Students with LD who struggle with reading comprehension can benefit from instruction on how to read strategically. One strategy that has been demonstrated to increase reading comprehension is self–questioning. In this study, two fifth graders with LD were taught to self–generate questions using a prompt fading procedure. The participants were provided with expository reading passages with embedded questions. As each participant demonstrated proficiency with answering the embedded questions correctly, the embedded questions were systematically faded and replaced with a prompt for the students to generate their own questions. A multiple baseline across participants design demonstrated that the self–questioning intervention resulted in improvements in reading comprehension for both students. Additionally, the students demonstrated evidence of maintenance and generalization of reading comprehension outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonR. C., & PearsonP. D. (1984). A schema–theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In PearsonP. D., BarrR., KamilM. L., & MosenthalP. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 251–291). New York: Longman.
2.
BaerD. M. (1999). How to plan for generalization. Austin, TX: PRO–ED.
3.
BenitoY. M., FoleyC. L., LewisC. D., & PrescottP. (1993). The effect of instruction in question–answer relationships and metacognition on social studies comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 16, 20–29.
4.
BerkeleyS., MarshakL., MastropieriM. A., & ScruggsT. E. (2011). Improving student comprehension of social studies text: A self–questioning strategy for inclusive middle school classes. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 105–113.
5.
ChanL. K. (1991). Promoting strategy generalization through self–instructional training in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 427–433.
6.
CrabtreeT., Alber–MorganS. R., & KonradM. (2010). The effects of self–monitoring on story elements on the reading comprehension of high school seniors with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 33, 187–203.
7.
GajriaM., JitendraA. K., SoodS., & SacksG. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.
8.
GaultneyJ. F. (1995). The effect of prior knowledge and metacognition on the acquisition of reading comprehension strategy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 142–163.
9.
HagamanJ. L., CaseyK. J., & ReidR. (2010). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of young students. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 1–14.
10.
HedinL.R., MasonL.H., & GaffneyJ.S. (2011). Comprehension strategy instruction for students with attention–related disabilities. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55, 148–157.
11.
JitendraA. K., ColeC. L., HoppesM. K., & WilsonB. (1998). Effects of a direct instruction main idea summarization program and self–monitoring on reading comprehension of middle school students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14, 379–397.
12.
JitendraA. K., HoppesM. K., & XinY. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self–monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 127–139.
13.
JohnsonL., GrahamS., & HarrisK. R. (1997). The effects of goal setting and self–instruction on learning a reading comprehension strategy: A study of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 80–91.
14.
JosephL. M., Alber–MorganS. R., CullenJ. M., & RouseC. A., (in press). The effects of self–questioning on reading comprehension: A literature review. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties.
15.
LangerJ. A. (1984). Examining background knowledge and text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 468–481.
16.
MaloneL. D., & MastropieriM. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self–monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 270–279.
17.
Manset–WilliamsonG., DunnM., HinshawR., & NelsonJ. M. (2008). The impact of self–questioning strategy use on the text–reader assisted comprehension of students with reading disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 23, 123–135.
18.
MayfieldK. H., GlennI. M., & VollmerT. R. (2008). Teaching spelling through prompting and review procedures using computer–based instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 303–312.
19.
MortonR. C., & FlyntS. W. (1997). A comparison of constant time delay and prompt fading to teach multiplication facts to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 24, 3–11.
20.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence–based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (National Institute of Health Pub. No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
21.
NolanT.E. (1991). Self–questioning and prediction: Combining metacognitive strategies. Journal of Reading, 35, 132–138.
22.
PetersonL., McLaughlinT. F., WeberK. P., & AndersonH. (2008). The effects of model, lead, test technique with visual prompts paired with a fading procedure to teach “where” to a 13–year–old echolalic boy with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 20, 31–39.
23.
RiveraM. O., KoorlandM. A., & FueyoV. (2002). Pupil–made pictorial prompts and fading for teaching sight words to a student with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 197–207.
24.
RosenshineB., MeisterC., & ChapmanS. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions. A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.
25.
SolisM., CiulloS., VaughnS., PyleN., HassaramB., & LerouxA. (2012). Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of 30 years of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 327–340.
26.
SoluagaD., LeafJ. B., TaubmanM., McEachinJ., & LeafR. (2008). A comparison of flexible prompt fading and constant time delay for five children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2, 753–765.
27.
TaylorL. K., AlberS. R., & WalkerD. W. (2002). The comparative effects of a modified self–questioning strategy and story mapping on the reading comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 69–87.
28.
WongB. Y. L. (1985). Self–questioning instructional research: A review. Review of Educational Research, 55, 227–268.
