The Efficacy of a Content Area Reading Comprehension Intervention for Students With Disabilities

Abstract

This pilot study investigated the efficacy of the Promoting Adolescent Comprehension Through Text (PACT) intervention, a social studies content knowledge and reading comprehension set of practices implemented with social studies classes including students with disabilities. Social studies general education teachers were provided with professional development on the PACT and differentiation practices to support students with disabilities in the general education classroom. A total of 28 teachers and 893 students (58 students with disabilities) participated in the study, across 20 U.S. rural and urban middle schools. Effect sizes (ES) ranged from 0.21 to 0.36 on measures of content knowledge acquisition and reading comprehension for students with disabilities in the treatment classes.

Keywords

content area instruction middle school(s)literacy

National and international studies reveal that significant numbers of adolescents with disabilities do not adequately understand complex texts, impeding their school success, access to postsecondary learning, and opportunities within our increasingly competitive work environment (Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010; Faggella-Luby et al., 2012; Vaughn et al., 2022). Annual student growth in reading achievement is greatest during elementary school and declines considerably over time, with high school students’ achievement growing the least (Bloom et al., 2008; Scammacca et al., 2015). Secondary students with disabilities (SWDs) are more likely than other youth to have academic difficulties broadly and reading comprehension problems specifically and are also less likely to be provided the school-based support they need (Lipscomb et al., 2017).

To address the need for enhanced reading comprehension skills in secondary students, and with funding from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Reading for Understanding Research Initiative, a text- and discourse-based reading comprehension intervention was developed—Promoting Adolescents’ Comprehension of Text (PACT; Vaughn et al., 2013, 2015). PACT aligns with progressive state standards in content area literacy and social studies (e.g., Common Core State Standards, National Council for the Social Studies), which emphasize instruction that fosters higher-level reasoning and thinking about text and content rather than simple acquisition of factual information. The initial focus of studies examining the efficacy of PACT was focused on students in general education (see for summary, Vaughn & Wanzek, 2024) with several studies providing disaggregated data for SWDs (Swanson et al., 2015; Wanzek et al., 2016).

More than 90% of SWDs are included in general education classes for at least one content area with history/social studies as one of the common content areas for inclusion (Newman, 2006). Thus, general education teachers are tasked with meeting the learning needs of SWDs. Furthermore, content area general education teachers often struggle to incorporate reading instruction into their classes, perhaps considering text reading as a general task and not specific to the complexities and nuances of their subject area (Wineburg, 2001). Yet content area literacy instruction is recommended for all students (e.g., Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010; Heller & Greenleaf, 2007; Vaughn et al., 2022), making an intervention to enhance reading comprehension and content learning in the general education classroom important for SWDs and their general education peers. Considering that the majority of the 12% of SWDs are educated in the general education classroom (U.S. Department of Education, 2018), there is a clear need for effective instructional practices for their teachers.

Instructional Practices Embedded Within PACT

The set of instructional practices embedded in PACT are derived from research on individuals with learning difficulties and disabilities and are associated with improved outcomes for these students (Edmonds et al., 2009; Fisher & Frey, 2014; Gersten et al., 2006; Scammacca et al., 2007, 2015; Vaughn et al., 2000, 2011). These practices include (a) opportunities for peer learning, (b) advanced organizers that provide clarity on themes necessary for learning, (c) instruction in vocabulary, (d) supported opportunities to read and use text to build background knowledge and extend content understanding, (e) systematic instruction in the key content expectations, and (f) integrated instructionally based assessment for ongoing feedback with review. The student-focused practices emphasize opportunities to respond with feedback and individual accountability (Gajria et al., 2007; Gersten et al., 2006; Swanson et al., 2012). The PACT intervention includes teacher’s guides and materials for students that include the following components.

Comprehension canopy

The comprehension canopy is introduced at the beginning of a unit to build background knowledge and motivate students to learn new content. Students watch a brief, engaging video that introduces the topic. Prior to watching, teachers provide a purpose for viewing; afterward, student partners have a short discussion. Teachers also introduce an overarching question to guide students’ learning throughout the unit.

Essential words

Teachers introduce and review five high-utility words or concepts that are essential to comprehending the unit content. Words are introduced on the first day of the unit; on subsequent days, at least one essential word is reviewed in a warm-up activity that reviews the definition and requires students to apply the meaning of the word. Students continue to receive exposure to the word in text and knowledge application activities.

Content text acquisition

Students read and discuss information from high-quality primary and secondary texts. Teachers lead this routine by providing a brief introduction to the text and short video or map that highlights the key ideas students will read more about in the text. Text is divided into stopping points with at least one question designed to check comprehension, extend thinking, and encourage discussion. At each stopping point, students encounter an inferential question that they first discuss with peers and then individually write their response in the given space. Throughout this component, teachers facilitate discourse and note-taking to connect text to the overarching question, essential words, and previously learned material.

Team-Based Learning (TBL)

Adapted from a university-level practice that promotes collaborative discourse, text-based discussions, and justifications for ideas (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2011), the goal of TBL is for students to discuss the content with peers, consider multiple perspectives, solve problems, and apply new content. TBL consists of four key elements: (a) heterogeneous, permanent teams of students; (b) a readiness-assurance process that incorporates individual and group accountability for content learning; (c) a peer-evaluation process for evaluating the team’s success; and (d) knowledge application activities in which teams complete a problem-solving task using the newly learned content.

For the TBL comprehension check (i.e., the readiness-assurance process), students complete five questions independently and submit their responses to build individual accountability for their reading and understanding of content. Next, students complete the same comprehension check as a team of three to four students, this time using their text and notes. Every team must work together and come to consensus on their answer to each question. Students improve their understanding of the content through their discussions and search of text evidence to justify their group responses. Scratch-off cards per team provide immediate feedback on accuracy of their responses. As teams work together, the teacher circulates, identifies misconceptions and provides immediate, targeted instruction to address gaps in student understanding.

