Enhancing Reading Comprehension in Middle School Classrooms Using a Critical Reading Routine

Abstract

To learn challenging content, middle school students are expected to read and comprehend complex text. This poses challenges for content-area teachers whose classes typically include students with reading difficulties and disabilities who have a variety of literacy needs. Some students struggle to decode text while many students struggle with complex vocabulary and comprehending upper-level concepts. Teachers can use a variety of instructional methods to increase opportunities for students to engage with text to enhance their understanding of concepts and support reading comprehension. This article provides guidance on how teachers can implement a critical reading of text routine that includes peer-mediated instruction. Adaptations to this routine that teachers can use to address students’ differing needs within the same content-area classroom are included. Resources are provided that teachers can use to differentiate and enhance implementation of the routine.

Keywords

intervention academic adolescence age strategies cognitive/cognition literacy peer(s)

Reading and understanding complex text across the curriculum is an emphasis of current state standards and an essential component of acquiring new knowledge, especially at the middle school level (Haager & Vaughn, 2013). Complicating matters for many students is the fact that text demands increase in complexity across all content-area classes (e.g., science), making it difficult for some to meet the high expectations set forth by these standards. In fact, only 36% of eighth-grade students read at or above a proficient level, and student performance tends to decrease over time in reading and other content areas (Bloom, Hill, Black, & Lipsey, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2018). Even more alarming is that only 8% of eighth-grade students with disabilities read at or above proficiency (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP, 2018). Yet, more than half of all students with disabilities receive 80% or more of their instruction in the general education setting where text demands are high (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). Consequently, content-area teachers need to provide all students with opportunities to practice reading text with immediate corrective feedback (Vaughn, Wanzek, Murray, & Roberts, 2012) and co-occurring explicit comprehension strategy instruction (Kamil et al., 2008). This is especially important for students who struggle to meet grade-level standards, including those with and without reading disabilities.

Challenges for Content-Area Teachers

Although authors of research on adolescent literacy have identified effective interventions that improve students’ comprehension of text (Edmonds et al., 2009), many obstacles limit teachers’ ability to implement these practices in the middle school setting (Bulgren, Graner, & Deshler, 2013). The average middle school serves more than 500 students (Parsad, Lewis, & Farris, 2001), which can lead to large content-area classes full of students with a variety of needs. Furthermore, teachers may feel pressure to cover a lot of content over a short period of time, making them hesitant to spend time focusing on literacy-related practices (Wexler, Mitchell, Clancy, & Silverman, 2017). They also may be unprepared to integrate literacy practices into their content-area instruction (Hall, 2005; Ness, 2009). Finally, students who have struggled for years can exhibit poor motivation and engagement, making it difficult for teachers to engage students in literacy-related tasks (Quirk & Schwanenflugel, 2004). These challenges can hinder teachers from implementing reading instruction in the middle school content-area classroom, leading to decreased opportunities for students to read and engage in instructional activities that boost comprehension (e.g., text-based discussions). Ultimately, this can lead to adverse effects for students (e.g., inability to access content; Mol & Bus, 2011).

To increase the number of opportunities that middle school students have to engage with text, teachers can utilize a variety of instructional methods to provide students with the frequent text-reading practice opportunities, co-occurring reading instruction, and feedback opportunities they need to be successful. A discussion of one such method, peer-mediated reading instruction (Wexler, Reed, Pyle, Mitchell, & Barton, 2015), follows.

Peer-Mediated Reading Instruction

During peer-mediated reading instruction, students read and provide each other with feedback to derive meaning from text. Previous research has demonstrated the positive effects of peer-mediated reading instruction for secondary students (Wexler et al., 2015). In fact, peer-mediated reading instruction can result in positive effects for secondary students particularly when instructional procedures include a systematic feedback component and modeling from teachers and peers (Stevens, Walker, & Vaughn, 2017). When paired with structured text-based discussion, a practice recommended by the Institute of Education Sciences’ practice guide for Improving Adolescent Literacy (Kamil et al., 2008), peer-mediated reading instruction may become particularly potent. Text-based discussion can improve students’ ability to comprehend text by providing students the opportunity to practice defending or explaining their understanding with the use of textual evidence (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003).

Benefits of peer-mediated instruction also extend to teachers. During peer-mediated instruction, students and teachers share the task of leading instruction. Consequently, teachers take on the role of facilitator, rather than primary instructor, thus providing more opportunities to monitor student learning and provide individual support (Okilwa & Shelby, 2010). In addition, when all students are actively engaged in the peer-mediated learning process, classroom management may improve due to less idle time that can lead to undesirable behaviors (McDonnell, Mathot-Buckner, Thorson, & Fister, 2001).

