Using Alternate Texts to Support Comprehension of the Core Content Curriculum

Abstract

Although students with learning disabilities are likely to be included in general education content area classrooms, they often experience difficulties in these settings because of struggles in reading text. Curriculum complexity and difficulty accessing texts increase as students progress to the higher grades. This creates a barrier for adolescents with learning disabilities in reading to experience success in general education content area classrooms. This article helps teachers support adolescents with learning disabilities in reading to succeed with content area curriculum by incorporating readability-controlled alternate texts (e.g., trade books and magazines) during instruction. A rationale for the need to expose adolescents with learning disabilities in reading to alternate content area texts that they can read on their level is provided. Ideas for how teachers may structure planning and instruction are also discussed.

Keywords

intervention academic instruction content area adolescence reading disabilities settings inclusion

Adolescents with learning disabilities (LD) are likely to be included in general education content classrooms for the majority of the school day (i.e., 80% or more) (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). These students struggle primarily in the area of reading, and many read 3 years or more below their grade level (King-Sears & Bowman-Kruhm, 2010; Malmgren & Trezek, 2009). A reading deficit is likely to impede student success because of the challenges adolescents face in accessing a complex curriculum, which is often presented in texts written several years above the students’ actual reading level (Allington, 2001; National Institute for Literacy, 2007).

Researchers have found that textbooks are too difficult for some students, especially readers with disabilities (Ciborowski, 1995; Ediger, 2002; Jitendra et al., 2001). Complex vocabulary, text structure, and length of text are all factors that affect students’ ability to access text (Ediger, 2002; Graves & Philippot, 2002; McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch, 1996; Spadorcia, 2005). When students are asked to read texts that are too difficult for them, they often read less frequently than students’ reading texts at an appropriate level (Donne, 2011; O’Connor et al., 2002).

Some researchers have recommended using alternate texts (i.e., readability-controlled texts written at varying reading levels and on a variety of topics) to support understanding of content presented in textbooks (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006; Ivey & Broaddus, 2001). In a report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York known as Reading Next, researchers recommended the use of alternate texts in a list of 15 key elements to improve adolescent literacy achievement in middle and high schools (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006). Some examples of alternate texts include magazines, newspapers, and trade books, and many are ideal for content area instruction. Researchers have found that using alternate texts increases reading skills, such as comprehension, word knowledge, and fluency, for some students (Jones, Coombs, & McKinney, 1994; McNamara et al., 1996; O’Connor et al., 2002). Specifically, the use of alternate texts has been found to have a significant positive impact on students’ ability to make inferences, read fluently, and experience interest and engagement in text (Ivey & Broaddus, 2001; Jones et al., 1994; McNamara et al., 1996; O’Connor et al., 2002; Spadorcia, 2005; VanSledright & Kelly, 1998). Table 1 includes a more in-depth overview of the research examining the use of alternate texts.

Table 1.

Summary of Research on Alternate Texts.

Source	Study purpose	Dependent variables	Relevant results
Donne (2011)	An exploration of the relationship between difficulty of texts for students and their reading activities	Reading activities (reading aloud and silently, comprehension); language activities; phonic/phonemic awareness activities; spelling activities; transitioning activities; arts/crafts activities	Students who worked with materials beyond their frustration level “spent less than half as much time in total reading activities (comprehension, reading aloud, and reading silently”) (p. 17).
Guthrie and Wigfield (2000)	A search for characteristics of schools with gains in reading achievement	Achievement in reading, language use, mathematics, science, social studies, and writing Various instructional variables: basal emphasis, books and resources, comprehension strategy instruction, social collaboration, writing, and integrated reading writing, and content	Effective reading programs included “integration of curriculum and an abundance of books and resources” (p. 422). Findings supported the use of diverse texts.
Jones et al. (1994)	A comparison of children’s books and a textbook in causing gains in achievement. Student opinions of the texts were also evaluated.	Attitude and achievement	The students who read the children’s books had larger achievement gains than the students who read the textbook. The students who read the children’s books also reported enjoying learning with these texts.
McNamara et al. (1996)	Two experiments investigating whether or not the coherence of a science text is related to students’ comprehension of the content	Comprehension: superficial and situational understanding of the text	“A text that requires gap-filling inferences is beneficial for learning, provided the learner has an appropriate knowledge background. Otherwise, the learner needs a fully coherent, fully explicit text” (p. 31).
O’Connor et al. (2002)	A study of whether students would make greater gains in reading achievement when reading texts matched to their reading levels or the standard grade level classroom texts	Receptive vocabulary; segmenting; reading progress, including comprehension; spelling; listening comprehension; oral reading fluency	For students with reading difficulties, reading progress was hindered by trying to read texts written above their actual reading ability. Alternatively, these struggling readers made greater gains in reading when using the material matched to their level than when using the grade level material.
VanSledright and Kelly (1998)	An exploration of teachers’ and students’ experience of teaching and learning American history.	Teaching methods and students’ preferred learning methods in a classroom	Students preferred the use of alternate texts over the use of traditional textbooks when studying history.