Theoretical Support

PACT development was based on a text-processing perspective utilizing a content approach to improving teachers’ facilitation of content knowledge and text use (e.g., Kintsch, 1974, 1998; Symons et al., 1989; van den Broek et al., 1999) that characterizes written content as the vehicle for instruction, engaging students in building coherent representations of the ideas presented in print. Students read text to gather information (i.e., construct new ideas) and then integrate these new ideas with previously learned content. Instructionally, this model includes a focus on discourse about text so that students can elaborate on important content, better integrate new ideas into their working understanding of the narrative or content in question, and more accurately recall elements of the newly learned content at subsequent points in time (Applebee et al., 2003; Beck & McKeown, 2006). McKeown et al.’s (2009) work was particularly influential in the development of PACT reporting that a content approach outperformed a strategy-based approach on researcher-developed reading outcome measures.

Empirical Support

Previous research on PACT reveals that students whose teachers use this set of practices acquire significantly more content acquisition and reading comprehension for “typical” students (Roberts et al., 2023; Vaughn et al., 2013, 2015).

The first study examining the efficacy of PACT was an RCT conducted in 27 eighth-grade social studies/history classes randomly assigned to the PACT treatment condition or the business-as-usual (BaU) condition (Vaughn et al., 2013) with students in both conditions receiving the same history content. However, only students in the PACT condition learned the content using PACT components. Fidelity data indicated that the PACT intervention was delivered with high levels of fidelity, with the majority of intervention components implemented in 90% of treatment classes observed, suggesting that it was practical for teachers to implement. Students in the PACT condition significantly outperformed the BaU students on content acquisition (ES = 0.17), content reading comprehension (ES = 0.29) and reading comprehension (ES = 0.20). These findings were replicated in a second RCT with 1,487 eighth-grade students in 85 classes (Vaughn et al., 2015) with significant effects on content acquisition (ES=0.32). Intervention fidelity was once again high (90%), with treatment students outperforming comparison students at statistically significant levels on content acquisition measures. These effects were maintained at 4- (ES = 0.29) and 8-week (ES = 0.26) follow-ups.

In the third study of PACT, classes of students who were English language learners were randomized to either the PACT (n = 49) or BaU (n = 45) condition and included 1,629 eighth-grade students in social studies classes that contained English learners (Vaughn et al., 2017). Treatment students outperformed comparison students at a statistically significant level on measures of content acquisition (g = 0.40) and content reading comprehension (g = 0.20) but not on general reading comprehension (g = 0.12).

As a part of the first two studies described above, the effects for SWDs were disaggregated (Swanson et al., 2015). SWDs in the treatment condition (n = 72) scored statistically higher than students in the BaU condition (n = 58) on measures of content acquisition (g = 0.26) and content reading comprehension (g = 0.34) but not broad reading comprehension (g = 0.09). We also investigated the effects of PACT for 148 SWDs served in the 94 classes from study 3 (Wanzek et al., 2016). Students in the treatment condition outperformed students in the BaU condition on content acquisition (g = 0.51) and equally well as students in the BaU condition on measures of content reading comprehension and broad reading comprehension.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to expand previous research by examining the effects of PACT for eighth-grade students on both social studies/history knowledge and reading comprehension. We were particularly interested in the effects of PACT for students with disabilities and if PACT benefited students differentially based on initial knowledge. We addressed two main research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What is PACT’s efficacy with eighth-grade students including students with disabilities at posttest and follow-up on two measures: (a) knowledge of social studies/history content and (b) reading comprehension of social studies/history content?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What are the differential effects of PACT based on students’ initial scores?

Method

Study Design

We conducted a within teacher, randomized block design to study the effects of the PACT intervention on the social studies content knowledge and reading comprehension of eighth grade students in classes including students with disabilities. The trial took place during the 2021-2022 school year in two southern U.S. states across 20 middle schools. Within each middle school, eighth-grade U.S. History teachers’ class sections were randomized to one of two conditions: the PACT treatment condition or a BaU comparison condition. The content taught by participant teachers remained constant across the two conditions, while teachers applied PACT instructional practices and materials in treatment classes only. Controlling for teacher effect through this design also bolstered the strength of the study (Roberts et al., 2023; Vaughn & Wanzek, 2024).

Setting and Participants

The study took place in 20 rural and urban middle schools across seven school districts. All except one charter school system were public school districts. The schools served a high percentage of students who were eligible for free or reduced lunch (range: 33.5%-86%).

A total of 28 Grade 8 social studies teachers who taught 99 classes of U.S. History agreed to participate and were trained by research team staff. All teachers held bachelor’s degrees and 8 had attained a masters degree. Teaching experience ranged from 1 to 29 years and averaged 11 years of experience.

As dictated by individual schools’ master schedules, student participants were enrolled in general eighth-grade social studies classes that covered early U.S. History content. All student participants (n = 893) consented to the use of their data and were registered in participating class sections. Student demographics for each condition can be viewed in Table 1. There were differences between study groups in the percentage of Hispanic students (29% PACT, 39% BaU) and the percentage of students with disabilities (9% PACT, 4% BaU). No other differences on demographics were noted between study groups.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics for PACT Study.

Variable	Total(n = 893)		PACT(n = 443)		BaU(n = 450)
Variable	n	(%)	n	(%)	n	(%)
Gender
Girl	429	48	208	47	221	49.1
Boy	409	45.8	202	45.6	207	46
Not reported	55	6.2	33	7.4	22	4.9
Race/ethnicity
Asian American	9	1	5	1.1	4	0.9
African American	52	5.8	24	5.4	28	6.2
Hispanic	301	33.7	127	28.7	174	38.7
White	459	51.4	244	55.1	215	47.8
Multi-racial	9	1	4	0.9	5	1.1
American Indian or Alaskan Native	6	0.7	5	1.1	1	0.2
Not reported	57	6.4	34	7.7	23	5.1
Special education
Yes	58	6.5	38	8.6	20	4.4
No	793	88.8	379	85.6	414	92
Not reported	42	4.7	26	5.9	16	3.6

Note. PACT = Promoting Adolescents’ Comprehension of Text. BaU = Business as Usual.

