Interventions for Struggling Adolescent Readers
This article presents a round-up of intervention initiatives aimed at struggling adolescent readers. It provides a snapshot of program characteristics and research findings for Reciprocal Teaching, Apprenticeship in Reading, Read 180, Language!, SRA Corrective Reading, and Strategic Instruction Model (SIM).
A growing number of intervention initiatives aimed at struggling adolescent readers have emerged in the past several years. The instructional approaches described below have been shown to have some efficacy in improving outcomes for struggling adolescent learners. However, for most of these interventions, considerably more research is needed to verify their robustness and broad-scale generalizability.
Reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984, 1988) is an instructional model that emphasizes teaching students key cognitive reading comprehension strategies for predicting, clarifying, summarizing, and questioning in the context of authentic text. The strategies are taught explicitly using scaffolded guided practice to engage students in conversations about what they are reading and learning. Discussion gradually moves from teacher-mediated to student mediated interactions. After a while, students assume the role of teacher as they use the strategies to support comprehension. Thus, instruction is reciprocal between teacher and students.
Numerous evaluation studies have shown that reciprocal teaching is effective in improving reading comprehension (e.g., Lysynchuk, Pressley, & Vye, 1990; Taylor & Frye, 1992). For example, a summary of the major results of 16 studies with experimental and control groups found a median effect size of 0.32 with standardized test measures, and an effect size of 0.88 when experimenter-developed measures were used. Adolescent readers in middle and high school benefit from reciprocal teaching (Rosenshine & Meister, 1995).
In particular, the effects of reciprocal teaching in improving reading comprehension in intact high school remedial reading classes has been studied. Fifty-three 9th grade students were taught four reading comprehension strategies using the reciprocal teaching model. These students were compared to 22 9th grade students in control classes. Students were administered pre- and posttests using experimenter-developed measures and the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (MacGinitie, MacGinitie, R., Maria, Dreyer, 2000). Instruction in both conditions lasted for about 20 sessions. As in previous studies, no significant differences between groups were found over time on the standardized measure. However, on the experimenter-developed measures, significant differences between experimental and control groups were found (Alfassi, 1998). The approach is widely used with struggling adolescent readers (Westera & Moore,1995).
Apprenticeship in Reading
Using reading apprenticeship as a framework for reading instruction, researchers have developed a ninth grade course, Academic Literacy (Greenleaf, Schoenbach, Cziko, & Mueller, 2001). In contrast to typical skill-based remedial reading courses, in this course students engage in ongoing, collaborative discussion of text-based information, have scheduled time for independent reading, and access to a variety of engaging materials directly related to content class curricula. Subject area teachers deliver the interventions in their classes.
In one study, three units were developed to help teachers focus on the role and use of reading in the personal, public, and academic arenas. In addition, explicit instruction was provided in reading strategies through the use of reciprocal teaching. Specifically, teachers engaged students in learning and practicing the cognitive strategies associated with reciprocal teaching (questioning, summarizing, clarifying, and predicting) as they read a variety of content texts.
Growth in student reading proficiency was assessed with a standardized measure, the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP; Touchstone Applied Science Associates, 2004), which was administered to students in the Academic Literacy class pre- and post-intervention. There were gains from pre- to post-test. When compared to national norm data in the DRP, these gains were statistically significant, and the students moved from an average of a 7th-grade reading level to an average 9th-grade level at posttest. That is, on average, students made progress in closing the gap in reading achievement (Greenleaf et al., 2001).
Read 180 is a comprehensive reading intervention for struggling readers in grades 4 through 12. The program consists of four major components: (a) whole-group instruction (with the teacher modeling fluent reading and the application of various reading strategies); (b) intensive small group instruction; (c) computer instruction designed for building background information, vocabulary, reading comprehension, fluency, and word study; and (d) silent reading in engaging, leveled books supported with audio books. The initial project design for Read 180 came from research conducted on students with mild disabilities (Hasselbring, 1996; Hasselbring & Bottge, 2000).
