 Bos & Anders (1992) Study 3 Bos & Anders (1992) Study 5 Darch & Carnine (1986) Ferretti et al. (2001) Griffin et al. (1991) Lederer (2000) Nelson et al. (1992) Stagliano & Boon (2009) Alexander (1985) Griffin et al. (1991) Englert & Mariage (1991) Englert et al. (1994) Griffin et al. (1991) Chan (1991)b Sinatra et al. (1984)b

Oral recall Written

Critical thinking

Analysis and classification

Rating importance Strategy use

Strategy knowledge

Standardized

Question generation Transfer General comp.

b

Mason et al. (2006) Englert & Mariage (1991)b Englert et al. (1994)b Lederer (2000) Mason et al. (2006)b Nelson et al. (1992) Bos & Anders (1992) Study 1 Bos & Anders (1992) Study 3 Darch & Kame’enui (1987) Chan (1991)

ES = 1.73** Pretest = 25%** Posttest = 58%** ES = 0.54, ns ns PAND = 100% PAND = 100% PAND = 96.2% ES = 0.42–0.49, ns ES = 1.84** ES = 0.58** ES = 0.55** (instructed) ES = 0.57, ns ES = 0.28, ns (cued) ES = 1.91** (uncued) Semantic mapping = 37.9%** Verbal readiness = 35.9%c PAND = 85.7% ES = 1.10** ES = 0.47** ES = 0.38, ns (instructed) ES = 0.87** PAND = 100% PAND = 100% ES = 0.79

NR

Note. comp = comprehension; ES = effect size; MC = multiple choice; ns = not statistically significant; NR = not reported; PAND = percentage of all nonoverlapping data. a Cronbach’s alpha. bTest for main ideas. cComparisons made among main idea, inferential, and detail questions are nonsignificant. dTwo raters were used to obtain interrater agreement, but percentage of agreement was not reported. **Significance at α = .05 level.

providing the instruction. High effect sizes in experimental studies and encouraging results from single-case investigations that were teacher and researcher implemented indicate that, overall, differential effects based on the person implementing the intervention were not present. This is an encouraging finding for classroom utilization and feasibility. Another finding that extends the results of previous reviews (Dexter & Hughes, 2011; Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei, 2004) was that using graphic organizers to study social

studies content was associated with improved outcomes. Despite evidence of enhanced learning with graphic organizers, our analysis indicates that some efficacy questions remain. For example, less information for science learning exists for elementary students with LD compared to evidence of improved science fact recall for older students (Dexter & Hughes, 2011). We reported medium to large effects for interventions in social studies that used graphic organizers as a study guide. However, these tools as implemented in the studies reviewed in the current analysis were

13

Ciullo et al. dependent on teacher planning and implementation. Students with LD have been characterized as passive learners (Torgesen, 1982), so the benefits of graphic organizers may be limited to the class and content in which the tool was used to study content rather than improving overall ability to independently read and learn. It is not clear whether students would generalize application of these tools to other settings. Because these studies did not include standardized measures, we are limited in our ability to discuss external validity, although we found it encouraging that elementary-grade students with LD can use graphic organizers to increase content acquisition (e.g., Bos & Anders, 1992). A reasonable next step is an evaluation of various graphic organizers (semantic maps, concept maps) that are generated via student interaction with text compared to graphic organizers provided as study guides. A final overlapping finding is that more than 90% of interventions focused on fundamental but basic skills (fact recall, main idea), as observed by Solis et al. (2012). None of the studies were published after the CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), which emphasize more advanced textual analysis. Our review suggests a need for research in the practical implementation of interventions for informational text reading within the context of addressing advanced skills including analyzing multiple accounts of an event and integrating knowledge across texts. The aforementioned skills were not represented within the independent variables reviewed in this article, with the exception of two interventions (Chan, 1991; Darch & Kame’enui, 1987). Two characteristics of our analysis suggest differences with previous research and extend understanding. First, with respect to the effects of peer-mediated learning, researchers have documented the benefits of peer mediation among students with LD in secondary school (Wexler et al., 2013). Fewer studies describing the application of this approach were present in this synthesis. The authors of two peer-mediated reading studies that incorporated standardized measures reported findings that were not statistically significant. However, the POSSE (Englert et al., 1994; Englert & Mariage, 1991) and reciprocal teaching (Lederer, 2000) interventions yielded high effect sizes. These results are encouraging for the utilization of structured peer-mediated learning and summarization including the reciprocal teaching framework. However, the variability of the findings indicates that more research is warranted for younger students to determine if the effects of peer-mediated learning on informational text for students with LD in Grades 6 to 12 are generalizable to the elementary grades (Gajria et al., 2007; Wexler et al., 2013). Second, this article differs from previous syntheses for students with LD pertaining to our detailed evaluation of dependent measures. Information regarding test