Intervention Procedures: Professional Development and Teacher Coaching

The team adopted a Curriculum-Based Professional Learning model of professional development (Short & Hirsh, 2020) to work with PACT teachers. Prior to the start of the school year all teachers who agreed to participate took part in an initial 1 day (7 hr) workshop that was held in their respective school districts and delivered by research personnel. To begin the training, the research study and participation procedures and expectations were explained. Instructional lesson plans and materials were distributed and examined thoroughly with the group. The team proceeded to introduce, model, and have teachers rehearse each aforementioned PACT component. As a new PACT component was presented, its learning purpose and how the materials would support the evidenced-based instructional practices that are embedded within the individual PACT component were made evident to teachers. The professional development also provided opportunities to share how the PACT practices differed and complemented what teachers already practiced in their classrooms. Furthermore, before moving on to the subsequent PACT component, time was allotted to discuss tried and tested ways in which teachers can differentiate instruction for students who require additional supports and how the differentiation practices were framed within PACT components. There was also time given to anticipate struggles that teachers and students might encounter with new-to-them instructional routines. The final part of the professional development day focused on ways that teachers could blend their own materials with the PACT materials by studying their individual scope and sequences and lesson plans.

Coaching support was also a part of the professional development that was provided for teacher participants to help them deliver PACT as it was intended. Throughout the Unit 1, teachers received in-person support from their university partner coach, 1 to 2 times. During this time, the coach could observe the teacher, assist and model instruction, provide feedback, and answer questions. The in-person coaching also allowed coaches to focus on a critical element of PACT, TBL, and check-in with teachers around TBL implementation. During Unit 1 some teachers requested that the instructional coach model the content text reading, the TBL comprehension check, and/or the TBL knowledge application in one of their class sections. Following the completion of Unit 1, all teachers received an hour and a half, in-person booster session on the PACT practices that addressed teachers’ questions and provided additional support on those practices that were observed during coaching to require additional practice and feedback. During Unit 2 and 3, teachers met in person or virtually with their university partner coach. Much of the coaching during these two units centered on helping teachers implement the literacy practices embedded within PACT components, such as comprehension monitoring while students read and guiding students through discussions related to content learning and application. This coaching came in the form of feedback to teachers following observations or teacher-coach discussions after several teachers expressed difficulty with facilitating text-based student discussions. Although coaching support ultimately varied based on teacher need, each teacher received a minimum of one virtual check-in every week (i.e., 15-20 minutes).

Following professional development, teachers were asked to implement three units that included themes from the colonization of North America through the causes, events, and effects of the American Revolution. Each unit lasted approximately 15 instructional days. Although both treatment and BaU classrooms received the same instructional content, only PACT classrooms received lessons that integrated the PACT instructional practices.

Processes and Materials

The content area curriculum included text sources, semi-scripted lesson plans, supporting visuals and multimedia components, and student note-taking materials. Teachers who implemented PACT received the following materials that align with routine practice: (a) spiral-bound set of professionally designed, semi-scripted lesson plans for each day of instruction; (b) all necessary images to project during lessons (e.g., essential words documents); (c) multimedia materials (e.g., videos); (d) TBL comprehension check questions and scratch-off cards; (e) TBL knowledge application supplies (e.g., poster-sized game boards and accompanying cards); (f) spiral-bound student books of related text passages; and (g) student essential word logs.

During the PACT PD, we provided teachers with a bookmark cue card to support their differentiating instruction for students with disabilities. The cue card reminded teachers of the following five evidence-based features of differentiated instruction: (a) opportunities to respond (Haydon et al., 2012), (b) 1-minute check-ins for understanding (Tomlinson, 2001), (c) targeted feedback (Lovett et al., 2023), (d) explicit instruction (Archer & Hughes, 2010), and (e) growth mind-set (Burnette et al., 2023). These key features were selected due to their wide evidence-base, ease of implementation, and useability across contexts or lessons. Teachers were encouraged to use the bookmark as a checklist or guide during their unit and lesson planning process to increase their use and level of comfort providing differentiated instruction. Furthermore, examples of how to use these practices were provided in the professional development.

Fidelity of Implementation

Data on the fidelity of implementation of PACT were collected for each teacher throughout the three units of instruction in one randomly selected PACT class period (e.g., 3^rd period) and one randomly selected BaU class period. During these two selected classes, (one PACT and one BaU class), the teacher was directed to audio record instruction daily from beginning to end of the class duration while teaching the content of the three PACT units. The amount of audio recordings collected per teacher during the three units varied because how long a teacher takes to deliver instruction on one unit’s content, the American Revolution for instance varies due to an individual district’s instructional pacing calendar. As we have done in previous studies (Vaughn et al., 2015, 2017), the research team randomly selected one unit of daily recordings (approximately eight to 15 recordings per condition) per teacher to be evaluated for fidelity of PACT implementation in treatment classes and the use of any PACT components in BaU classes.

A fidelity tool was used to evaluate teachers’ implementation of key components of the PACT intervention. Scores were assigned for the Comprehension Canopy, Essential Words Routine with follow-up Warm-up activities, TBL Comprehension Check, and TBL Knowledge Application. These scores were assigned using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very low implementation) to 4 (very high implementation or quality). Three additional global ratings using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (low quality) to 5 (high quality) were scored for the teacher’s overall instruction, classroom management, and for quality of intervention implementation for each teacher’s PACT and BaU recordings (see Table 2). The global ratings were based on a list of quality indicators pertaining to each global component. For example, some quality indicators for overall instruction included “clearly explains concepts” and “allocates majority of classroom time to instruction.”

Table 2.

Mean Values for Fidelity Observations for Treatment and Comparison Teachers.