In this article, specific recommendations are included for how teachers of adolescents with LD in reading can (a) plan to use content area alternate texts and (b) use content area alternate texts to provide instruction.

Planning the Use of Alternate Texts

When planning the use of alternate texts in support of content area instruction, it is important to (a) identify roles, (b) identify instructional contexts, (c) match content area standards with reading skills-based standards, (d) select appropriate texts, and (e) identify instructional settings (Dick & Carey, 1990; Hunter, 1994).

Identify Roles

To effectively provide instruction using alternate texts, a planning team should be established that includes a special educator, a content area teacher, and a literacy or curriculum specialist. Although the special educator will probably take the lead on planning and instruction, the content area teacher and literacy or curriculum specialist will play integral roles throughout the planning process. Planning will allow teachers to make decisions regarding instructional contexts, match content area and reading standards, select appropriate texts, and identify instructional settings.

Identify Instructional Contexts

Teachers need to identify which students would benefit from access to content area alternate texts and in which content area to provide support. Teachers should scaffold the process by beginning with a focus on one reading skill (e.g., comprehension) and one content area and add other reading skills and content areas after a semester or trimester. The decision-making process should be guided by formative and summative reading and content assessment data.

Teachers should examine school and statewide reading assessments to identify those students who are scoring below benchmark. The school’s reading or curriculum specialist will be an important resource in this part of the planning process. Once an initial list of students has been identified, teachers should engage in a close examination of assessment results to determine the specific reading skills (e.g., comprehension) with which students struggle. In an example, an initial analysis of both school and statewide reading assessment data at a middle school reveals that the students struggling most are a small group of seventh graders. More in-depth analysis reveals that these students have severe deficits in reading comprehension. Targeted reading comprehension instruction is therefore needed for this group of students.

Next, determine the content area(s) with which those students with severe reading deficits struggle. General education content teachers will need to be heavily involved with the special educator in this part of the planning process. Teachers should begin by examining standardized and curriculum-based assessment data across content areas, then determine which content area includes the largest number of students scoring below average or below benchmark. The planning team will need to ensure that assessment data support classroom performance and school needs. To extend the example presented earlier regarding the seventh graders struggling with reading comprehension, if content area assessment data and classroom performance reveal that the students also struggle in the area of social studies, then targeted reading comprehension instruction would occur in the context of alternate social studies texts. Instruction should meet both core content social studies standards and new common core reading standards.

Match Content Area Standards With Reading Standards

Matching content area and reading standards will allow teachers to engage in reading skill instruction in the context of content area instruction. Both the general educator and the school’s reading or curriculum specialist will be important resources to the special educator during this part of the planning process. The team can use their knowledge of text structures, which refers to how information is organized in text, to determine which content area standards match with which reading skills-based standards.

Expository content area texts are usually organized according to four primary structures: (a) description, (b) sequence, (c) comparison and contrast, and (d) cause and effect. Texts that are structured to provide examples or illustrations of a concept lend well to the determining importance reading skill. Texts that are structured to provide the chronological order or steps of a concept lend well to the sequence reading skill. Texts that are structured to provide information about how concepts are alike and different lend well to the comparison and contrast reading skill. Texts that are structured to provide details about how concepts affect or are affected by other concepts lend well to the cause and effect reading skill.