Most studies on Read 180 have employed quasi-experimental pre-/post-test designs. In a large study of low-performing middle school students in Dallas, Houston, and Boston, there was a significant advantage for those instructed with Read 180 on SAT-9 results. Similar trends were found in a study conducted in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Scores on both the NCES (2002) and Reading and Language Arts SAT-9 subsections showed significant gains for the experimental groups (Scholastic, 2005). While these findings are encouraging, we are cautious in our interpretations because of a lack of random assignment to instructional conditions or appropriate quasi-experimental matching (Smith, Rissman, & Grek, 2004).
Language! is a comprehensive reading program that integrates reading, spelling, and writing instruction (Greene, 1998). Designed for students who struggle with literacy skills and who are two or more years below grade placement, the program is highly structured and instruction is explicit. Language! was intended be used in general or special education settings and as a mastery-based program with students progressing at their own pace. Instruction is provided to students in small groups and they also engage in independent practice. Specific units of instruction include vocabulary, pre-reading activities, written expression, and questioning techniques related to reading. Specific reading skill units include phonemic awareness, word recognition, and reading comprehension.
Several studies have been conducted with Language!; however, only one included a control and experimental group design. This study was conducted with middle and high school adjudicated youth (Greene, 1996) for 23 weeks. The control group received unstructured whole-group instruction whereas the experimental group received individualized and small-group instruction using the Language! program. The Gray Oral Reading Test-3 (Wiederholt & Bryant, 1982) and the Wide Range Achievement Test (Wilkinson, 1993) were used to measure reading growth. The treatment group gains were statistically and socially significant for both measures. Thus, students in the treatment group gained an average of three grades in word identification and reading comprehension. These findings are encouraging.
SRA Corrective Reading
Corrective Reading is another comprehensive reading intervention program designed to improve word level reading and comprehension (Adams & Engelmann, 1996). Intended for students in grades 4-12 who are reading one or more grade levels below grade placement, Corrective Reading may be implemented in general or special education classrooms with small groups of students or in a whole-class format. Corrective Reading is a highly structured, sequenced, and scripted program. Teachers follow a direct instruction model as they teach decoding skills focusing on word attack skills, group reading, and individual mastery. A comprehension strand includes instruction in thinking strategies and oral group exercises (Adams & Engelmann, 1996).
The effectiveness of Corrective Reading is supported by a sizeable research base (Adams & Engelmann, 1996; Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2002; Campbell, 1984; Gersten & Keating, 1987; Thorne, 1978). However, to date, the research with adolescents has not been conducted in a random assignment of treatment and control group designs. Thus, while initial findings are encouraging, they are somewhat limited.
In one study, with 7th- and 8th-grade students in remedial reading classes, Campbell (1984), students received either Corrective Reading or regular high school English. Students in the Corrective Reading condition made gains of 2.2 grade levels on the Woodcock- Johnson Reading Mastery Test (Woodcock, 1998) after 6-9 months of instruction. The comparison group made an average gain of 0.4 months after the same period of instruction. Finally, there have been two meta analyses of multiple studies of Corrective Reading each documenting significant gains for students receiving the Corrective Reading treatment (Adams & Engelmann, 1996; Borman et al., 2002). All that said, to date, there has not been a randomized experimental evaluation of the approach which could better inform about the effectiveness of the intervention that the existing studies.
Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)
Since 1978, researchers at the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (KU-CRL) have developed a broad array of interventions designed to improve literacy outcomes for struggling adolescent learners (e.g., Deshler et al., 2001; Schumaker & Deshler, 2006). In one line of research, Content Enhancement Routines (CER) enable subject matter teachers in secondary schools to select and present critical content information that is potentially difficult to learn in a way that is understandable and memorable to all students in an academically diverse class regardless of literacy levels.