Key components	Treatment teachers			Comparison teachers
Key components	n	M	SD	n	M	SD
Comprehension Canopy	26	2.35	1.29	22	0.50	1.01
Essential Words Introductory Routine	26	2.23	1.03	22	1.14	1.21
Warm-Up	26	3.23	1.17	22	1.52	1.82
Critical Reading of History Text	26	2.53	0.67	22	1.41	1.11
Team-Based Learning Comprehension Check	26	2.21	1.11	22	0.50	0.86
Team-Based Learning Knowledge Application	26	2.12	1.03	22	0.18	0.59

Note. Fidelity scores are on a 4-point Likert-type scale with 1 representing low fidelity and 4 high fidelity.

Three researchers were trained to code the audio recordings using the fidelity tool. These fidelity coders were trained using a gold standard method (Gwet, 2001). First, coders met to review the fidelity tool and practice coding selected audio. Next, coders independently coded a pre-identified audio recording using the fidelity tool. Coding was compared with a gold standard prepared by an expert coder with extensive experience with the PACT intervention. All coders met 90% interrater agreement on an audio recording from both a PACT class and a BaU class prior to independent coding.

Measures

Students were assessed with the researcher-developed Assessment of Social Studies Knowledge Acquisition (ASK) which consists of two subtests, content knowledge multiple-choice (ASK-MC) and reading comprehension (ASK-COMP). Students were assessed on ASK-MC at pretest (prior to Unit 1), posttest (after Unit 3), and during a 9-week post intervention follow-up assessment administration (9 weeks after Unit 3). In addition, students were assessed on ASK-COMP at posttest. Teachers were trained to administer both assessments during initial professional development and were provided with administration protocols for each administration. Research team members scored all assessments.

ASK-MC

The Assessment of Social Studies Knowledge and Comprehension (Vaughn et al., 2013) is an untimed measure of content knowledge that was developed through previous Institute of Education Sciences funding (Vaughn et al., 2015). The ASK-MC subtest is a 35-minute, group-administered, measure of social studies content knowledge. The subtest consists of 46 four-option, multiple-choice items. The items align with state standards for social studies content required to be taught in Grade 8; all students in the treatment and BaU classrooms were expected to learn this content. Items on the ASK-MC are comprised of assessment items from social studies advanced placement tests and state social studies tests. The measure is not overly aligned with the treatment, as items from state-level tests reflect knowledge of the content that was taught in both the treatment and BaU conditions (treatment uses the PACT intervention during content instruction; BaU uses typical practices). The items with known difficulty parameters were used with permission from released state tests in Texas and Massachusetts and from released advanced placement tests.

Subsamples of items were pilot tested in the population of students targeted by the interventions. Item-level confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate item parameters. The model represented the observed data well, χ² = 1,022.69, df = 989, p =.22, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .009. Internal consistency is .89. The Assessment of Social Studies Knowledge and Comprehension is most informative in the average ability distribution. The peak of the test information function (information = .91) occurs at –0.25 on the ability distribution. The information was above .80 for ability levels ranging from –2.0 to 2.0, indicating greater precision of information near the average theta than toward the extremes. Test information indices indicate the precision of measurement for persons at different levels of the underlying latent construct, with higher information denoting more precision (Guion, 2011). This approach is an Item Response Theory-based analogue for estimates of reliability used in classical test models.

ASK-COMP

The ASK-COMP subtest is a 35-minute, group-administered measure of reading comprehension. This 20-item multiple-choice assessment measures reading comprehension in relation to social studies content. There are three passages included in the assessment related to the instructional content covered in the intervention. Students read each passage silently, and answer related comprehension questions. The reading comprehension questions measure student’s ability to summarize information, identify main ideas, identify cause and effect relationships, and understand vocabulary terms in context.

Students read each passage silently and immediately answer seven four-option, multiple-choice questions about the passage. The items measure students’ ability to identify main ideas, understand vocabulary in context, identify cause and effect, and summarize. The model for the Modified Assessment of Social Studies Comprehension test also fits the data extremely well: χ² = 249.97, df = 189, p = .24, CFI/Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .99, RMSEA = .028. Internal consistency is .85.

Business as Usual (BaU) Class

Teacher’s total class sections were randomly assigned to either be a treatment class or a BaU class. In BaU classes, teachers taught the same content as the treatment classes using their typical instruction without the use of the supplemental PACT materials (i.e., student materials, posters). Typical instruction was considered any activities, readings, and instruction that teachers provided to their classes prior to the study. During the study procedures section of the initial professional development, teachers were instructed to refrain from using the PACT materials in their BaU sections as a safeguard to prevent PACT from seeping into the BaU comparison classes.

Data Analysis

The study’s data structure involved four levels of nesting: 893 students (Level 1) were nested within 99 classes (Level 2), nested within 27 teachers (Level 3) in 20 schools (Level 4). To estimate the main effect of PACT intervention on reading outcomes we ran four-level models on the outcome variables of interest. The initial unconditional models indicated that 22% of the variance in ASK-MC was associated with classes and 6% of the variance was associated with teachers. The school-related variation for ASK-MC was 11.9%. Accordingly, we modeled data as four-level, with students nested in classes and teachers within schools. The full model for ASK-MC included the group-mean centered pretest score at the student level and the grand mean centered pretest scores and indicator for condition at the class level. Group-mean centered pretest score at the student level removed all the class level variance from the student level variable and partitioned the predictor into its uncorrelated within-and between-cluster parts. The independence of these estimates yielded result that are unbiased, interpretable, and pure level-specific (Hoffman & Walters, 2022; Rights et al., 2020). For all models, we allowed the intercept to randomly vary across all four levels.

