This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 18 November 2014, At: 23:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Journal of Learning DisabilitiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rald19

Reading comprehension difficulties experienced bystudents with learning disabilitiesLorraine Graham a & Anne Bellert ba National Centre for Science, Information and Communication Technology, andMathematics Education for Rural and Regional Australia , University of New England ,Armidale, NSW, 2351 E-mail:b Lismore Diocese and University of New EnglandPublished online: 09 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Lorraine Graham & Anne Bellert (2005) Reading comprehension difficulties experienced by studentswith learning disabilities, Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10:2, 71-78, DOI: 10.1080/19404150509546791

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19404150509546791

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Australian Journal of Learning DisabilitiesVolume 10, Number 2, 2005, pp. 71-78

Reading comprehension difficulties experienced bystudents with learning disabilities

Lorraine Grahama and Anne Bellertb,aUniversity of New England; bLismore Diocese and University of New England

AbstractStudents with learning disabilities often experience poor comprehension due to their failure to read strategically and to spontaneously monitortheir understanding while reading. This paper discusses in relation to current literature, the various problems with reading comprehensioncommonly experienced by students with learning disabilities. Specifically, these students may encounter problems in: (A) using backgroundknowledge appropriately; (B) decoding and word recognition; (C) vocabulary knowledge; (D) fluency; (E) strategy use and metacognitiveskills; and (F) differentiating between common text structures.

In this paper we discuss the difficulties in readingcomprehension commonly experienced by studentswith learning disabilities. This area is important toaddress because the percentage of students identifiedwith learning disabilities (LD) continues to increase.Currently, in Australia and New Zealand where thedefinition of LD includes students with variouslearning difficulties, at least 20% of school studentsare considered to have problems in academic areas.Of these students 5% are considered to have specificlearning disabilities in academic areas, most commonlyreading (Westwood & Graham, 2000). Further, thevast majority of students with learning disabilitiesexperience problems in reading, not only in terms ofdecoding deficiencies but also in terms of their abilitiesto comprehend by constructing understandings anddrawing inferences (Carlisle, 1999; Tractenberg,2002).

Reading comprehension is a vital life skill. It isthe complex outcome of the process of constructingmeaning from print. Successful comprehensionrequires students to coordinate many complex skillsand to actively participate in their own learning.Students' success in comprehension is influenced byhow interesting and relevant they find the text they arereading, their competencies in recognizing, decodingand pronouncing words fluently and accurately,their awareness of the different purposes associatedwith reading, and their facility with comprehensionmonitoring strategies (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams,& Baker, 2001; Swanson, 1999). The effectivecomprehension of printed material is also related totext-based factors such as the structure and quality

of texts, the familiarity or complexity of the conceptspresented, and the vocabulary used (Rabren, Darch,& Eaves, 1999).

Students' difficulties in reading compre-hension

In general, students with learning disabilitiesexperience poor comprehension due to their failureto read strategically and to spontaneously monitortheir understanding while reading. Current literatureconcerned with reading comprehension suggests thatstudents with learning disabilities can experiencecomprehension problems because of difficulties in(A) using their background knowledge appropriately;(B) decoding and word recognition; (C) vocabularyknowledge; (D) fluency; (E) strategy use andmetacognitive skills; and (F) differentiating betweencommon text structures.

A. Appropriate Use of Background Knowledge

The appropriate use of background knowledge is acrucial element in making meaning of text. Currentresearch indicates that students benefit most fromactivities that assess, activate and develop students'background knowledge before reading (e.g., Brownell& Walther-Thomas, 1999; Jitendra, Hoppes, & Xin,2000; Raben, Darch, & Eaves, 1999). Structuredpre-reading activities serve to make the text accessibleto students and enable them to remember what theyhave learned. Indeed, the activation of backgroundknowledge can mean the difference between being able

Correspondence: Lorraine Graham, National Centre for Science, Information and Communication Technology, and Mathematics Educationfor Rural and Regional Australia, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351.Email: lgraham@metz.une.edu.au

ISSN 1324-8928 ©2005 Learning Difficulties AustraliaPublished by Learning Difficulties Australia

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:00

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and Dimitri Caplygin

and apply new concepts and confusionand lack of comprehension.

lis integrated approach (or

dtönbiiieätaiOQ^eifepol!^iXöttetedt skills^evoral way&ng ifcefifiaä® iara$

n wordsbased

bjyetlueHfiekbintervention with a strong effect (d = 1.01)

jtftftktfiabtéofP asnltJferdatfEttg>niiftf

tbistfeeindpïd

fcaii\liriB$ni!Kl!jftiBWrfa»rili(oaite students' understanding.