Teachers can utilize peer-mediated instruction in inclusive general education classes. However, because the general education classroom typically includes a heterogeneous group of learners (e.g., students with disabilities and their typical peers), teachers should consider differentiating the process to meet the needs of all learners. This article provides guidance on how to implement one version of peer-mediated reading instruction—partner reading embedded within a text-based discussion routine called critical reading of text (CRT). Also presented are adaptations to CRT that teachers can implement to meet the various needs of students.

Introduction to the Critical Reading of Text Routine

Critical reading of text is one component in a set of instructional practices called Promoting Adolescents’ Comprehension of Text (PACT; Wanzek, Swanson, Vaughn, Roberts, & Fall, 2016). The effectiveness of PACT, designed to improve secondary students’ reading comprehension and content knowledge through text-based discourse, has been proven through several rigorously conducted studies (Swanson et al., 2017; Swanson, Wanzek, Vaughn, Roberts, & Fall, 2015; Vaughn et al., in press; Vaughn et al., 2017; Vaughn et al., 2015; Vaughn et al., 2013; Wanzek, Swanson, Roberts, Vaughn, & Kent, 2015; Wanzek et al., 2016). Across all studies, students assigned to the PACT group outperformed students who received typical content-area instruction on assessments of content knowledge. Among struggling readers, students with disabilities, and English learners (EL), both content knowledge and content reading comprehension were positively impacted (Swanson et al., 2015; Wanzek et al., 2016). This article highlights that CRT, when combined with partner reading, provides students with opportunities to improve content knowledge and reading comprehension.

How to Implement Critical Reading of Text

Step 1: Plan for CRT

To implement CRT successfully, a teacher must first spend some time planning for CRT. The steps a teacher can take to successfully plan for CRT follow.

Step 1A: Determine learning objectives and text

The first step is for a teacher to determine a learning objective students need to meet. Learning objectives typically align with the curriculum that the teacher is teaching. For example, an eighth-grade U.S. history objective might be to identify the causes and effects of the American Revolution.

Next, teachers should choose a text for students to read that will allow them to practice their reading skills and support their overall understanding of class content that meets that learning objective. The text can be expository or narrative, but it needs to be text that a teacher can easily chunk into sections (see Step 1B). When considering the level of text, the reading level of students in the class is important. If most students are reading at grade level, choosing challenging text from the curriculum is ideal. This ensures that teachers are using text that the district already requires, and it exposes students to the content, vocabulary, and background knowledge in the curriculum. However, for classes that include many students who are struggling to read, the required text in the curriculum may be too challenging for them. In this situation, a teacher can consider choosing supplementary text that aligns with the content the teacher is teaching. For example, a social studies teacher who is teaching his eighth graders about the American Revolution might choose a text about Patrick Henry to align with a particular learning objective. Several resources exist that provide guidance on how to choose text (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Resources.

Step 1B: Divide text and insert critical reading questions

Once text is selected for CRT, the teacher prepares the text by dividing it into chunks, inserting a critical reading question after each chunk. A chunk can be at a natural break or new section in the text or between paragraphs on a particular topic. A critical reading question assesses the students’ understanding of the chunk of text. It should (a) align with the learning objectives, (b) include a variety of question types (see the section on adaptations that follows), and (c) facilitate discussions that encourage students to use textual evidence. To create a critical reading question, a teacher might think about the who or what the section is about and the most important information about the who or what (Vaughn & Klingner, 1999). For example, a teacher might ask, “How do the colonists feel about the new taxes from Britain?” This will help students focus on the most important information in each particular section of the text, which can help students gain a broader understanding of the whole text. The teacher can use a CRT partner-reading template (see Figure 2) to insert the text and organize critical reading questions when preparing for implementation with the students. The teacher either can have students use this sheet during CRT, or the teacher can transfer the questions onto the text that students will read.

Figure 2.

Critical reading template.