To estimate the differential effects of PACT based on initial scores on ASK-MC (RQ2), we expanded the previous model and included the cross-level interaction between pretest (Level 1) and treatment (Level 2) and the between-class level interaction between pretest scores (Level 2) and treatment (Level 2). We then fit the following model:

\begin{matrix} Y_{i j k l} = Y_{0000} + Y_{1000} (P r e t e s t_{i j k l} - P r e t e s t_{. j k l}) + Y_{0100} (P r e t e s t_{. j k l} - P r e t e s t_{\dots .}) + Y_{0100} {(P A C T)}_{. j k l} \\ + Y_{2200} (P r e t e s t_{i j k l} - P r e t e s t_{. j k l}) * P A C T_{. j k l} + Y_{0200} (P r e t e s t_{. j k l} - P r e t e s t_{\dots .}) * P A C T j k l \\ + m_{000 l} + u_{00 k l} + r_{0 j k l} + e_{i j k l} \end{matrix}

(1)

where i represents students, j represents classes, k represents teachers, and l represents schools. Y_ijkl is the student-level posttest score, $P r e t e s t_{i j k l}$ is the pretest score for student $i$ in classroom $j$ in teacher $k$ in school $l$ , $P r e t e s t_{. j k l}$ is the pretest mean for classroom $j$ in teacher $k$ in school $l$ , and $P r e t e s t_{\dots .}$ is the overall grand mean. ${P A C T}_{j k l}$ is class-level dummy variables representing PACT intervention (coded 1) versus BaU (coded 0). represents the cross-level interactions between group mean centered pretest score (student-level) and treatment assignment (classroom-level). $Y_{0200}$ describes the interaction of PACT and the between-groups part of the pretest score. We estimated the between and within components of the moderator to decompose the effect across different levels of the factor and allow for unbiased estimates of student- and class-level effects without conflating level-specific effects (Preacher et al., 2016). Random intercepts were specified by $e_{i j k l}$ at the student level, $r_{0 j k l}$ at the classroom level, $u_{00 k l}$ at the teacher level, and $m_{000 l}$ at the school level.

We ran analysis using the “lme4” (Bates et al., 2014) and “emmeans” packages (Lenth et al., 2020) in R. We estimated effect sizes (ES; Hedge’s g) for the main effect of intervention as the ratio between the model-derived treatment coefficients and the unadjusted pooled within-group standard deviation across conditions at posttest (What Works Clearinghouse, 2022). We followed up significant interactions using the Johnson-Neyman (J-N) technique (Preacher et al., 2006), which produces values along the full range of the moderator at which the effect of intervention transitions from statistically significant to nonsignificant. These values demarcate the regions of significance for the intervention effect (Lin, 2020). We also calculated ES for the outcomes at low (1 SD below the sample mean), average (at the sample mean), and high (1 SD above the sample mean) levels of the moderator by dividing the differences between adjusted means (i.e., intervention mean − control mean) by the pooled standard deviation for the outcome measure.

Results

Baseline Equivalence

In Table 3, we summarize the baseline characteristics for nonattriting students in the PACT condition and in the BaU. ES indicate equivalence at posttest (ES = 0.04) and at follow-up (ES = 0.19) on the ASK-MC measure.

Table 3.

Covariate Balance Checking for the Analytic Sample at Baseline.

Baseline variable	PACT			BaU			ES (g)
Baseline variable	n	M	SD	n	M	SD	ES (g)
Posttest Analytic Sample
ASK-MC	394	17.88	7.15	378	17.59	7.00	0.04
Follow-up Analytic Sample
ASK-MC	307	18.37	7.45	284	17.01	7.04	0.19

Note. PACT = Promoting Adolescents’ Comprehension of Text. BaU = Business as usual. ASK-MC = Assessment of Social Studies Knowledge Acquisition multiple choice. ASK-COMP = Assessment of Social Studies Knowledge Acquisition reading comprehension.

Research Question 1

Table 4 displays adjusted and unadjusted means and unadjusted standard deviations for each outcome measure at posttest for all students in the classes. The estimated effects of the intervention are reported in Table 5. Controlling for pretest differences, students in the PACT intervention scored slightly higher than students in the control classes on ASK-MC at posttest (ES = 0.07 [–0.07, 0.22]) and at follow-up (ES = 0.08 [–0.07, 0.24]); however, the differences were not statistically significant (p = .32 and p = .39, respectively). Similarly, on the ASK-COMP there were no significant effects of PACT (ES = –0.10 [–0.32, 0.12]).

Table 4.

Unadjusted and Adjusted Posttest Means, and Unadjusted Standard Deviation for the Reading Outcomes.

Outcome measures	PACT				BaU
Outcome measures	n	Unadj. M	Adj. M	Unadj. SD	n	Unadj. M	Adj. M	Unadj. SD
1. ASK-MC at posttest	411	24.92	24.50	10.05	396	23.64	23.80	9.03
2. ASK-MC at follow-up	300	25.44	23.90	10.94	276	23.16	23.10	9.95
3. ASK-COMP at posttest	389	12.02	11.00	4.88	370	12.00	11.50	4.67

Table 5.

Estimated Effect of the Intervention on Posttest and Follow-Up Measures.

Outcome/Fixed effects	Model 1				Model 2
Outcome/Fixed effects	Est.	ICC	p	ES	Est.	SE	p
1. ASK-MC at posttest
Intercept	23.56	0.75	.00		23.50	0.76	.00
Pretest L1	0.80	0.04	.00		0.89	0.06	.00
Pretest L2	1.06	0.09	.00		0.98	0.12	.00
PACT	0.71	0.71	.32	0.07	0.79	0.72	.27
PACT × Pretest L1					-0.19	0.09	.03
PACT × Pretest L2					0.15	0.15	.33
2. ASK-MC at follow-up
Intercept	22.85	1.14	.00		22.71	1.14	.00
Pretest L1	0.64	0.05	.00		0.73	0.07	.00
Pretest L2	0.93	0.11	.00		0.79	0.15	.00
PACT	0.88	0.83	.30	0.08	1.03	0.84	.23
PACT × Pretest L1					-0.19	0.10	.06
PACT × Pretest L2					0.22	0.17	.21
3. ASK-COMP
Intercept	11.95	0.24	.00
PACT	0.05	0.34	.39	-0.10
Outcome/Random effects	Est.	ICC			Est.	ICC
1. ASK-MC at posttest
School-level variance	0.75	0.01			0.84	0.02
Teacher-level variance	6.74	0.13			6.64	0.13
Class-level variance	5.02	0.10			5.13	0.10
Student-level residual	37.53	0.75			37.29	0.75
2. ASK-MC at follow-up
School-level variance	12.91	0.21			13.28	0.22
Teacher-level variance	1.27	0.02			1.05	0.02
Class-level variance	5.25	0.09			5.14	0.09
Student-level residual	40.74	0.68			40.56	0.68
3. ASK-COMP
School-level variance	5.77	0.25
Teacher-level variance	0.033	0.00
Class-level variance	4.195	0.18
Student-level residual	13.11	0.57