development, item equivalency, or internal consistency was reported in only one study (6.7%; Ferretti et al., 2001). Our analysis indicates that five researchers measured strategy use (i.e., POSSE), and critical thinking skills were assessed in four studies (Table 4), resulting in large effect sizes. However, the majority of researchers assessed content learning, main idea, or summarization outcomes. In summary, the aforementioned measurement procedures reflect what has been reported for middle school intervention measurement because, overall, most researchers employed nonstandardized measures of fact acquisition or main idea as opposed to inference, perspective, or advanced evaluation (Dexter & Hughes, 2011; Solis et al., 2012). We suggest exploratory studies for teaching and measuring high-level analytical skills to support middle school readiness for students with LD.

Limitations Three limitations relating to the extant research were identified. First, limited use of standardized measures has been consistently documented within the LD literature, and this trend continued here. Second, treatment durations were brief in the studies reviewed. Of the 18 studies included, the mean number of sessions was fewer than 20 sessions. Increased intervention duration is recommended. Finally, the paucity of fidelity measurement limits our understanding of instructional delivery. Despite these limitations, we believe this synthesis offers valuable information regarding informational text learning for students with LD in elementary grades.

Future Research The synthesis revealed implications for new investigation. First, the majority of studies did not report information pertaining to fidelity of implementation, and future research should include this information. Second, since the majority of interventions targeted fact acquisition or summarization, researchers should consider interventions to develop sophisticated comprehension skills including perspective taking, synthesizing across texts in social studies (including primary sources or historical fiction), and using evidence to support an author’s argument or perspective. Third, because only five studies included science text, we recommend interventions that purposefully integrate science reading. Science is included in elementary accountability testing, making interventions using science text important. Fourth, although students with LD have demonstrated improved outcomes through peer-mediated interventions in Grades 6 to 12 (Wexler et al., 2013), more research promoting peer-mediated reading should be conducted in Grades K to 5. Finally, new interventions that explore the classroom-based use of graphic organizers with

14 younger students are recommended. A comparison of student-generated organizers versus those provided by educators could inform the viability of using graphic organizers independently. 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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the analysis. *Alexander, D. F. (1985). The effect of study skill training on learning disabled students’ retelling of expository material. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 263–267. Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 423–436. *Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1992). Using interactive teaching and learning strategies to promote text comprehension and content learning for students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability, 39, 225–238. doi:10.1080/0156655920390305 Burns, M. K., Zaslofsky, A. F., Kanive, R., & Parker, D. C. (2012). Meta-analysis of incremental rehearsal using phi coefficients to compare single-case and group designs. Journal of Behavior Education, 21, 185–202. doi:10.1007/s10864-0129160-2 Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and the relation to knowledge. Memory and Cognition, 29, 850–859. *Chan, L. K. S. (1991). Promoting strategy generalization through self-instructional training in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 427–433. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325. *Darch, C., & Carnine, D. (1986). Teaching content area material to learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 53, 240–246. *Darch, C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1987). Teaching LD students critical reading skills: A systematic replication. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 82–91. Dexter, D. D., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 34, 51–72. Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.