Step 1C: Create a culminating question

Students answer a culminating question at the end of CRT. The culminating question is an overarching question that guides students’ overall comprehension of important concepts presented in the text. To answer a culminating question, students synthesize information from the entire text, including what they discussed when answering the critical reading questions. Therefore, to create a culminating question, a teacher can review each critical reading question (Step 1B) as a reminder of the important information in each section of the text. However, the point of the culminating question is to encourage higher order thinking skills (e.g., application, inference, analysis, synthesis) to capture students’ deep understanding of the content presented in the text. Therefore, teachers can also use the learning objectives (Step 1A) as a guide for creating a culminating question. For example, after reading a text about Patrick Henry, the students should be able to respond to the culmination question, “What were the causes and effects of the American Revolution?” (synthesis) or “If the British government had listened to colonial leaders such as Patrick Henry, how would life in colonial America have been different?” (inference). Once a teacher creates a culminating question, she can place it at the end of the CRT partner-reading template (see Figure 2).

Step 1D: Determine ways to preview the text for students

Before students begin reading the text during CRT, the teacher guides students by previewing the text and providing a purpose for reading. Previewing text and providing a purpose for reading can engage students in the reading process and prepare them to read for understanding (Denton, Bryan, Wexler, Reed, & Vaughn, 2007). To preview a text, a teacher might review the title, subheadings, and any pictures with students to begin to think about what the text will be about. To do this, teachers can use a think-aloud, an activity during which teachers verbalize their own thoughts to support students’ comprehension (Davey, 1983). For example, a teacher might say, “I see the title and subheadings all mention the American Revolution and times leading up to the war. This makes me think I will read about . . .” After previewing the text, the teacher can state the purpose for reading for the students. The purpose for reading should be a simple statement that relates to the culminating question. For example, in the text about the American Revolution, a teacher might say, “When you read, think about why the colonists were unhappy with Britain.”

Step 1E: Select words to pre-teach

Because the vocabulary in texts that content-area teachers use can be complex, teachers should select approximately three words that they can explicitly teach students prior to them engaging with the text. When selecting words, consider words or concepts that students will frequently encounter during a specific unit or even across content areas that will be vital for comprehension of content (e.g., revolution, democracy, energy, characterization). A teacher can also refer to a curriculum guide, textbooks, or state and national standards to locate essential words.

Step 1F: Pair your students

CRT with partner reading requires students to read with a partner. Determining the pairs for CRT is an important step in the planning process and will aid in smooth implementation. Teachers can pair students with similar reading levels using their Lexile levels or other reading data they have on students (e.g., oral reading fluency scores); if possible, factor in knowledge of students’ reading fluency and comprehension ability. See Figure 3 for steps to pair students. Always keep in mind that it is advantageous to pair a slightly higher level reader with a slightly lower level reader so that the higher level reader can serve as a model when engaged in CRT (Wexler, Vaughn, Roberts, & Denton, 2010). For more resources on how to pair students, see Figure 1.

Figure 3.

Steps for pairing students.

Step 2: Implement CRT

After a teacher successfully plans for CRT, the teacher can implement the routine with students.

Step 2A: Preview the text

The first step in CRT is previewing the text with the students and providing a purpose for reading. This should take no longer than 5 min.

Step 2B: Provide vocabulary instruction

Next, the teacher should provide explicit vocabulary instruction on the preselected vocabulary terms that students need to know to enhance their comprehension of the text. The teacher should consider using a routine to explicitly teach each word. Incorporating each of the following components of the vocabulary routine onto a one-page document that the teacher can project or hand out is a good resource for the students. The teacher begins the routine by pronouncing the word and asking students to repeat the word. For example, the teacher can say, “The word is revolution. What word?” [students repeat]. Next, the teacher can present a student-friendly definition and an image (if possible) of the word. The teacher can ask a student to read the definition aloud and then facilitate a brief discussion about how the image is representative of the word. Finally, the teacher can provide students with a sentence that demonstrates the correct use of the word. Discussing examples and non-examples of the word with students can also provide students support with nuanced word meaning as well as guidance for identifying the meaning of the word when students encounter it during CRT. This routine should take between 5 and 10. Although vocabulary instruction is beyond the scope of this article, Figure 1 provides a list of resources that teachers can use to gather more information about how to teach vocabulary.

Step 2C: Facilitate the partner-reading procedure

Critical reading of text requires that students follow a structured partner-reading routine. The teacher should initially teach the students this partner-reading routine prior to engaging in CRT. This is important to ensure that students will stay engaged in CRT once the teacher-directed part of CRT (i.e., Steps 2A and 2B) is complete. To teach the routine using a scaffolded approach, the teacher can model each step of the routine and then allow students opportunities to practice while providing immediate, corrective feedback. The teacher can use a similar scaffolded approach to teach students how to be good partners (e.g., how to provide immediate corrective feedback).