Teachers should begin the matching process by examining the content area standard, then develop individual lessons that support that standard. Lessons will be structured according to one of the aforementioned text structures and will allow for direct connections to be made to reading standards. One content area standard may connect with multiple reading standards. Table 2 provides an example of how a specific content area standard can be used to develop individual lessons and be matched with reading standards.

Table 2.

Matching Content Area Standards and Reading Standards.

Social Studies Standard: SS-07-1.1.2: Demonstrate understanding of how early civilizations (Greece and Rome) can be used as a model for democratic principles
Content area lesson	Reading skill-based standard	Rationale for match
Identify regions of Ancient Greece	RI.7.2: Determine importance and key details in text	Students are expected to demonstrate understanding by identifying the key ideas and details of Ancient Greek regions
Trace the rise of Ancient Greek civilization	RH.6-8.3: Identify chronological processes of events related to history and social studies	Students are expected to demonstrate understanding by correctly identifying the order of events surrounding the rise of Ancient Greece
Compare primary and secondary sources from Ancient Greece	RH.6-8.9: Analyze primary and secondary source relationships	Students are expected to demonstrate understanding by determining how information acquired from primary and secondary sources is alike and how it is different
Examine the impact of Ancient Greek civilization on Ancient Roman civilization	RI.7.3: Analyze how concepts interact in text	Students are expected to demonstrate understanding by determining how one civilization affects another civilization

Select Appropriate Texts

The alternate texts used to support adolescents with LD in reading should be connected to the content curriculum and written at students’ actual reading level (Allington, 2001). Teachers should first find texts that connect to the content curriculum. Then teachers should check for the readability level of the texts. There are several resources for alternate texts available in schools and in the community. Both the general education content teacher and the school’s reading or curriculum specialist will be needed to support the special educator in this part of the planning process.

First, content area classroom curricula are often accompanied by trade books written below the intended grade level. These trade books are often directly connected to the content being studied and therefore require less effort in matching alternate texts with the content curriculum. The special educator will need to consult with the appropriate content area teachers to determine whether trade books are available and are an option for instruction. In addition, the special educator will need to meet with the school’s reading or instructional coach to determine what resources may be available. Instructional coaches often receive subscriptions to monthly content-focused magazines such as Muse Magazine and Weekly Reader News. A careful analysis of each available magazine will be required to determine whether any connections exist between the topics covered in these texts and the current content unit of study. The special educator should inquire as to whether the instructional coach, the instructional coach’s aide, or any school volunteers can assist with finding texts that match content area concepts. Finally, the special educator can consult with librarians in the school and local community. Libraries are also a good resource for content area magazines and trade books. Assistance from school personnel and volunteers will help to make the process of searching for texts connected to content more efficient. Table 3 provides an additional resource for locating alternate texts.

Table 3.

Sources for Alternate Texts.

Source	Text type	Recommended grade level(s)	Content focus	Location
Current Events	Magazine	Grades 6–8	Science, social studies, arts, culture	http://www.weeklyreader.com
Muse Magazine	Magazine	Grades 3–8	Science, mathematics, arts	http://www.musemagkids.com
Weekly Reader News	Magazine	Grades 4–6	Science, social studies	http://weeklyreader.com
Reading Stories for Comprehension Success: Intermediate Level	Text collection	Grades 4–6	Science, social studies, arts	http://www.amazon.com
Reading Stories for Comprehension: Junior High School	Text collection	Grades 7–9	Science, social studies, arts	http://www.amazon.com
Texts and Lessons for Content-Area Reading	Text collection	Grades 6–12	Science, social studies, popular culture	http://www.amazon.com
Around the World in 80 Mysteries	Trade book	Grades 3–6	Social studies	http://www.amazon.com
Landmark Books	Trade book	Grades 2–8	Social studies	http://www.amazon.com

Readability

Because it can be difficult for students to gain access to texts written at their own level in content area classrooms (Ciborowski, 1995), it is crucial that alternate texts are written at students’ actual reading level. Teachers should be sure to match text readability with student reading level as measured by school and statewide assessments. The texts used for direct teacher-led instruction should be at students’ instructional level (i.e., texts that are challenging but that help promote student progress and can be read with 90% to 95% accuracy with few errors) (Allington, 2001). Readability calculators are one method for assessing the reading level of a piece of text. Many are available online or through word processing tools such as Microsoft Word and generally require the user to type in a paragraph or two from the text. These calculators have drawbacks, however, in that they often do not take into account such factors as variations in vocabulary and sentence structure. Teachers must take these factors into consideration when using readability calculators (Spadorcia, 2005).