feffeahaine ŒïCQid^taçèietheirvbdïâlglQuWds kafeçdeifige test were found to have a corrected foveal position atßOsRJÄSfc#T3*9 <8Jftta$aJJ32|>&results, averaged across left andright eye recordings, showed that participants were 12

demonstrated meaningful gains following the CellfieldJ&tfia«8Biä©jia«tÖiß!brä^fife£»|&flfßBtel IQ controlled for (d= .62). These two results correspond to normative data

(resppcetoefysioraediftfaailties

ïétemainge tibaoathï ctfatraa|?cnjbIbaasböfflis(DepertQdi«£ i&scditehlewitÊDrle^odâigs diffasaldiestoarjicDfbEsaüs^ àf bhtovïatfee

à't Pi© JtsbisJcM(a«!«tin%: demonstrated

tàtees fflüoce Khoiy tQda^i i te^

ànepBdstrektmemtawrbid MJidœrstaotiàM^rclie difficulties absMitjit^afCaiiöervkntJwing word meanings enables the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:00

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Reading comprehension difficulties experienced by students with learning disabilities 73

text and make sense of what is read. When words arenot known, readers' initial representations of text canbe incomplete and the further integration of ideasbecomes problematic. Just as a lack of vocabularyknowledge can hamper comprehension, so can a lackof knowledge of syntax and sentence structure relatedto the sequence of words in phrases and sentences. Asa consequence most students with learning disabilitiesbenefit from explicit instruction regarding, forexample, how various connecting and signal words,such as prepositions, can change the meaning of textand how pronouns relate to their referents.

D. Fluency Related to Reading Comprehension

Fluency related to reading is most often conceptualizedin terms of speed and accuracy (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler,2002). There seems to be an optimum rate of fluencythat allows the smooth processing of information bythe reader. Automaticity in reading through smootheffortless decoding and word identification freescognitive capacity so that the reader's attention canbe focused on meaning (Perfetti, 1977, 1985). Slowreading makes it difficult to retain information inworking memory long enough for meaning to beconstructed and restricts students to low levels ofprocessing by focusing on letters and words rather thanon concepts and how they link together. In contrast,reading that is too fast may result in the neglect ofimportant details in text.

Students with learning difficulties often struggleto read fluently (Meyer & Felton, 1999). Commonproblems are related to reading sight words, decodingwords, reading phases and sentences automatically andwith meaning. Slow reading is debilitating because itprevents students thinking about the text while reading.Both rapid reading of high frequency words and thespeedy application of decoding skills appear criticalfor optimal reading development (Chard, Vaughn, &Tyler, 2002). As students become fast and accuratereaders they often take more delight in reading andmay even begin to reverse the consequences of lackof reading practice which Stanovich (1986) has coinedthe Matthew Effect.

E. Strategy Use and Metacognition

An area of focus in comprehension research isstrategy instruction, including metacognition, whichis concerned with students' awareness of their ownthinking and their ability to regulate strategy usewhile working to comprehend printed material. Itis important for students to monitor their own

comprehension and to take steps to regain clarity ofunderstanding when meaning breaks down or becomesconfused. Comprehension strategies can explicitlyteach students how to draw inferences from text,summarize information, predict what will happen nextin a narrative, formulate and answer questions abouttext, and visualize what they read in order to improvecomprehension (see Table 1).

In the light of findings from research investigatingstudents' metacognition and strategy use, conceptionsof the nature of learning disabilities have changed.Although the notion of an underlying processingdifficulty still stands, in terms of strategy use the presentview is that inefficiencies rather than deficienciescharacterize the difficulties experienced by studentswith LD (Gersten et al., 2001). These studentscan possess the strategies necessary to approach thecomprehension of text in a planned and strategic waybut may fail to use them at the appropriate time or mayapply these strategies in an inefficient or incompletemanner.

The primary function of reading is extractingmeaning from text. If students do not notice thatcomprehension has broken down they will fail to takesteps to fix whatever the problem is. Students needto monitor the success and failure of their attempts toconstruct meaning from text in order to be strategicand successful readers. Comprehension monitoringis key in the development of this kind of independentand self-regulated reading for meaning. While somereading tasks, like following directions, are morelikely to elicit comprehension monitoring than otherreading situations, comprehension monitoring isimportant in processing all types of text. In fact,recent comprehensive syntheses of the literatureindicate that instruction focused on comprehensionmonitoring and strategy training is one of the mosteffective instructional techniques for students whoexperience difficulty with comprehending (Forness,1997; Gersten et al., 2000; Swanson, 1999).