During partner reading, students alternate reading each chunk of text. While one partner reads, the other partner follows along silently and underlines any decoding errors the reader makes. Next, the listener, or the nonreading partner, follows an error-correction procedure to provide feedback to the reader on any mistakes made. Following error correction for each chunk of text, the students decide the degree to which they understood the chunk of text. If they do not fully understand it, they repeat the above activities. If they do fully understand, they work together to discuss the critical reading question the teacher provided them. Teachers should monitor pairs during this process to ensure students are on task and informally monitor their understanding. Finally, after students work through each chunk of text using the partner-reading routine, the teacher facilitates a class discussion to answer the culminating question. The culminating question can also serve as a writing prompt if the teacher would like to incorporate a writing activity into CRT. Choosing whether to conduct a discussion or writing activity can vary depending on the goals of the teacher and district and needs of the students. Some districts, for example, may place an emphasis on maximizing opportunities for students to practice writing. Teachers may also choose to vary whether they end in a discussion or writing activity each time they engage students in CRT. Whether using a discussion or writing activity, this can serve as an assessment of student understanding. The partner-reading routine is illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Partner-reading routine. (Used by permission.)

How to Adapt Critical Reading of Text

While CRT can effectively support middle school students as they develop text reading and comprehension skills, implementation in the content-area setting has its challenges. As noted previously, content-area classes are typically composed of students with varying needs (e.g., wide-ranging reading levels, students with learning and behavior disabilities and difficulties) who may respond to CRT differently. Based on informal or formal data, a teacher might determine that some students would benefit from an adapted version of CRT. For example, a teacher might notice that students are disengaged and/or misbehaving during CRT time. Student pairs may struggle with comprehending the content or procedures during CRT. Students might also demonstrate poor responses on critical reading or culminating questions. Differentiating the literacy practices, however, can be a challenge due to a variety of reasons (e.g., lack of appropriate level texts, limited time, and large class sizes). Because the needs of students vary, some possible adaptations to CRT are provided to address common challenges in the content-area setting. The adaptations that teachers can apply are organized according to the CRT components, materials, and process.

Adaptations to the Critical Reading of Text Components

Some ways that a teacher can adapt the components (e.g., the culminating question) to meet the needs of different learners follow.

Vary the types of questions. Varying the types of critical reading questions can help teachers scaffold the level of difficulty of questions that they provide to different student pairs. Asking varied or higher order critical reading questions requires students to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding through application, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of the material (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). See Figure 1 for resources on developing differentiated questions and questions/prompts based on Bloom’s taxonomy categories (e.g., Describe what happens when).

Provide prompts. Teachers can consider not providing questions at all. Instead, teachers can provide a prompt. This approach can help students become familiar with tasks similar to those found on standardized assessments that assess their reading comprehension, such as using textual evidence to support a claim. For example, a teacher might ask a student to highlight evidence that best supports the following statement: “The author’s heritage affected him in his new life in the United States.” Teachers can support students by providing them with explicit instruction using a think-aloud on how to respond to these prompts accurately. For example, to help students identify evidence that supports the aforementioned claim, a teacher can say, “To find out how the author’s heritage affected him in his new life, first, I need to keep reading to find out what his heritage is.”

Have students generate questions. Rather than the teacher providing a question after each chunk of text, the teacher can present an answer, requiring students to generate the question. Student-generated questions can promote responsibility for learning, as the role of the teacher is transferred to the learner (The IRIS Center, 2010). Question generation requires the learner to connect his or her background knowledge with the purpose of the text. It also promotes higher order thinking skills necessary for accessing rigorous content (Scornavacco et al., 2015). Additional resources for question generation can be found in Figure 1.

Adaptations to the Critical Reading of Text Materials

Adaptations to the materials used during CRT that a teacher can take to meet the diverse needs of learners follow.

Use different levels of the same text. Although it may take extra preparation, teachers might consider using different levels of the same text for different student pairs in a classroom to differentiate the readability levels of the text for each pair. By covering the same content with differentiated levels of text, the teacher can still use the same or similar critical reading and culminating questions across pairs. The teacher might need to consider previewing the text and providing vocabulary instruction (i.e., Steps 2A and 2B) in a different manner (e.g., in stations or small groups according to the different text students are reading) if the texts are substantially different. See Figure 1 for a list of resources that offer the same text at multiple Lexile levels.

