Strategies for Teaching Reading to Students with Learning Disabilities - Literature review Example

You’re 25-Aug-16 Strategies for Teaching Reading to with Learning Disabilities Among the with high-incidence disabilities, children classified with learning disabilities constitute the largest group of students receiving special education services. In the past decade alone, the number of students classified with a learning disability increased 38%, and currently students identified with a learning disability represent 51% of all students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). This literature review shall discuss the early stages of reading instruction, when students with learning disabilities often have difficulty acquiring the developmental skills related to reading, including orthographic and phonological awareness. The development of effective reading strategies can have positive consequences for students with learning disabilities, yet many students do not learn to use strategies automatically. Finally, the implications for reading instruction for students with and without disabilities in inclusive settings are discussed. Introduction The ability to read is a critical component of school success. A strong correlation exists between poor reading ability and school failure, and students who do not learn how to read during their elementary years have difficulty navigating the school curriculum during middle and upper grades (Marston, Deno, Dongil, Diment, & Rogers, 2005). The National Center for Education Statistics reported that more than 75% of all fourth graders and eighth graders scored below the reading proficiency range on the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading assessment (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). These numbers suggest that a large number of students with and without disabilities are not benefiting from current traditional reading curricula and instructional practices (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 2001; Simmons & Kameenui, 2000). Improving reading instruction is a top priority for both general and special education. These concerns are paramount for students with high-incidence disabilities (i.e., behavior disorders, learning disabilities, mild mental retardation, and speech or language impairments) who constitute about 85% of the approximately 5 million school-age youth classified with disabilities. Among the students with high-incidence disabilities, children classified with learning disabilities constitute the largest group of students receiving special education services. More than 2 ½ million students in the United States are classified with a learning disability, a number that has increased dramatically since the late 1970s. In the past decade alone, the number of students classified with a learning disability increased 38%, and currently students identified with a learning disability represent 51% of all students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). The 2001 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) specifically identified the general education setting as the most appropriate placement for all students, and about half of the students classified with a learning disability participate full time in a general education classroom. Full-time placement in the general education classroom is commonly called inclusion or inclusive education (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). In inclusion settings, students with disabilities may or may not receive additional support from a special education teacher. Some programs involve general and special education teacher collaboration, but in many cases the general education teacher is responsible for implementing all academic support services, curricular adaptations, and testing modifications (Schulte, Osborne, & Erchul, 2002). Moreover, most new standards-based reform initiatives require that students with learning disabilities meet minimum local and state competency requirements. Despite the extra responsibilities this places on teachers, many school districts continue to reshape the roles of their special education teachers and adopt a full inclusion model to provide services for students with learning disabilities (Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 2000). Therefore, general and special educators are looking for instructional approaches that best serve the needs of diverse students in inclusive education settings. Studies that have investigated cognitive approaches to teaching and learning have shown positive, though somewhat mixed, results for supporting the achievement of students with disabilities in inclusive settings (Jones, Palincsar, Ogle, & Carr, 2004; Tralli, Colombo, Deshler, & Schumaker, 2000). Scanlon, Deshler, and Schumaker (2000) highlighted the need for efficacy studies in general education settings, with strategies implemented by general rather than special education teachers. If we are committed to making inclusion classrooms different from the general education classrooms from which students with disabilities were removed because they were not successful learners, we must examine the instructional practices and the contextual factors that enable learning in these new settings. Discussion In this literature review, we focus on effective reading instruction in inclusion settings, because more than half of the students identified with a learning disability experience serious reading problems (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Demographic data from the U.S. Department of Education reveal that the typical child with a learning disability is a 9-year-old boy who spends most to all of his school day in a general education classroom and is reading below grade level. During the early stages of reading instruction, students with learning disabilities often have difficulty acquiring the developmental skills related to reading, including orthographic and phonological awareness. As they develop, their instruction is aimed at improving their word recognition, fluency, and comprehension skills (Abbott, Reed, Abbott, & Berninger, 2001). In addition to these reading difficulties, it has been concluded that many students with learning disabilities show strategy deficiencies. Research has shown that an important aspect of reading development involves understanding how and when to use strategies to facilitate comprehension and learning. Studies of skilled and less skilled readers have indicated that in addition to essential skill-based strategies such as decoding, poor readers also lack comprehension and metacognitive strategies (Torgesen, Murphy, & Ivey, 2004; Wong, 2004). Becoming a skilled reader involves reflection about or awareness of these strategies. Poor readers strategic deficits often play a large role in their comprehension problems (Pressley & Harris, 2000). The development of effective reading strategies can have positive consequences for students with learning disabilities, yet