Given the complexity of effective strategy use andthe necessity to develop a repertoire of strategiesappropriate for different purposes, it is essentialthat instruction is specific, long-term and directlyaddresses issues of transfer and generalization ofstrategies to other reading tasks. Instruction in readingcomprehension strategies appears to be most effectivewhen it aims to increase metacognitive skills (Chan& Cole, 1986; Graves, 1986; Malone & Mastropieri,1992), includes ample opportunities for practice(Pressley, Goodchild, et al., 1989), and attributessuccess to effort and strategy use (Borkowski, Weyhing,& Carr, 1988; Schunk & Rice, 1992). An important

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:00

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 1: Metacognitive Strategies for Making Meaning During Reading

INFERRING"But the answer is notthere!"

How to find an unstatedanswer in a text:

• Join information together(synthesise)• Try to make a reasonableguess (draw a conclusion)based on the informationat hand• Make connections,generalise from specifictext to real life experiences• Read 'between the lines'to detect an underlyingmessage• Relate cause and effect;apply reason when facts arenot specifically stated• Recognise and exploresupporting details• Make comparisons• Sense motives• Make judgements aboutcharacters, relationships,validity of the text• Infer information fromvisual cues includinglayout• Monitor text structure,detect the main idea ineach section

Infer - to conclude byreasoning from evidence; todeduce, to imply.

QUESTIONINGReaders generatequestions and respondthrough self-talk or'think alouds'

• Who is ?• What is/does ?• When is ?• Where is ?• Why is important?• Why doeshappen?• What are the parts of ?• How is anexample of ?• How do and_ compare?• How are and

different?• How doeshappen?• What is most important

or ?• What is my opinion of _?• How many subheadingsare there?• Does this section finishsoon?• What will the nextsection be about?

Peer modelling of selfquestioning during readingis a powerful means ofdemonstrating this strategyto students with LD

CLARIFYINGClarify when an unknownword is encountered:

• Sound the word out. Is it atall familiar?• Use context clues to helpwork out the meaning• Look for a definitionelsewhere in the text• Look for word roots orother word parts that may befamiliar• Consider the need to use adictionary or glossary - nowor later?• Ask someone

Clarify when meaning isunclear:

• Read ahead to see if the textmakes sense anyway• Re-read the section that isconfusing• Change pace of reading, slowdown to get more clues, speedup to get 'the big picture'• Reconsider originalpredictions• Evaluate material being read- is it accurate, is it biased?• Ask someone

Students with LD may needcues and prompts to ask forclarification e.g. "What I don'tunderstand is..." or "This is thepart that's confusing me. . . "

PREDICTINGMake a prediction when:

• Headings are provided• The author asks aquestion in the text• The text suggests whatwill be discussed next• A previous prediction isconfirmed or confounded• A nuance or implicationis detected

Predict outcomes andthemes:

• Adjust and changepredictions, anticipateendings

• Where does thenarrative seem to beheading?

• Is the factual text trueto topic or form? Is therean underlying message?

• What is the purpose ofthis part of the text?

• How does this relate tothe main idea of the text?

Predicting content andoutcomes is an importantpre-reading activity butsuccessful comprehensionrequires readers tocontinue to make andadjust predictions duringreading as well.

VISUALISINGEncourage students tocreate a picture in theirminds.

• Describe the picture• How does the picturechange over time?• What events orinformation cause thepicture to change?

Explore imaginings andemotional responses.

• When I read this Iimagine ...• As I read in my mind Isee ...• Reading this remindsme of...• This makes me feellike...

Develop a graphicorganiser to illustratecause and effect or toexplore relationships

• Concept maps• Grids, tables, charts,graphs etc.• Venn diagrams• Sociograms• Theme charts

Students with LD oftenneed visual representationof information to reinforcespoken or written sources.

OS

to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:00

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Reading comprehension difficulties experienced by students with learning disabilities 75

general finding in many strategy training studies hasbeen that students are more successful and more likelyto transfer strategy use to new situations when thestrategic procedure includes self-monitoring questions(Graham & Wong, 1993; Graves, 1986; Malone &Mastropieri, 1992; Wong & Jones, 1982).