We were also interested in determining the efficacy of PACT among students with disabilities included in the classes. Given the relatively small number of students with disabilities in the sample (n = 58; 38 in PACT and 20 in BaU), we only present adjusted and unadjusted means, unadjusted standard deviations, and ES for this subsample of students (see Table 6). Students with disabilities in the PACT conditions scored higher than students in the comparison conditions on knowledge acquisition at posttest (ES = 0.35 [–0.16, 0.85]), and at follow-up (ES = 0.36 [–0.29, 1.02]). Students in the PACT condition also scored higher than students in the comparison condition on content reading comprehension (ES = 0.21[–0.41, 0.84]).

Table 6.

Unadjusted and Adjusted Posttest Means, and Unadjusted Standard Deviation for Student With Disabilities.

Outcome measures	PACT				BaU				ES
Outcome measures	n	Unadj M	Adj. M	Unadj SD	n	Unadj M	Adj. M	Unadj SD	ES
1. ASK-MC at posttest	38	22.42	21.4	11.91	18	13.94	17.6	9.039	0.35
2. ASK-MC at follow-up	28	23.07	21.4	14.46	10	12.6	18.7	6.15	0.21
3. ASK-COMP at posttest	34	10.65	10.65	5.79	14	8.71	8.71	4.20	0.36

Research Question 2

We evaluated whether, on average, students who are higher (or lower) on pretest score with respect to the other students in their class tend to score higher (or lower) on the outcome. The within-group interaction was significant, indicating that there was a differential effect of PACT based on initial scores on ASK-MC. The negative effects indicated that as students’ pretest scores increased, a smaller effect of the PACT intervention was observed (see Figure 1). A follow-up Johnson–Neyman plot suggested that the effect favoring PACT intervention over BaU remained significant for all the students scoring lower than one standard deviations (5 points) below the class mean on ASK-MC. We estimated ES for ASK-MC at relatively low, average, and high levels of ASK-MC pretest performance based on sample scores. Lower ASK-MC scores (1 SD below the sample mean which corresponds to 5 raw score points) were associated with a smaller impact of the PACT intervention (g = 0.19 [0.01, 0.36]), but higher scores on pretest reading in the content area (1 SD above the sample mean) were associated with no impact (g = –0.02 [–0.19, 0.15]) of the intervention.

Figure 1.

Varying Effects of ASK-MC Pretest Score on ASK-MC Posttest Scores by the Intervention Group (Left) as Well as Region of Significance With Confidence Bands (on the Right).

Discussion

This study reports on the efficacy of a set of practices aimed at improving both history content learning and history reading comprehension with eighth-grade students in general education classrooms. We were particularly interested in how this relatively well established set of practices (e.g., Roberts et al., 2023; Vaughn et al., 2013, 2015) might impact the learning and reading comprehension of students with disabilities in these classes. The PACT professional development training in the present study, compared with past studies, was provided to classroom teachers with supports on how to differentiate their instruction and PACT practices to fit the diverse needs of students in their classroom.

Although school-based research is rarely described as being conducted under ideal conditions—this study was conducted from fall of 2021 to spring of 2022, which was a relatively unstable time when the COVID pandemic exercised considerable influence on the schedules of schools and teachers as schools learned more about how to move forward through the pandemic while keeping students and staff safe. Nevertheless, we were able to recruit teachers and their students, we were able to obtain their consent to participate, and the teachers implemented the set of PACT practices in their treatment classes and not in their BaU classes.

As can be seen from the fidelity data (see Table 2), despite the challenges of the school year, teachers were able to adhere to the PACT practices during the study. The data also demonstrate a firewall between the treatment and BaU classrooms with PACT practices implemented within their treatment sections. However, there was variation in the quality of implementation across the 26 treatment teachers, with implementation of the PACT practices ranging from a low score of M = 2.21 (4-point scale; Team-Based Learning Knowledge Application) and a high score of M = 3.32 (Warm-Up). PACT classrooms’ fidelity for the remaining PACT components were between 2.21 (Team-Based Learning Comprehension Check) and 2.53 (Critical Reading of Text). Compared with earlier iterations of PACT studies (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2013, 2015, 2017), these fidelity scores are lower than expected. For example, out of 399 total ratings on PACT components from Vaughn and colleagues (2017), 83.2% of them received a 3 or 4 fidelity rating. Similar trends were observed in Vaughn and colleagues 2013 and 2015 studies. Teachers reported each of the components of PACT were overall helpful in differentiating instruction for students with disabilities with average ratings of 5.00–5.42 (SD = 1.38–1.59) on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = not helpful to 7 = extremely helpful. Teachers also indicated students were engaged in the PACT materials (M = 5.26; SD = 1.32) on a similar 7-point scale. The difference in fidelity ratings in this PACT study, compared with earlier PACT studies, could be the result of the pandemic-related challenges endured during the 2021–2022 school year. These pandemic differences included teachers dealing with school closures and increased student absences due to COVID positive testing protocols. We did also provide some virtual coaching to supplement the in-person coaching. It is possible that the fidelity ratings of the present study also impacted the overall results of the study between student performance in treatment versus BaU classrooms.