many students do not learn to use strategies automatically. When students are explicitly taught certain metacognitive strategies that are characteristic of good readers, their reading performance improves significantly (deBettencourt, 2004; Short, 2001). Thus, many reading difficulties may be rooted in not knowing how or when to use a strategy, rather than in deficient memory or learning capacity. It is also important to note that teaching specific comprehension and metacognitive strategies to students not identified with a disability has been shown to improve these students reading performance (Emery, 2000). Thus, although the etiology of learning disabilities distinguishes this population from low-performing, at-risk general education students, their reading problems may be similarly rooted (Emery, 2000; Palincsar & Brown, 2003; Richek & McTague, 2004; Thomas & Oldfather, 2005). Baumann, Hoffman, Duffy-Hester, and Ro (2000) found that one of the greatest challenges that teachers and administrators face with respect to reading instruction is accommodating struggling, diverse, and at-risk readers. In a literature review of the principles that underlie effective strategy use, Swanson (2004) concluded that the best strategy instruction allows for a great deal of supervised student feedback and practice, shows students when and where to use the strategy, and teaches students to monitor their own performance. Strategies are enabling skills that lead students to acquire motivational empowerment to regulate their own reading (Paris & Oka, 2004). Therefore, the context of the classroom and the instructional approaches used to teach reading strategies are critical for students learning (Englert, Tarrant, & Mariage, 2002). Contextual factors that can be considered more the how rather than the of classroom practices define instructional efficacy. Although no single approach to teaching works best for all students, research has suggested that there are factors that need to be considered in any instructional setting (Chistenson, Ysseldyke, & Thurlow, 2004); Wang, Haertel, and Walberg (2004) literature reviewed 50 years of educational research and found that contextual factors (i.e., teacher beliefs, classroom climate, instructional grouping) affected student achievement as much as student-dependent characteristics such as aptitude. Lipson and Wixson (2001) stated that “perhaps no single factor influences the instructional setting more than a teachers knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning” (p. 128). Teachers beliefs about literacy, learning, and instruction shape the classroom environment and the learning opportunities created for students. For example, different opportunities for learning are afforded students in interactive student-centered classrooms than are available in teacher-centered classroom climates (Englert et al., 2002). Classrooms where instruction and teaching occur collaboratively have the potential of capitalizing on the diverse strengths those individual students and teachers bring to a learning situation. Furthermore, these classroom contexts may involve a variety of student grouping arrangements. Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, and Moody (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of various grouping practices and their effects on students with learning disabilities and behavior disorders. They found that peer tutoring and small group instruction may enhance the reading development of students with disabilities, but the small number of studies they located that matched their criteria limited their findings. Peer tutoring had the strongest empirical base and the largest experimental effect. Regardless of the limited findings, teachers today are challenged to use promising collaborative practices to help their students learn collaboratively, but the barriers presented by traditional teacher beliefs and teacher-centered classroom organization have often interfered with large-scale reform of these critical contextual factors (Whinnery, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2001). In this literature review, we analyze research that identifies effective instruction for students in inclusive classrooms. We examine the contextual factors that are key to the inclusion setting as well as the specific reading strategies found to be effective for students with learning disabilities. By effective, we mean that the outcome for all students showed significant increases in reading ability and performance. We found a limited number of empirical studies that specifically addressed reading instruction in inclusive settings; therefore, we broadened our literature review to include studies on reading strategies that reported academic gains for students with and without a learning disability. Such strategies hold promise for use in inclusion settings and warrant further research. Finally, the implications for reading instruction for students with and without disabilities in inclusive settings are discussed. One technique that uses story grammar components to foster comprehension of narrative texts is story maps. This procedure, mapping stories by identifying important information about the characters and events presented therein, was first developed by Beck and McKoewn (2004). Story maps are visual tools that delineate the most important ideas and reflect the linkage of concepts or facts within a passage (Reutzel, 2004) and help students generate questions about narrative stories. Pearson (2004) extended the work of Beck and her colleagues by using a graphic display to illustrate the relations among story components. Story maps have been used as a prereading (Davis, 2004) and post reading (Reutzel, 2003) procedure. Furthermore, variations of a simple story map can be used to promote inferential thinking, a skill necessary for comprehension of higher-level cognitive tasks (Davis & McPherson, 2004). In general, explicit instruction in both story grammar and the use of story maps has resulted in positive effects on reading comprehension skills of elementary (Baumann & Bergeron, 2003; Davis, 2004; Idol, 2004; Idol & Croll, 2004; Newby, Caldwell, & Recht, 2004) and secondary (Dimino et al., 2000; Gurney et al., 2000) students with and without LD. Specifically, four studies on story map instruction appear to have enhanced the reading comprehension of students with LD. First, Idol (2004) examined the effectiveness of using a simple story map (character, time, place, problem, goal, action, and outcome) to teach story grammar elements to third and fourth graders, including three students with LD and two students identified as low achievers. Results of the multiple baseline design across groups indicated an increase in students correct written responses to questions related to story grammar components from the baseline to intervention phase. The improved performance was maintained following completion of instruction. In addition, generalization of strategy