CERs ensure learning by (a) actively engaging students in the learning process, (b) transforming abstract content into concrete forms, (c) structuring or organizing information to provide clarity, (d) ensuring that the relationships among pieces of information are explicitly discussed, (d) tying new information to prior knowledge, and (e) distinguishing critical information from less critical information (Lenz & Bulgren, 1995. Teacher use of CERs can increase the test scores of all students, including low achievers and students with disabilities, an average of 10-20 percentage points (e.g., Bulgren, Deshler, & Schumaker, 1997; Bulgren, Deshler, Schumaker, & Lenz, 2000; Bulgren, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1988; Bulgren, Schumaker, Deshler, Lenz, & Marquis, 2002). A major function of CERs in enhancing literacy outcomes is to support the instruction of critical vocabulary and critical conceptual knowledge, including background information (Lenz & Deshler, 2004).
In a second line of research, teachers instruct students to use various learning strategies to enable them to successfully negotiate the demands of the curriculum, teaching them how to learn (Lenz, Ehren, & Deshler, 2005). Two major questions have guided this line of programmatic work: (a) Can adolescents be taught to use complex learning strategies? and (b) Does their use of the strategies result in improved performance on academic tasks? Over 20 studies have been completed (e.g., see Schumaker & Deshler, 2006, for a review). Each learning strategy intervention includes the instructional procedures and materials teachers need to teach adolescents to apply a given strategy using an eight-stage explicit instructional methodology (Brownell, Mellard, & Deshler, 1993; Ellis, Deshler, Lenz, Schumaker, & Clark 1991).
In general, this research has shown that adolescents greatly improve their use of a particular strategy when the eight-stage instructional methodology is implemented. In all of the studies, students generalized their application of the strategy across stimulus materials. In the studies focusing on reading strategies (Clark, Deshler, Schumaker, Alley, & Warner, 1984; Lenz & Hughes, 1990; Schumaker, Deshler, Alley, Warner, & Denton, 1982) generalization occurred across materials written at varying reading (i.e., grade) levels. Several studies showed that student performance on academic tasks also improved when they used the strategy. In particular, when an array of reading comprehension strategies (e.g., paraphrasing, questioning, imaging) are taught in semester-long high school classes of approximately 12-15 students showed nearly two years' growth in one semester of instruction using the Gates-MacGinitie as the pre- /postmeasure, (Deshler, Schumaker, & Woodruff, 2004). Inasmuch as the foundational research on learning strategies conducted by the KU-CRL targeted adolescents with LD, these interventions can be characterized as being relatively structured and explicit in nature (Deshler, 2003). Table 1 show effect sizes of studies testing these reading interventions (Schumaker & Deshler, 2006). (Note: These effect sizes are calculated from single subject design studies, which usually result in higher effect sizes that experimental designs.)
|Bulgren, Hock, Schumaker, & Deshler||1995||1.77||12|
|Ellis, Deshler, & Schumaker||1989||1.48||13|
|Lenz & Hughes||1990||0.64||12|
|Scanlon, Deshler, & Schumaker||1996||0.80||17|
In a second line of research, teachers instruct students to use various learning strategies to enable them to successfully negotiate the demands of the curriculum, teaching them how to learn (Lenz, Ehren, & Deshler, 2005). In particular, an array of reading comprehension strategies (e.g., paraphrasing, questioning, imaging) are taught in semester-long high school classes of approximately 12-15 students. Using the Gates-MacGinitie as the pre-/postmeasure, students showed nearly two years' growth in one semester of instruction (Deshler, Schumaker, & Woodruff, 2004).
In summary, a partial but still sketchy profile is emerging of the characteristics of adolescents who struggle with literacy problems and the kinds of interventions that hold promise for this population of students. Because few programmatic studies have been conducted, a clear taxonomy of the specific characteristics across critical dimensions of literacy is not available. Similarly, several intervention initiatives have been designed and evaluated in middle and high school settings, but few studies have been conducted with random assignment to conditions. Without controlling for the critical factors that may influence outcomes, conclusions should be drawn cautiously. In short, a great deal remains to be done before teachers and administrators can answer the following question with confidence: What interventions works best for which students under what conditions?
Click the "References" link above to hide these references.
Adams, G.L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.
Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 309-332.
Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive School Reform and Achievement: A Meta- Analysis. Review of Educational Research 73(2), 125-230.