In addition to the efficacy of PACT practices for all students, we sought to investigate the efficacy of the PACT intervention for students with disabilities who are included in general education classrooms. Although these students are likely to continue to need individualized interventions to address their academic needs, in-classroom supports that can further assist them in accessing the general education curriculum are needed. We hypothesized that through providing teachers with (a) an efficacious set of literacy practices, and (b) knowledge of differentiation, that students with disabilities in the PACT classrooms would outperform students with disabilities in the BaU classrooms. Although sample sizes were too small to adequately test for significance between samples, the ES show about a third of a standard deviation advantage for students with disabilities on knowledge acquisition at both posttest and follow-up. These findings are comparable with impact from previous PACT studies (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2015, 2017) and may indicate that students with disabilities in the PACT treatment were more likely to retain what they learned (see Table 6). Furthermore, since conditions were randomized at the class level, and the same teachers provided both PACT and BaU classes, the student-level effects can be attributed to the PACT lesson components. However, we acknowledge the confidence intervals for the ES are large due to the small sample and do include 0, confirming the need for additional research with larger samples of students with disabilities.

How effective was PACT for the class as a whole? The findings from this study did not yield statistically significant differences on content learning or content reading comprehension for students in the treatment condition when compared with those in the typical condition. These findings do not align with those of previous efficacy studies in which there were consistently statistically significant differences with ES ranging from 0.17 to 0.40. In addition, the findings from the study presented in this article do not align with a large-scale effectiveness study across multiple states where ES were 0.46 for content learning measure and 0.40 for content reading measure (Roberts et al., 2023). While it is not possible to fully know why the findings from the study reported here do not align well with previous studies, it is hard to overlook the fact that the study was conducted during COVID-19 and the challenges in teaching and learning that resulted.

Implications

The original intent of the PACT practices were to provide general education teachers with a feasible set of instructional practices to implement in a secondary setting that would support the wide range of learners in their classrooms (Vaughn et al., 2013). We think it is worth reflecting on whether the practices of PACT aligned well with the instructional conditions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Several instructional components of PACT are designed to promote content engagement, discussion, and inquiry. As secondary-age students have limited opportunities to discuss text topics in their content-area classrooms (Swanson et al., 2016), facilitating text-based discussions can increase student-led talk and engagement. However, it may be that this type of engagement was more difficult to promote during the COVID-19 pandemic. The PACT practices focus on building background knowledge for students through vocabulary and knowledge building—both of which are recommended practices for supporting knowledge acquisition and reading comprehension for secondary readers (Fisher & Frey, 2014). However, teachers may have had greater challenges implementing these text based routines. Finally, students have opportunities to read and utilize grade-level texts and apply the reading comprehension strategies, background knowledge, and vocabulary which they learned. All three instructional cornerstones of PACT could be utilized across a novel social studies curriculum to promote content-area reading. Furthermore, such practices could be considered as opportunities to jump start reading engagement in general education classrooms following the turbulent impact of COVID on schools and reading levels. Although we did not have observation data available to us as collecting this data was not permissible during the pandemic, we assume that many of these engaging practices were limited during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Limitations

There are limitations which should be noted for the current study. First, as a result of the pandemic, visiting during school hours, including the collection and confirmation of fidelity data, was more difficult. This resulted in decreased opportunities to meet with teachers face-to-face compared with previous PACT studies. In addition, there were frequent teacher and student absences as a direct result of COVID. As this was the first PACT study to utilize enhanced differentiation training as a part of the PACT PD, additional research is warranted to investigate how to support and facilitate teachers’ use of such practices. To further explore the impact of PACT specifically on students with disabilities following the pandemic, additional research with a larger sample of students with disabilities is needed and is being planned.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Wendy Oakes

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 research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R324A190072 to The University of Texas. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

ORCID iDs

Sharon Vaughn

Eleanor M. Hancock

S. Blair Payne

References

Applebee

A. N.

Langer

J. A.

Nystrand

Gamoran

(2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685

Archer

A. L.

Hughes

C. A.

(2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford Publications.

Bates

Machler

Bolker

Walker

(2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1406.5823

Beck

I. L.

McKeown

M. G.

(2006). Improving comprehension with questioning the author. Scholastic.

Bloom

H. S.

Hill

C. J.

Black

A. R.

Lipsey

M. W.

(2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Educational Effectiveness, 1(4), 289–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802400072

Burnette

J. L.

Billingsley

Banks

G. C.

Knouse

L. E.

Hoyt

C. L.

Pollack

J. M.

Simon

(2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of growth mindset interventions: For whom, how, and why might such interventions work? Psychological Bulletin, 149(3–4), 174–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000368

Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. Carnegie Corporation of New York. https://media.carnegie.org/filer_public/8c/8d/8c8dfd82-b5fc-4bb9-8bd1-bb262175eaf4/ccny_report_2010_tta_agenda.pdf

Edmonds

M. S.

Vaughn

Wexler

Reutebuch

Cable

Tackett

K. K.

Schnakenberg

J. W.

(2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998

Faggella-Luby

M. N.

Graner

P. S.

Deshler

D. D.

Drew

S. V.

(2012). Building a house on sand: Why disciplinary literacy is not sufficient to replace general strategies for adolescent learners who struggle. Topics in Language Disorders, 31(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e318245618e

10.

Fisher

Frey

(2014). Content area vocabulary learning. The Reading Teacher, 67(8), 594–599. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1258

11.

Gajria

Jitendra

A. K.

Sood

Sacks

(2007). Improving comprehension of expository test in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400030301

12.

Gersten

Baker

S. K.

Smith-Johnson

Dimino

Peterson

(2006). Eyes on the prize: Teaching complex historical content to middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(3), 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200301

13.

Guion

R. M

. (2011). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions (2nd ed.). Routledge.

14.

Gwet

K. L.

(2001). Handbook of inter-rater reliability. STATAXIS.

15.