Identify Instructional Settings

Adolescents with LD in reading spend the school day in a variety of settings. Alternate texts can be used to support students during inclusive cotaught instruction, during tiered response to intervention (RTI) instruction, or during instruction in settings outside the general education classroom. Specifically, alternate texts can be incorporated during station (small-group center-based instruction) and alternative (small-group remediation or enrichment) coteaching models of instruction. Alternate texts can also be included during Tier 2 (targeted small groups) or Tier 3 (intensive one-on-one) RTI models of instruction. Finally, alternate texts can be included during resource room or pull-out instruction. The special education teacher and the general education content teacher will need to collaborate to determine which settings best fit student needs and school scheduling.

Using Alternate Texts During Comprehension Instruction

Adolescents with LD in reading struggle with a variety of reading skills, but most struggle to comprehend text (National Institute for Literacy, 2007). This occurs for many reasons, including the complexity of the text, lack of background knowledge, inability to engage in cognitive strategies while reading text, and inability to determine importance in text (Edmonds et al., 2009; Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007). Difficulties comprehending text will have a direct negative impact on students’ ability to succeed in acquiring content knowledge. Adolescents with LD in reading need explicit instruction in the use of specific strategies to overcome deficits in their comprehension ability (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006). Researchers have found that explicit strategy instruction such as those that focus on activating prior knowledge and using cognitive strategies (e.g., questioning and summarizing text) during and after reading can have a significant positive impact on the comprehension ability of adolescents with LD (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Fagella-Luby & Deshler, 2008).

Activate Prior Knowledge

Activating prior knowledge allows readers to consider their current understanding about a topic, make connections to a topic, and think about how a topic will be addressed in a specific piece of text. Teachers should begin to activate student prior knowledge by introducing the text. When introducing texts, teachers should focus on text features and have students volunteer to read the text title, describe any pictures, and discuss any text captions or vocabulary words highlighted in bold. Teachers should continue by allowing students to use text features to make connections to the text. Open-ended questions such as “Where have you heard about this topic?” “What do you know about this topic?” and “Recount what you remember about this topic” will help to scaffold students in making connections to text. Next, teachers should encourage students to also use text features to make predictions about the text. Open-ended questions such as “What do you think we will be reading about?” and “How do you think the vocabulary words can be connected to the text?” will help to scaffold students in making predictions about text. Teachers should be sure to keep a written record of students’ connections and predictions. A written record allows for a comparison of understanding before and after reading a piece of text and for concrete comparisons across texts and provides a tool for prompting and cueing student thinking about text (Roberts, Torgesen, Boardman, & Scammacca, 2008).

Continuing the example provided earlier regarding the seventh grade students struggling in both social studies and reading, if a special educator wanted to use an alternate text to support social studies standard SS-07-1.1.2 (Demonstrate understanding of how early civilizations [Greece and Rome] can be used as a model for democratic principles), the content trade book The Curse of the Ancient Acropolis: Ancient Greece (Marsh, 2008) could be used. In this example, the special education teacher begins instruction by asking students to read the title of the book and describe the cover picture. Questions such as “What do you already know about Ancient Greece?” and “Where have you already heard about Ancient Greece?” help students to make connections to the text. She allows students to first record their answer to each question and then share their answer with a partner. The teacher then asks students to make predictions about the text. Questions such as “What does the word curse mean?” and “How do you think a curse will impact the story?” help students to make thoughtful predictions about the story. The teacher records students’ predictions on chart paper. The special educator completes this portion of the lesson by having students complete an anticipation guide.