Adapt the partner-reading template. Teachers can adapt the partner-reading template (see Figure 2) by placing each chunk of text and critical reading question on a separate page. Varying the presentation of the text and questions may be less overwhelming to students who struggle with reading.

Adaptations to the Critical Reading of Text Process

A teacher can adapt the process used during CRT to meet various student needs found in the classroom. Seven ideas follow.

Provide a model of good reading. Teachers may choose to read the first chunk of text aloud to the class to serve as a model of good reading. The teacher can also model her thought process for locating textual evidence when answering the first critical reading question using a think-aloud. This also helps students gain an initial understanding of the text.

Pair students with an adult. If a content-area teacher has a majority of students with reading disabilities or reading difficulties in her class, the teacher may need to consider adapting CRT to meet their more intensive literacy needs. For example, these teachers may be limited in the pairs they can create if they do not have enough students reading at or above grade level to pair with less successful readers. In other words, it is unlikely that students with intensive literacy needs will benefit from peers who also have intensive literacy needs (Wexler et al., 2010). Therefore, for students to benefit from a model of good reading during partner reading, consider pairing students with more intensive reading needs with an instructional assistant or some other adult, if available. If teachers do not have an instructional assistant or some other adult available and decide to partner students with intensive literacy needs, consider modeling the reading of each chunk of text aloud before each pair engages in partner reading.

Preview the critical reading questions. Teachers can preview the critical reading questions with students in advance of them reading each chunk of text and facilitate a class discussion to ensure that all students understand the gist of the questions.

Limit the amount of text read at one time. Teachers should consider limiting the amount of text [chunks] their students read each day (e.g., two sections a day). By reading fewer chunks, students have more time to engage in the partner-reading process and they can have extended discussions about the text with each other each day. In addition, this gives teachers additional time to facilitate class discussions after reading each chunk of the text to monitor and ensure all students’ understanding.

Provide supplemental instruction. Teachers can supplement the routine with additional evidence-based literacy instruction. For example, teachers might instruct students on how to generate a main idea statement for each chunk of text to enhance comprehension before requiring students to answer critical reading questions and the culminating question. For more resources on evidence-based main idea instruction, see Figure 1.

Provide planning support prior to requiring a written response. If teachers plan to require a written response to the culminating question and the students need support with writing, the teacher can facilitate a class discussion of the culminating question prior to students generating their written responses. For example, the teacher may say, “Before you begin writing about the causes and effects of the American Revolution, let’s take few minutes and review some of the events leading up to the war.” This would ensure that students have a solid grasp of the major concepts in the text. Teachers can also provide an outline or graphic organizer for students to organize their thoughts prior to writing. For more resources on the use of graphic organizers, see Figure 1.

Provide writing support. When requiring a written response for the culminating question, teachers may choose to provide sentence stems for students. A sample sentence stem might be, “One cause of the American Revolution was . . . Because of this, the colonists . . .” This scaffold can be especially beneficial for students who struggle with writing. For more information on how teachers can support their students’ development as writers, see Figure 1.

Conclusion

Despite the fact that many students struggle to comprehend text at the middle school level, being able to read and comprehend text is important for students to be able to acquire content knowledge (Haager & Vaughn, 2013). Teachers can improve students’ comprehension of text by facilitating CRT. CRT is an example of an evidence-based practice that provides students with peer-mediated reading instruction (Wanzek et al., 2016) that includes opportunities to practice reading text (Vaughn et al., 2012) and participate in text-based discussions. In addition, the components of CRT, its materials, and the process used for implementation can be adapted to meet the needs of diverse students. Thus, CRT is both feasible for teachers to implement and supportive of all students.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

Leigh Ann Kurz is now an Assistant Professor at Susquehanna University, Pennsylvania, USA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Education through Grant H326M150016 to the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Maryland. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Education.

References

Anderson

L. W.

Krathwohl

D. R.

(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational outcomes. New York, NY: Longman.

Applebee

Langer

Nystrand

Gamoran

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

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, 289–328. doi:10.1080/1934574080240072

Bulgren

Graner

Deshler

(2013). Literacy challenges and opportunities for students with learning disabilities in social studies and history. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 17–27. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12003

Davey

(1983). Think aloud: Modeling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 27, 44–47.