Haydon

Macsuga-Gage

A. S.

Simonsen

Hawkins

(2012). Opportunities to respond: A key component of effective instruction. Beyond Behavior, 22(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/107429561202200105

16.

Heller

Greenleaf

C. L.

(2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Alliance for Excellent Education. https://media.carnegie.org/filer_public/41/04/410424c7-ee39-4e00-963e-3c72a2e599d2/ccny_grantee_2007_literacy.pdf

17.

Hoffman

Walters

R. W.

(2022). Catching up on multilevel modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 629–658. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-103525

18.

Kintsch

(1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Kintsch

(1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.

20.

Lenth

R. V.

Bolker

Buerkner

Gine-Vazquez

Herve

Jung

Love

Miguez

Riebl

Singmann

(2020). emmeans; Estimated marginal means, aka least-squared means. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/index.html

21.

Lin

(2020). Probing two-way moderation effects: A review of software to easily plot Johnson-Neyman figures. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(3), 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1732826

22.

Lipscomb

Haimson

Liu

A. Y.

Burghardt

Johnson

D. R.

Thurlow

(2017). Preparing for life after high school: The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012. Volume 2: Comparisons across disability groups: Executive summary (NCEE 2017-2018). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174016/pdf/20174018.pdf

23.

Lovett

M. C.

Bridges

M. W.

DiPietro

Ambrose

S. A.

Norman

M. K.

(2023). How learning works: 8 research-based principles for smart teaching (2nd ed.). Wiley.

24.

McKeown

M. G.

Beck

I. L.

Blake

R. G. K.

(2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218–253. https://doi-org.wku.idm.oclc.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1

25.

Michaelsen

L. K.

Sweet

(2011). Team-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 128, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.467

26.

Newman

(2006). Facts from NLTS2: General education participation and academic performance of students with learning disabilities. SRI International. www.nlts2.org/fact_sheets/nlts2_fact_sheet_2006_07.pdf

27.

Preacher

K. J.

Curran

P. J.

Bauer

D. J.

(2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437

28.

Preacher

K. J.

Zhang

Zyphur

M. J.

(2016). Multilevel structural equation models for assessing moderation within and across levels of analysis. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000052

29.

Rights

J. D.

Preacher

K. J.

Cole

D. A.

(2020). The danger of conflating level-specific effects of control variables when primary interest lies in level-2 effects. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 73, 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12194

30.

Roberts

Vaughn

Wanzek

Furman

Martinez

Sargent

(2023). Promoting Adolescents’ Comprehension of Text (PACT): A randomized control trial of its effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(5), 665–682. https://doi.org/10.1037.edu0000794

31.

Scammacca

N. K.

Roberts

Vaughn

Edmonds

Wexler

Reutebuch

C. K.

Torgesen

J. K.

(2007). Reading interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

32.

Scammacca

N. K.

Roberts

Vaughn

Stuebing

K. K.

(2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4-12: 1980-2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995

33.

Short

Hirsh

(2020). The elements: Transforming teaching through curriculum-based professional learning. Carnegie Corporation of New York. https://media.carnegie.org/filer_public/47/94/47947a81-4fdf-421b-a5e8-fbb211898ee0/elements_report_november_2020.pdf

34.

Swanson

Solis

Ciullo

McKenna

J. W.

(2012). Special education teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices in response to intervention implementation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711432510

35.

Swanson

Wanzek

McCulley

Stillman-Spisak

Vaughn

Simmons

Fogarty

Hairrell

(2016). Literacy and text reading in middle and high school social studies and English language arts classrooms. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 32(3), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2014.910718

36.

Swanson

Wanzek

Vaughn

Roberts

Fall

A.-M.

(2015). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge among middle school students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81(4), 426–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914563704

37.

Symons

Snyder

B. L.

Cariglia-Bull

Pressley

(1989). Why be optimistic about cognitive strategy instruction? In McCormick

C. B.

Miller

G. E.

Pressley

(Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: From basic research to educational applications (pp. 3–32). Springer-Verlag.

38.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Pearson Education.

39.

U.S. Department of Education. (2018). 40th annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.

40.

van den Broek

Young

Tzeng

Linderholm

. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the on-line construction of a memory representation.In can Oosendorp

Goldman

S. R.

(Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Lawrence Erlbaum.

41.

Vaughn

Gersten

Chard

D. J.

(2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006700107

42.

Vaughn

Klingner

J. K.

Swanson

E. A.

Boardman

A. G.

Roberts

Mohammed

S. S.

Stillman-Spisak

S. J.

(2011). Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading with middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 938–964. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410305

43.

Vaughn

Martinez

L. R.

Wanzek

Roberts

Swanson

Fall

A.-M.

(2017). Improving content knowledge and comprehension for English language learners: Findings from a randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000069

44.

Vaughn

Roberts

Swanson

E. A.

Wanzek

Fall

A.-M.

Stillman-Spisak

S. J.

(2015). Improving middle-school students’ knowledge and comprehension in social studies: A Replication. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9274-2

45.

Vaughn

Swanson

E. A.

Fall

A.-M.

Roberts

Capin

Stevens

E. A.

Stewart

A. A.

(2022). The efficacy of comprehension and vocabulary focused professional development on English learners’ literacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000684

46.

Vaughn

Swanson

E. A.

Roberts

Wanzek

Stillman-Spisak

S. J.

Solis

Simmons

(2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.039

47.

Vaughn

Wanzek

(2024). Promoting adolescents’ comprehension of text: Efficacy & effectiveness. Remedial and Special Education, 45, 58–67.

48.

Wanzek

Swanson

Vaughn

Roberts

Fall

A.-M.

(2016). English learner and non-English learner students with disabilities: Content acquisition and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915619419

49.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). Procedures and standards handbook (Version 5.0). U. S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/Final_WWC-HandbookVer5_0-0-508.pdf

50.

Wineburg

(2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past (Critical perspectives on the past). Temple University Press.