An anticipation guide allows students to use their background knowledge to determine whether they think statements made about a topic are true or false (Duffelmeyer, 1994). The purpose is to gauge students’ current understanding of the concept(s) to be covered in the upcoming text. The anticipation guide can also serve as a pre- and postassessment of student understanding because students are allowed to return to each statement after completing the reading to make necessary changes to their original thinking. Examples of the types of statements that may appear on an anticipation guide for the trade book Curse of the Ancient Acropolis include these: “The Parthenon was built as a temple to honor the goddess Athena” and “Zeus was an emperor in Ancient Greece.” The anticipation guide should include three to five statements. Figure 1 includes an illustration of an anticipation guide for the trade book on Ancient Greece. Table 4 provides a list and description of additional organizers that can be used to activate prior knowledge, along with an online location for each organizer.

Figure 1.

Example of an anticipation guide.

Table 4.

Comprehension Strategy List.

Strategy	Strategy purpose	Description	Location
Anticipation guide (Duffelmeyer, 1994)	Activate background knowledge	Allows students to identify whether statements made about text are true or false	http://staff.harrisonburg.k12.va.us/~cfoster/reading/ReadingTemplates.html
Exclusion brainstorming (Blachowicz, 1986)	Activate background knowledge	Allows students to examine a list of words to determine whether they will or will not appear in an upcoming text	http://eagles.midway.edu/ted/STRATEGY_files/exclusion_brainstorming.htm
Clunk cards (Klingner & Vaughn, 1998)	Monitor comprehension	Provides students with prompts for strategies that students may use to fix misunderstandings about text	http://206.82.23.133/files/Reading/ReadingH051506.pdf
Expository question cards (Arguelles, 2000)	Monitor comprehension	Provides students with prompts for questioning throughout reading texts	http://searchlight.utexas.org/Default/content/fourth-grade/materials/p4060122.pdf
GIST summaries (Frey, Fisher, & Hernandez, 2003)	Summarize text	Assists students in developing a summary during and after reading text; involves the prompt questions who, what, where, when, why, and how	http://meade.k12.sd.us/PASS/Pass%20Adobe%20Files/March%202007/SummarizingStrategies.pdf
Two column notes (Santa, Havens, & Maycumber, 1996)	Summarize text	Assists students in developing a summary of text by focusing on the main idea and supporting detail of the text	http://www.landmarkoutreach.org/TwoColumnNote-takingMethod.htm

Monitor Comprehension

Monitoring understanding during reading is crucial to the overall comprehension of text (Fagella-Luby & Deshler, 2008); however, adolescents with LD in reading often experience significant deficits in their ability to monitor comprehension (Pressley, 2000). The special education teacher can scaffold students’ use of monitoring strategies by providing signals, such as sticky notes, throughout texts where students are expected to stop and think about their understanding. Before instruction, teachers will need to examine the text to determine where (e.g., at the end of a paragraph, group of paragraphs, section of text, or page of text) they would like students to stop to monitor comprehension. The teacher will also need to determine how students will demonstrate periodic understanding. Encouraging students to ask and answer questions about text is an effective method of monitoring understanding (Wilson & Smetana, 2011). Question cards for expository text can act as a prompt for adolescents with disabilities who have trouble generating questions on their own. Some sample questions from the question cards include “What have I learned so far?” and “Are there any words that I don’t understand so far?” The teacher can make a set of question cards for each student or create a large poster to which students may refer. Students may choose a different question or card within the same reading every time they are signaled by a sticky note, or teachers may choose to focus on one type of question within the same reading to practice a specific questioning skill.

Continuing the example provided earlier, consider the following paragraph from a chapter in the trade book The Curse of the Ancient Acropolis: Ancient Greece:

“What about the part-unknown?” asked Grant. “The Parthenon is [the] biggest white building with the cigar-shaped columns on top of the hill,” he said. “It is one of the most famous buildings in the world.” [Mr. Pothitos] told them that the Parthenon was built over 2,500 years ago. It was originally built as a temple to honor Athena, the patron goddess of Athens. The Parthenon also served as the treasury, the place where the city kept its money. Over 400 years ago, an invading Turkish army occupied it and used it as a place to store cannonballs and gunpowder. (Marsh, 2008, pp. 52–53)

At the end of this paragraph, students are signaled by a sticky note and choose the question “Are there any words that I don’t understand so far?” If students respond that they are still having trouble with the word Parthenon, then the teacher can lead students in a strategy to repair their comprehension. An example of a large poster containing question cards for expository text is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Example of a question card poster.