Journal of Learning Disabilities  *Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading “POSSE.” Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 123–138. *Englert, C. S., Tarrant, K. L., Mariage, T. V., & Oxer, T. (1994). Lesson talk as the work of reading groups: The effectiveness of two interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 165–185. doi:10.1177/002221949402700305 *Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. D., & Okolo, C. M. (2001). Teaching for historical understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 59–71. doi:10.2307/1511296 Flynn, L. J., Zheng, X., & Swanson, H. L. (2012). Instructing struggling older readers: A selective meta-analysis of intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 21–32. Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository texts in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–227. doi:10.1177/00222194070400030301 Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. *Griffin, C. C., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1991). Investigating the effectiveness of graphic organizer instruction on the comprehension and recall of science content by students with learning disabilities. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7, 355–376. Haager, D., & Vaughn, S. (2013). The Common Core State Standards and reading: Interpretations and implications for elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research, 28, 5–16. Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Education Statistics, 6, 107–128. Hiebert, D. P., & Pearson, E. H. (2010). National reports in literacy: Building a scientific base for practice and policy. Educational Researcher, 39, 286–294. doi:10.3102/00131 89X10370205 Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 105–118. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. *Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Leftwich, S. A. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: “Real-world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291–302. *Labercane, G., & Battle, J. (1987). Cognitive processing strategies, self-esteem, and reading comprehension of learning disabled students. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 11, 167–185. *Lederer, J. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 91–106. Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the discipline: The challenges of adolescent Corwin literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Ciullo et al. *Mason, L. H., Snyder, K. H., Sukhram, D. P., & Kedem, Y. (2006). TWA + PLANS strategies for expository reading and writing: Effects for nine fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children, 73, 69–89. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. (1996). Reading comprehension: A synthesis of research in learning disabilities. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 10, 201–227. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43. Miranda, A., Villaescusa, M. I., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (1997). Is attribution retraining necessary? Use of self-regulation procedures for enhancing the reading comprehension strategies of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 503–512. Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248–266). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards (English language arts standards). Washington, DC: Authors. *Nelson, J. R., Smith, D. J., & Dodd, J. M. (1992). The effects of teaching a summary skills strategy to students identified as learning disabled on their comprehension of science text. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 228–243. Okolo, C. M., Ferretti, R. P., & MacArthur, C. A. (2007). Talking about history: Discussions in a middle school inclusive classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 154–165. Parker, R. I., Hagan-Burke, S., & Vannest, K. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. Journal of Special Education, 40, 194–204. doi:10.1177/002 24669070400040101 Sáenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 231–247. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1998). Summarizing single subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22, 221–242. doi:10.1177/01454455980223001 *Sinatra, R. C., Stahl-Gemake, J., & Berg, D. N. (1984). Improving reading comprehension of disabled readers through semantic mapping. Reading Teacher, 38, 22–29. Solis, M., Ciullo, S., Vaughn, S., Pyle, N., Hassaram, B., & Leroux, A. (2012). Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learn-

15 ing disabilities: A synthesis of 30 years of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 327–340. doi:10.1177/0022219411402691 *Stagliano, C., & Boon, R. T. (2009). The effects of a storymapping procedure to improve the comprehensive skills of expository test passages for elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 7, 35–58. Swanson, E., Hairrell, A., Kent, S., Ciullo, S., Wanzek, J. A., & Vaughn, S. (2014). A synthesis and meta-analysis of reading interventions using social studies content for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 178–195. Swanson, H. L., & Alexander, J. E. (1997). Cognitive processes as predictors of word recognition and reading comprehension in learning-disabled and skilled readers: Revisiting the specificity hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 128–158. Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York, NY: Guilford. Torgesen, J. K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Educational implications. Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities, 2, 45–52. van den Broek, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299–316. van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model van den Broek van den Broek of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In S. R. Goldman & H. Van Oostendorp (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Ciullo, S. (2010). Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading and Writing, 23, 889–812. Wexler, J., Reed, D. K., Pyle, N., Mitchell, M., & Barton, E. E. (2013). A synthesis of peer-mediated academic interventions for secondary struggling learners. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0022219413504997 Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. Journal of Special Education, 39, 6–18.