F. Differentiating Between Common Text Structures

Research during the 1980s established that studentswith academic difficulties have difficulty recognizingmany task demands related to comprehensionactivities including how to differentiate between,and strategically approach, different types of text(e.g. Englert & Thomas, 1987; Taylor & Samuels,1983; Wong & Wilson, 1984). Students with learningdifficulties tend to be unsure of the characteristics ofcommon narrative and factual texts, and consequentlyexperience difficulties using their knowledge of textstructures and recognition of the different purposes oftexts as an aid to comprehension. As more narrativestend to be used in schools, general comprehensionstrategies were initially taught to suit these story-oriented texts. In recent times, however, increasedawareness that specific strategies apply more to onetext type than another has meant that differentiatingbetween types of text has become increasinglyimportant.

Students in today's schools encounter a varietyof texts such as poems, plays, stories, novels, essays,reports, descriptions, and textbook expositions thatare presented through traditional and electronicmedia. The most common of these text structures arenarrative and factual. With experience, most studentsgradually develop awareness of the different structuresused in written texts. However, it is particularlyimportant that teachers facilitate this awareness forstudents with learning difficulties. These students tendto be delayed in their comprehension of the differenttext structures used in factual or informational texts(Weisberg & Balajthy, 1989) and in their awareness ofthe basic elements of narratives (Montague, Maddux,& Dereshiwsky, 1990).

The elements of a narrative are organized intowhat can be described as story grammars consistingof setting, characters, events, and eventual outcome.Students typically develop an awareness of the storygrammar appropriate to narrative text (e.g., fiction,fairytales, myths, fiction, fables, plays, and legends)as they listen to and read stories in their early years oflife. Students who struggle with reading, however, areslower to develop a sense of the importance of maincharacters, setting, the problem, the complication and

the resolution of a plot. This is evident from the storiesthat these students tell and their comprehension ofthose they read. For example, Montague, Maddux andDereshiwsky (1990) gave students, with and withoutlearning diabilities, tasks that required students toretell and write stories. They found that students withlearning difficulties didnotperform as well as theirpeersin terms of amount and type of information included intheir recounts and written stories. Compared to theirpeers, students with learning problems demonstratedless developed understanding of the conventions of anarrative.

In contrast to narrative texts, the purpose offactual writing is to impart new information anddevelop students' general knowledge about the worldand natural phenomena. Factual texts use one ormore patterns of text structure, such as cause andeffect, problem and solution, temporal sequencing,enumeration, or comparison and contrast (Anderson& Armbruster, 1984). Factual or expository textstructure can also include embedded definitions,explanations of technical processes and proceduralsequences, as well as labeled diagrams, graphs andcharts that need to be "read" and interpreted.

In the same way that awareness of the conventions ofnarratives affects students' comprehension, awarenessof structures used in factual texts affects students'understanding and recall. For example, Taylor andSamuels (1983) investigated how students' awarenessof text structure impacts on their comprehension bycomparing recall of well-organized passages with thatof passages consisting of randomly ordered sentences.They found that fifth and sixth grade students whowere aware of text structure recalled more from thewell-organized passages. The students who wereless aware of text structure, however, performed in asimilar way on both the randomly ordered and well-organized passages. In this, and other related research,students with learning difficulties seemed unaware oftheir inability to comprehend and used no strategiesto monitor their understanding of text (Englert &Thomas, 1987; Taylor & Williams, 1983).

Gersten et al.'s (2001) review of readingcomprehension research presents the following threemajor research findings related to students' awarenessof text structure and their comprehension of factualtexts. From the literature it appears that (1) awarenessof text structure increases developmentally (Brown &Smiley, 1977), (2) that some text structures are moreobvious and easier to recognize than others (Englert& Hiebert, 1984), and (3) that skill at discerning textstructures and then using knowledge about themappropriately, is an important factor in comprehending

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:00

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

76 Lorraine Graham and Anne Bellen

factual text (Taylor & Beach, 1984; Taylor & Samuels,1983).

Acquiring an awareness of text structure seemsparticularly important for readers with learningdifficulties. It appears to foster an appreciation ofthe organizational factors that underlie factual textsand provides a way for students to remember newinformation. The strategy of analyzing the structureof texts may also lead to more active processing and agreater effort on the part of students to understand andremember what is read (Carlisle & Rice, 2002). Whilean awareness of text structure is not likely to address allthe problems associated with understanding differenttypes of texts that are experienced by students withlearning disabilities, it is clearly likely to enhance thecoherence of students' comprehension.