Summarize Information

A student’s ability to summarize a piece of text allows the student to demonstrate understanding of that text (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007). It is beneficial, especially for students with LD in reading, to engage in summarizing throughout reading a text and use the summaries created throughout the reading to formulate an overall summary at the end of the text. The special education teacher can scaffold student summarizing by providing signals, such as sticky notes, throughout texts where students are expected to stop and summarize. Before instruction, teachers will need to examine the text to determine where (e.g., at the end of a paragraph, group of paragraphs, section of text, or page of text) they would like students to stop to summarize the text. The teacher will also need to determine how students will record their summaries. Table 4 provides a list and description of organizers that can be used to assist students with summarizing, along with an online location for each organizer.

One summarizing strategy, GIST (generating interaction between schemata and text) summaries, lends well to using alternate texts during instruction and can be used during and after reading. GIST summaries (Frey, Fisher, & Hernandez, 2003) involve providing a summary of a piece of text in 15 to 20 words. The GIST summary strategy involves students reading a piece of text, identifying the five Ws (i.e., who, what, where, when, and why) and the H (i.e., how) in the text and crafting a 15- to 20-word summary based on their answers to these questions. Because it is concrete and structured, it is ideal for guiding adolescents with disabilities through the process of summarizing.

Students can identify the five Ws and the H using the paragraph presented earlier. In the paragraph there is a reference to two of the book’s main characters, Grant and Dr. Pothitos (who). During breakfast (when), to clear up some of Grant’s confusion (why) about the Parthenon (where), the two discuss (how) the building’s many functions (what). One possible GIST summary for this paragraph could be this: “During breakfast, because Grant was confused, Grant and Dr. Pothitos discuss the Parthenon, which is a building that has many functions.” During this activity teachers should be sure to remind students that there may be many different people, places, things, and times discussed in a piece of text but that they should focus on the people, places, things, and times that occur throughout an entire paragraph, chapter, or text and that are the focus of the entire paragraph, chapter, or text. An example of a completed GIST summary sheet is provided in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Example of the GIST strategy.

Foster Generalization and Maintenance

Special educators must work with content area teachers to continue the use of the strategies in the context of inclusive content area instruction. The strategies would benefit both students with and those without disabilities. The alternate texts are directly connected to the general education curriculum; the special educator therefore can easily (a) share the reading strategy (name and purpose) and how and when the strategy is to be used and (b) brainstorm how the strategy could be incorporated by the general educator in the inclusive content area classroom.

Teachers should allow for gradual release of responsibilities so that students begin to take the lead during various instructional activities. For example, the special educator may begin activating prior knowledge by asking leading questions such as “What do you know about this topic?” or “What do you want to learn about this topic?” After several sessions, the teacher should begin lessons by prompting and cueing students with questions such as “What are some types of questions that we should ask ourselves before we begin reading?” or “What should we do before we begin reading a piece of text?” In the case of monitoring comprehension, teachers should go from allowing students to use resources such as question cards to eventually expecting students to devise questions on their own. Students should also eventually be expected to determine where in portions of the text they should stop to generate their questions. This will also be the case with student summaries of text. Students should eventually be expected to create a summary of text by generating their own method for organizing and thinking. Students will vary in how much scaffolding they will need to support maintenance of specific strategies.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article is to assist teachers in planning and using alternate texts with adolescents diagnosed with LD in reading who are struggling in content area classrooms. Alternate texts to supplement content instruction can improve student content area understanding, literacy understanding, and overall school success. Teachers should allow assessment data to guide the content area and reading skill focus. Teachers should also make use of readily available school and community resources for alternate texts. Many schools and community libraries have multiple copies of these kinds of texts.

Special educators should collaborate with content area teachers and reading or instructional coaches throughout the planning and instruction process. Fortunately, once planning is complete, teachers will be able to reuse materials year after year. Finally, instructional strategies should be implemented so that teachers can scaffold students, encouraging generalization across classroom settings and maintenance over time.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Allington

R. L.

(2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. New York, NY: Longman.