Brownell, M.T., Mellard, D.F., & Deshler, D.D. (1993). Differences in the learning and transfer performance between students with learning disabilities and other lowachieving students on problem-solving tasks. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16(23), 138-156.
Bulgren, J., Deshler, D., & Schumaker, J. (1997). Use of a recall enhancement routine and strategies in inclusive secondary classes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(4), 198-208.
Bulgren, J.A., Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., & Lenz, B.K. (2000). The use and effectiveness of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 426-441.
Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 3-17.
Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Lenz, B.K., & Marquis, J. (2002). The use and effectiveness of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 356-371.
Campbell, M. L. (1984). Corrective Reading program evaluated with secondary students in San Diego. ADI News, 7, 1517.
Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for African- American students at middle adolescents: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 743-772.
Catts, H., Adlof, S., & Ellis-Weismer, S. (in press). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the Simple View of Reading. Journal of Speech-Language- Hearing Research.
Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1142- 1157.
Catts, H.W., Hogan, T.P., & Adlof, S.M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teacher taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1890-1990. New York: Teachers College Press.
Curtis, M.B. (2002). Adolescent reading: A synthesis of research. Boston: Lesley College, The Center for Special Education.
Deshler, D. D. (2002). Response to "Is 'learning disabilities' just a fancy term for low achievement? A meta-analysis of reading differences between low achievers with and without the label." In R. Bradley & L. Danielson (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. 763-771. ( Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B. K., Bulgren, J. A., Hock, M. F., Knight, J., & Ehren, B. J. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(2), 96-108.
Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Woodruff, S. K. (2004). Improving literacy skills of at risk adolescents: A schoolwide response. In D. S. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap grades 4-12 ). 86-106. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ellis, E.S., Deshler, D.D., Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., & Clark, F.L. (1991). An instruction model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(6), 1-24.
Elmore, R.F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1-26.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Fullan, M. (1993). Changing forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. New York: The Falmer Press.
MacGinitie W. H., , R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests, fourth edition. Itasica, IL: Riverside Publishing.
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(2), 279-230.
Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (1987). Long-term benefits from Direct Instruction. Educational Leadership, 44, 2831.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.
Greene, J. (1996). LANGUAGE! Effects of an individualized structured language curriculum for middle and high school students. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 97-121.
Greene, J. F. (1998). Another chance: Help for older students with limited literacy. American Educator, 1-6.
Greene, J. F., & Winters, M. (2005). The effect of school choice on public high school graduation rates. Education Working Paper. New York: Manhattan Institute for Public Policy.
Greenleaf, C. L., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. L. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 30-39.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Scaffolding for motivation and engagement in reading. In J. T. Guthrie, A. Wigfield, & K.C. Perencevich (Eds.), Motivating reading comprehension: Conceptoriented reading instruction (pp. 55-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hasselbring, T.S. with the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), The Handbook of Educational Psychology, (pp. 807-840). NY: Simon & Schuster MacMillan.
Hasselbring, T.S. & Bottge, B.A. (2000). Planning and Implementing a Technology Program in Inclusive Settings. In J. Lindsley (Ed.) Technology in Special Education. Austin, TX: Pro.Ed.
Hock, M. F., & Deshler, D. D. (2003). Adolescent literacy: Ensuring that no child is left behind. Principal Leadership, 13(4), 55-61.
Hock, M. F., Deshler, D. D., Marquis, J., & Brasseur, I. (2005). Reading component skills of adolescents attending urban schools. Lawrence: The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127- 160.
Kansas State Department of Education. (2005). Report card 2004-2005. http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/Welcome.html
Kamhi, A.G. (2005). Finding beauty in the ugly facts about reading comprehension. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 201-212). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension theory as a guide for the design of thoughtful questions. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 51- 64.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49(4), 294-303.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Knight, J. (1998). Do schools have learning disabilities? Focus on Exceptional Children, 30 (9), 1-14.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Lenz, B.K., & Bulgren, J.A. (1995). Promoting learning in content classes. In P. T. Cegelka & W. H. Berdine (Eds.), Effective instruction for students with learning disabilities (pp. 385-417). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Lenz, B. K., & Deshler, D. D.; with Kissam, B. R. (2004). Teaching content to all: Evidence- based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2001). Qualitative Reading Inventory-3. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lyon, G.R., Alexander, D., & Yaffee, S. 1997. Progress and promise in research in learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 1-6.
Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. Elementary School Journal, 90(5), 469-484.
McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. New York: Brookes.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.
National Academies. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter future. Washington, DC: National Academies.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2004). The nation's report card: Reading 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2005). The nation's report card: Reading 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nrc/reading_math_2005/s0002.asp?printver.
National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Washington, DC: Author.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Fluency. In Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117175.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1988). Instruction for self-regulated reading. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopher (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 19-39). Alexander, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Partnership for Reading (2002, May). Adolescent literacy: Research informing practice. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, U.S. Department of Education.
Pressley, M. (2000). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn of the century status report. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Researchbased best practices. New York: Guilford.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. III, pp. 545-561. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford.
Pressley, M., & Block, C. (2002). Summing up: What reading comprehension could be. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based practices. 383-392. New York: Guilford.
Pressley, M., & Fingeret, L. (2006). Fluency. In M. Pressley, Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Pressley, M. & Hilden, K. (2004). Toward more ambitious comprehension instruction. In E.R. Silliman & L.C. Wilkerson (Eds.), Language and literacy learning in schools (pp. 151-174), New York: Guilford Press.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1995). Direct instruction. In L. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education ( 2nd ed., pp. 143-148). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Scholastic. (2005). The compendium of Read 180 research: 1999-2004. New York: Scholastic Books.
Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2006). Teaching adolescents to be strategic learners. In D. D. Deshler & J. B. Schumaker (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education. New York: Corwin Press.
Smith, S., Rissman, L., & Grek, M. (2004). Evaluation of Read 180. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R &D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Science and Technology Policy Institute. RAND Education.
Snow, C.E., & Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap:What do we know and where do we need to go from here? (Adolescent Literacy Funders Meeting Report). New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Sprick, R. (2005). ACHIEVE: Creating positive classroom environments in secondary schools. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Stahl, S. A., & Hiebert, E. H. (2004). The "word factors": A problem for reading comprehension assessment. Paris, Scott G. ; Stahl,
Steven A. (Eds). Children's reading comprehension and assessment. (pp. 161-186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 321-335.
Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A.E., & Freeman, D.J. (1984). Relation between early reading acquisition and word decoding with and without context: A longitudinal study of first-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 668-677.
Strickland, D. S., & Alvermann, D. E. (2004). Bridging the literacy achievement gap grades 4-12. New York: Teachers College Press.
Swanson, C. B. (2004). High school graduation, completion, and dropout indicators. from Http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411116
Swanson, H.L., & Deshler, D.D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124- 135.
Swanson, H.L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 277-321.
Tannock, S. (2001). The literacies of youth workers and youth workplaces. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(2), p. 140- 143.
Taylor, B. M., & Frye, B. J. (1992). Comprehension strategy instruction in the intermediate grades. Reading Research and Instruction, 21(1), 39-48.
Thorne, M. T. (1978). "Payment for Reading." The use of the corrective reading scheme with junior maladjusted boys. Remedial Education, 13, 8789.
Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 334355). Parkton, MD: York Press.
Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Touchstone Applied Science Associates (2004). Degrees of Reading Power. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D.J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99-114.
Witkin, M. (1994). A defence of using pop media in the middle-school classroom. English Journal, January 1994, p. 30-33
Westera, J. & Moore, D. W. (1995). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension in a New Zealand high school. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 3, pp. 225-232.
Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2001). Gray oral reading tests: Fourth edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wiederholt, J.L. & Bryant, B.R. (l982). Gray Oral Reading Tests--III. Austin, TX: Pro- Ed.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420- 432.
Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test, 3rd ed. Wilmington, DE: Jastak, Inc.
Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
Deshler, D.D. and Hock, M.F. (2006). Shaping Literacy Achievement. Guilford Press: New York. Reprinted with permission.
Comments and Recommendations