Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies to Students With Learning Disabilities: A Review of Research

Abstract

We review the body of research on reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities. First, we describe the factors that lead to the comprehension difficulties of these students. Next we describe our procedures for reviewing the literature on effective instructional methods for this population. Next we review the body of studies involving instructional methods for improving the comprehension of narrative text. This is followed by the research on techniques for improving the comprehension of expository text. We conclude with a discussion of ongoing issues in the field—in particular, (a) the increased use of socially mediated instruction, (b) the need to teach multiple strategies to students to improve comprehension, and (c) controversies in how important it is to explicitly teach specific strategies versus merely providing flexible frameworks to structure dialogue on texts read.

Reading Comprehension Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities

“…However, in studies that assessed the long-term effects of the intervention, students did not maintain the gains or transfer effects to novel reading passages or standardized reading tests. This pattern of findings is consistent with other research showing that students with LD fail to spontaneously apply instructed strategies to new learning tasks (Gersten et al, 2001 ).…”

Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties

“…Second, specific strategies that assist students in engaging the text and monitoring their understanding (e.g., links to prior knowledge, self-questioning, decoding, summarizing) are taught explicitly. Third, teachers provide opportunities for students to discuss what they have read (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001;Kucan & Beck, 1997;Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997;Mastropieri et al, 2003).…”

“…Second, specific strategies that assist students in engaging the text and monitoring their understanding (e.g., links to prior knowledge, self-questioning, decoding, summarizing) are taught explicitly. Third, teachers provide opportunities for students to discuss what they have read (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001;Kucan & Beck, 1997;Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997;Mastropieri et al, 2003).Recently, Edmonds and colleagues (in press) conducted a meta-analysis of all reading intervention studies for older students (grades 6-12) with reading difficulties that had reading comprehension as an outcome variable. Interventions addressing decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension were included if the interventions measured the effects on reading comprehension.…”

Reading Comprehension Instruction for Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: A Reality Check

“…Over the past few decades, a significant number of studies designed to identify evidence-based practices in reading comprehension instruction for students with LD have been published, including literature reviews, research syntheses, and meta-analyses [8,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. This body of work has significantly improved our understanding of the most effective instructional components, as well as techniques for teaching adolescent students with LD to comprehend what they read across content areas [26,27].…”

“…Research suggests that this difficulty may be due to difficulties in several areas, including: (a) general background knowledge; (b) knowledge of common text structures, such as narrative and expository texts; (c) vocabulary knowledge; (d) reading fluency; and (e) task persistence [8]. An alternative perspective argues that these challenges are more accurately described by inefficiency rather than deficiency, meaning that although students with LD possess the required cognitive tools to process information, they tend to do so very inefficiently [8]. Many students with LD lack the information-processing skills required to comprehend complex text [9]; thus it is theorized that this breakdown occurs during strategic processing and metacognition [4].…”