Arguelles

M. E.

(2000). Narrative and expository question cards. Retrieved from http://www.texasreadsource.org/PDSRIWebApp/resources/h/downloads.html

Biancarosa

Snow

C. E.

(2006). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Blachowicz

C. L. Z.

(1986). Making connections: Alternatives to the vocabulary notebook. Journal of Reading, 29, 643–649.

Ciborowski

(1995). Using textbooks with students who cannot read them. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 90–101.

Dick

Carey

(1990). The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Donne

(2011). Reading instruction and text difficulty. Volta Review, 111(1), 5–23.

Duffelmeyer

(1994). Effective anticipation guide statements for learning from expository prose. Journal of Reading, 37, 452–455.

Duke

N. K.

Pearson

P. D.

(2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In Farstrup

A. E.

Samuels

S. J.

(Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

10.

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 on older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–287.

11.

Ediger

(2002). Factors which make expository reading difficult. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 312–316.

12.

Fagella-Luby

M. N.

Deshler

D. D.

(2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know; what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 70–78.

13.

Frey

Fisher

Hernandez

(2003). What’s the gist? Summary writing for struggling adolescent writers. Voices from the Middle, 11, 43–49.

14.

Gajria

Jitendra

Sood

Sacks

(2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.

15.

Graves

M. F.

Philippot

R. A.

(2002). High-interest, easy reading: An important resource for struggling readers. Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 179–182.

16.

Guthrie

J. T.

Wigfield

(2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In Kamil

Barr

Mosenthal

Pearson

P. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

17.

Harvey

Goudvis

(2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

18.

Hunter

M. C.

(1994). Enhancing teaching. New York, NY: Macmillan College.

19.

Ivey

Broaddus

(2001). “Just plain reading”: A survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 350–377.

20.

Jitendra

A. K.

Nolet

Xin

Y. P.

Gomez

Renouf

Iskold

DaCosta

(2001). An analysis of middle school geography textbooks: Implications for students with learning problems. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17, 151–173.

21.

Jones

H. J.

Coombs

W. T.

McKinney

C. W.

(1994). A themed literature unit versus a textbook: A comparison of the effects on content acquisition and attitudes in elementary social studies. Reading Research & Instruction, 34, 85–96.

22.

Kentucky Department of Education. (2012). Kentucky core academic standards. Retrieved from http://education.ky.gov/curriculum/docs/pages/cca-version-4.1.aspx

23.

King-Sears

M. E.

Bowman-Kruhm

(2010). Attending to specialized reading Instruction for adolescents with mild disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 30–40.

24.

Klingner

J. K.

Vaughn

(1998). Using collaborative strategic reading. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(6), 32–37.

25.

Malmgren

K. W.

Trezek

B. J.

(2009). Literacy instruction for secondary students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41, 1–12.

26.

Marsh

(2008). The curse of the ancient Acropolis: Ancient Greece. Peachtree City, GA: Gallopade International.

27.

McNamara

D. S.

Kintsch

Songer

N. B.

Kintsch

(1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.

28.

National Institute for Literacy. (2007). What content-area teachers should know about adolescent literacy. Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/adolescent_literacy07.pdf

29.

O’Connor

R. E.

Bell

K. M.

Harty

K. R.

Larkin

L. K.

Sackor

S. M.

Zigmond

(2002). Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades: A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 474–485.

30.

Roberts

Torgesen

J. K.

Boardman

Scammacca

(2008). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 63–69.

31.

Pressley

(2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In Kamil

M. L.

Mosenthal

P. B.

Person

P. D.

Barr

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

32.

Santa

C. M.

Havens

L. T.

Maycumber

(1996). Creating independence through student-owned strategies. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

33.

Spadorcia

S. A.

(2005). Examining the demands of high-interest low-level books. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21(1), 33–60.

34.

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). National Center for Educational Statistics. Washington, DC: Author.

35.

VanSledright

B. A.

Kelly

(1998). Reading American history: The influence of multiple sources on six fifth graders. Elementary School Journal, 98, 239–265.

36.

Wilson

N. S.

Smetana

(2011). Questioning as thinking: A metacognitive framework to improve comprehension of expository text. Literacy, 45(2), 84–90.