Summary of students' difficulties in read-ing comprehension

Students with learning difficulties can experiencecomprehension problems for a range of reasons. Forthese students reading comprehension problems oftenfeature difficulties in recognizing and appropriatelyapplying background knowledge, poor decodingand word recognition skills, limited vocabularyknowledge, underdeveloped reading fluency, a lessthan strategic approach to comprehension, includingthe use of ineffective or inefficient strategies,and limited understandings about common textstructures. Frequently these reasons do not operateindependently of one another; rather there exists areciprocal causation between the component skillsof reading comprehension, resulting in potentiallycomplex and debilitating reading comprehensionproblems. Nonetheless, students' difficulties withreading comprehension can be ameliorated by focusedand effective instruction.

Swanson's (1999, p. 522) meta-analysis indicatedthat the most important instructional componentsassociatedwithimprovementsinreadingcomprehensionwere:

1. Directed response questioning which included theteacher directing students to ask questions,the teacher and students engaging in dialogue,and/or the teacher asking questions;

2. Controlling the difficulty of the processing demandsof tasks so that activities were generally short,with the level of difficulty controlled, thetasks appropriately sequenced and the teacherproviding necessary assistance throughdemonstration;

3. Elaboration which occurred when additional orredundant explanations were made about theconcepts, procedures or steps in a strategy;

4. Modeling by the teacher of steps so that theteacher demonstrated the processes that thestudents were to follow;

5. Small group instruction either with students anda teacher or between students;

6. Strategy cues that included reminders to usestrategy steps, the teacher verbalizing theprocedures, and the use of "think aloud"models with the teacher presenting the benefitsof strategy use and its applicability to certainreading situations.

Obviously there is no 'quick fix' to difficulties withreading comprehension for students with learningdifficulties. However, well-considered instructiondelivered over an extended period of time, andintegrated across the curriculum, will supportstudents to improve their skills, and enable them tobetter participate in learning at school and in the widevariety of 'real life' experiences that require effectiveand efficient reading comprehension.

However, unless the challenge of incorporatingstrategy instruction productively into school systemsis met, we will continue to experience the situationwhere "many of the instructional practices that havethe most potential to make a meaningful differencefor students with LD and other poor readers areseldom employed" (Carlisle & Rice, 2002). Whole-class undifferentiated instruction still seems to bethe norm in both regular classrooms (Schumm,Moody, & Vaughn, 2000) and learning assistancesettings (Moody, Vaughn, Hughes, & Fisher, 2000).Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, and Schiller (1997) foundthat when strategy instruction is used in schools, thequality of instruction can be poor and implementationerratic with essential elements, such as the fosteringof active participation from students, omitted. It isclear that we must strive to do better. Children needwell-designed instruction in comprehension in orderto reach the levels of reading achievement necessaryto meet the demands of life in our increasinglytechnologically oriented society. Researchers andteachers must work together to foster critical thinking,motivation, and comprehension competence for all.What better testimony to the possibilities of effectivecomprehension instruction than the comments of astudent who learned a reading comprehension strategyduring a successful intervention (Graham, Bellen, &Pegg, 2001, p 21):

"Before I couldn't answer very many questions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:00

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Reading comprehension difficulties experienced by students with learning disabilities 77

Only one like, 'What's the title?' or something likethat. I couldn't do any of the others. It was hard forme to understand. I didn't know what the heck to do.I was scared of it. I know what to do now!"

References

Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Contentarea textbooks. In R.C. Anderson, J. Osborne & R.J. Tierney (eds.). Learning to read in American schools(pp. 193-226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Birsh, J. R. (1999). Multisensory teaching of basic languageskills. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988).Effects of attributional retraining on strategy-basedreading comprehension in learning disabled students.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 46-53.

Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating theimportance of structural units of pose passages:A problem of metacognitive development. ChildDevelopment, 48, 1-8.

Brownell, M. T., & Walther-Thomas, C. (1999). Aninterview with Dr Marilyn Friend. Intervention inSchool and Clinic, 37(4), 223-228.

Carlisle, J. F. (1999). Free recall as a test of readingcomprehension for students with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 11-22.

Carlisle, J. F., & Rice, M. S. (2002). Improving readingcomprehension: Research-based principles and practices.Baltimore, Maryland: York Press.

Chan, L. K. S., & Cole, P. G. (1986). The effects ofcomprehension monitoring training on the readingcompetence of learning disabled and regular classstudents. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 33-40.

Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesisof research on effective interventions for buildingreading fluency with elementary students withlearning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,35(5). 386-406.

Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children'sdeveloping awareness of text structures in expositorymaterials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65-75.

Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity totext structure in reading and writing: A comparisonbetween learning disabled and non-learning disabledstudents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(2), 93-105.

Forness, S. (1997). Mega-analysis of meta-analyses:What works in special education services. TeachingExceptional Children, 29(6), 4-9.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L, S., Williams, J. P., & Baker,S.(2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies

to students with learning disabilities: A review ofresearch. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320.

Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E.(1997). Whatwe know about using research findings:Implications for improving special education practice.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 466-476.

Graham, L., & Wong, B. Y. L. (1993). Comparing twomodes in teaching a question-answering strategy forenhancing reading comprehension: Didactic and self-instructional training. Journal of Learning Disabilities,26(4), 270-279.

Graham, L., Bellert, A. M., & Pegg, J. E. (2001).Enhancing the automaticity of basic academic skills formiddle school students. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Australian Association of SpecialEducation, October, Melbourne, Vic.

Graves, A. W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction andmetacomprehension training on finding main ideas.Learning Disabilities Research, 1(2), 90-100.

Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000).Enhancing main idea comprehension for studentswith learning problems: The role of summarizationstrategy and self-monitoring instruction. Journal ofSpecial Education, 34, 127-139.

Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Readingcomprehension instruction: Summarization, andself-monitoring training for students with learningdisabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 270-279.

Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated readingto enhance fluency: Approaches and new directions.Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283-306.

Montague, M., Maddux, C. D., & Dereshiwsky, M.I.(1990). Story grammar and comprehension andproduction of narrative prose by students withlearning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,23, 190-197.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983).Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 8, 293-316.

Perfetti, C. A. (1977). Language comprehension andfast decoding: Some psycholinguistic prerequisitesfor skilled reading comprehension. In J.T. Guthries(Ed.). Cognition, curriculum, and comprehension(pp.20-41). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Perfetti, C. A. (1984). Some reflections on learning andnot learning to read. Remedial and Special Education,5(3), 34-38.

Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading Ability. New York:Oxford University Press.

Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R.,& Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges of classroom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:00

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

78 Lorraine Graham and Anne Bellen

strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 89,301-342.

Raben, K., Daren, C., & Eaves, R. C. (1999). Thedifferential effects of two systematic readingcomprehension approaches with students withlearning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,32(1), 36-47.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocksof cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. RBrewer (Eds). Theoretical issues in reading comprehension(pp33-58). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Schumm, J. S., Moody, S. W. & Vaughan, S. (2000).Grouping for reading instruction. Does one size fitall? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 477-488.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1992). Verbalizationof comprehension strategies: Effects on children'sachievement outcomes. Human Learning, 4(1), 1-10.

Seigel, L. S. (1993). The cognitive basis of dyslexia.In M. Howe & R. Pasnak (eds.). Emerging themes incognitive development (p. 33-52). New York: SpringerVerlag.

Stonovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects on reading:Some consequences of individual differences in theacquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,360-407.

Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading research for studentswith LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(6), 503-534.

Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects oftext structure instruction on middle grade students'comprehension and production of expository text.Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134-146.

Taylor, B. M., & Samuels, S. J. (1983). Children's useof text structure in recall of expository material.American Educational Research Journal, 20, 517-528.

Taylor, M. B., & Williams, J. R (1983). Comprehensionof learning-disabled readers: Task and text variations.Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 743-751.

Tractenberg, R. E. (2002). Exploring hypothesesabout phonological awareness, memory and readingachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5),407-424.

Weisberg, R., & Balajthy, E. (1989). Improving disabledreaders' summarization and recognition of expositorytext structure. In N. D. Padak, T. V. Rasinski, &J. Logan (Eds.). Challenges in reading (pp 141-151).Provo, UT: College Reading Association.

Westwood, P. (2001). Reading and literacy difficulties:Approaches to teaching and assessment. Victoria:ACER.

Westwood, P., & Graham, L. (2000). How manychildren with special needs in regular classes: Officialpredictions vs teachers' perceptions in South Australia

and new South Wales. Australian Journal of LearningDisabilities, 5(3) 24-35.

Wolf, M. (2002). The second deficit: An investigationof the independence of phonological and namingspeed deficits in developmental dyslexia. Reading andWriting: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 15(2), 43-72.

Wong, B. Y. L., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing meta-comprehension in learning disabled and normallyachieving students through self-questioning training.Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(2), 228-238.

Wong, B. Y. L., & Wilson, M. (1984). Investigatingawareness of and teaching passage organizationin learning disabled children. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 17, 477-482.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:00

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14