Denton

Bryan

Wexler

Reed

Vaughn

(2007). Effective instruction for middle school students with reading difficulties: The reading teacher’s sourcebook. Austin: University of Texas System/Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from http://www.meadowscenter.org/vgc/materials/middle_school_instruction.asp

Edmonds

M. S.

Vaughn

Wexler

Reutebuch

Cable

Klingner

Schnakenberg

J. W.

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

Haager

Vaughn

(2013). The common core state standards and reading: Interpretations and implications for elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 5–16. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12005

Hall

(2005). Teachers and content area reading: Attitudes, beliefs and change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 403–414.

10.

The IRIS Center. (2010). What should content-area teachers know about comprehension instruction? Page 13: Generating questions. Retrieved from https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/sec-rdng/cresource/q3/p13/

11.

Kamil

M. L.

Borman

G. D.

Dole

Kral

C. C.

Slinger

Torgesen

(2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE 2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

12.

McDonnell

Mathot-Buckner

Thorson

Fister

(2001). Supporting the inclusion of students with moderate and severe disabilities in junior high general education classes: The effects of classwide peer tutoring, multi-element curriculum, and accommodations. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 141–160.

13.

Mol

S. E.

Bus

A. G.

(2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 267–296. doi:10.1037/a0021890

14.

Ness

M. K.

(2009). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content area classrooms: Teacher use of and attitudes towards reading comprehension instruction. Reading Horizons, 49, 143–166.

15.

Okilwa

N. S. A.

Shelby

(2010). The effects of peer tutoring on academic performance of students with disabilities in Grades 6 through 12: A synthesis of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 450–463. doi:10.1177/0741932509355991

16.

Parsad

Lewis

Farris

(2001). Teacher preparation and professional development: 2000 (NCES 2001–088). Washington, DC: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

17.

Quirk

M. P.

Schwanenflugel

P. J.

(2004). Do supplemental remedial reading programs address the motivational issues of struggling readers? An analysis of five popular programs. Reading Research and Instruction, 43, 1–19. doi:10.1080/19388070509558408

18.

Scornavacco

Moore

Boardman

Lasser

Buckley

Klingner

(2015). Using collaborative strategic reading to promote student discourse. In Metzler

Harris

(Eds.), The power of peers in the classroom (pp. 102–143). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

19.

Stevens

E. A.

Walker

M. A.

Vaughn

(2017). The effects of reading fluency interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 576–590. doi:10.1177/0022219416638028

20.

Swanson

Wanzek

Vaughn

Fall

A.-M.

Roberts

Hall

Miller

V. L.

(2017). Middle school reading comprehension and content learning intervention for below-average readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33, 37–53. doi:10.1080/10573569.2015.1072068

21.

Swanson

Wanzek

Vaughn

Roberts

Fall

A.-M.

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

22.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of education statistics, 2015 (NCES 2016-014; Chapter 2). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59

23.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2018). 2017 NAEP Mathematics and Reading Assessments: Highlighted results at Grades 4 and 8 for the nation, states, and districts. Available from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/

24.

Vaughn

Fall

A.-M.

Roberts

Wanzek

Swanson

Martinez

(2019). Class percentage of students with reading difficulties on content knowledge and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52, 120-134. doi:10.1177/0022219418775117

25.

Vaughn

Klingner

J. K.

(1999). Teaching reading comprehension through collaborative strategic reading. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 284–292. doi:10.1177/105345129903400505

26.

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, 22–34. doi:10.1037/edu0000069

27.

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, 31–50.

28.

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, 77–93. doi:10.1002/rrq.039

29.

Vaughn

Wanzek

Murray

C. S.

Roberts

(2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

30.

Wanzek

Swanson

E. A.

Roberts

Vaughn

Kent

S. C.

(2015). Promoting acceleration of comprehension and content through text in high school social studies classes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8, 169–188. doi:10.1080/19345747.2014.906011

31.

Wanzek

Swanson

E. A.

Vaughn

Roberts

Fall

A.-M.

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

32.

Wexler

Mitchell

M. A.

Clancy

E. E.

Silverman

R. D.

(2017). An investigation of literacy practices in high school science classrooms. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33, 258–277. doi:10.1080/10573569.2016.1193832

33.

Wexler

Reed

D. K.

Pyle

Mitchell

Barton

E. E.

(2015). A synthesis of peer-mediated academic interventions for secondary struggling learners. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 451–470. doi:10.1177/0022219413504997

34.

Wexler

Vaughn

Roberts

Denton

C. A.

(2010). The efficacy of repeated reading and wide reading practice for high school students with severe reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 2–10. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00296