effects on criterion-referenced tests in the curriculum and on measures of listening comprehension was most pronounced for the low group of poor comprehenders. Of particular interest is that the performance of students with LD showed generalization to most subtests of the Nelson Reading Skills Test, except for the word meaning subtest. In a second study, Idol and Croll (2004) investigated the effects of simple story map instruction on the story comprehension of five elementary students with LD. The findings indicated that four of the five students acquired and maintained the story mapping strategy. An examination of student performance revealed no significant differences between intervention and maintenance phases, indicating that the improvement in reading comprehension was maintained following the removal of story maps. Overall gains were noted on the length of story retells for three of the five students in terms of the number of words, clauses, and sentences used, whereas students performance on the quality of story retells varied according to story components (e.g., goal, problem, outcome). Furthermore, four of the five students achieved at least a 6-month gain on one or more standardized tests of reading comprehension. Although all five students listening comprehension increased from baseline to intervention to maintenance conditions, only two of the five students performance showed a substantial increase following instruction on generalization measures of reading comprehension derived from reading materials used in the classroom. The results of this study are important in that it was the first study to explicitly target students with LD. The story grammar strategy consisted of teacher-directed and teacher-assisted phases and included an advanced story map, as in the Dimino et al. (2000) and Gurney et al. (2000) studies. In contrast to these studies, our basal comprehension measure was different in several ways. The development of the comprehension tests was based on an analysis of the ratio of literal and inferential items present in basal programs. The third study, by Dimino et al. (2000), further assessed the effects of story map instruction in promoting comprehension skills of secondary students identified as being at risk for reading failure, including six students with LD. This study extended the work of Idol (2004) and Idol and Croll (2004) by using more advanced reading material (i.e., literature) and story maps. The advanced story map corresponded with the complex stories and differed from simple story maps in that responses involved detailed character information (clues and reaction), the presence of more than one problem that may require several attempts, a resolution, a complication or a twist, and a theme. The study also examined students abilities to answer typical basal comprehension questions. An interactive comprehension strategy based on schema theory and story grammar provided students with opportunities to "clarify and discuss important elements of the story as they read" (Dimino et al., 2000, p. 29) and was found to be more effective in improving students reading comprehension than the traditional basal instruction. In addition, students in the story grammar instruction group performed better than those in the traditional basal instruction group on measures of written retells and theme questions. The improved effects occurred during a 2-week follow-up period. Although this study made a valuable contribution to the literature, specific conclusions regarding the performance of students with LD were not clear because group statistics were used to report treatment effectiveness. Fourth, Gurney et al. (2000) continued the work on advanced story mapping procedures using a modified multiple baseline design to investigate the effects of a traditional basal literature and a story grammar instruction on the comprehension of seven high school students with LD. Results indicated that students abilities to comprehend important elements in literature anthologies improved as a function of story grammar instruction. However, increases in basal literature comprehension were minimal and maintenance of performance was not assessed. Individual differences in reading comprehension were masked in this study because only mean scores for pairs or groups of three students were reported rather than data for individual students. Given the idiosyncratic nature of LD, it was unclear how the unique characteristics of these students affected their responses to the intervention. In the elementary school years, general education teachers face the task of teaching children how to learn to read and spell. Although many teachers and children accomplish this task successfully, an increasing number of students fail to acquire basic literacy skills (Lyon, 2003). Unfortunately, children who do poorly at reading in first and second grade tend to remain poor readers throughout school, with a substantial proportion eventually identified as students with learning disabilities (Blachman, 2000; Lyon, 2002; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 2002). Results from longitudinal studies suggest that 75% of the children who struggle with reading in third grade, particularly with the development of phonological awareness and decoding, will still do poorly at reading at the end of high school (Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 2000; Lyon, 2002). These children are faced each year with increasing obstacles in literacy development (Adams & Bruck, 2005; Torgesen & Burgess, 2002). Because they struggle to pronounce words and read fluently, they have difficulty comprehending and gaining conceptual knowledge (Beck & Juel, 2005; Shaywitz et al., 2005; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2004). Conclusion One promising finding of the last decade has been that early, systematic instruction in phonological awareness provided in the general education classroom improves childrens early reading and spelling skills and results in a reduction of the number of students who are reading below grade level and are identified as having learning disabilities (e.g., Blachman, Ball, Black, & Tangel, 2004; Bos, Mather, Friedman Narr, & Babur, 2003; OConnor, 2003). Children who continue to fail at reading require instructional approaches that focus on phonemic awareness, phonic skills, and the application of these skills to real words in text (OConnor, 2000; Torgesen, 2000; Vellutino et al., 2000). Although early intervention for children with poor word-reading skills is essential, many general education teachers are not prepared adequately for this task (Brady & Moats, 2001; Lyon, 2003; Lyons & Moats, 2001; Moats, 2004; National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow et al., 2002; Troyer & Yopp, 2000). Because students with learning disabilities are taught to read in general education classrooms and for the most part only begin to receive services after second grade, when they have failed at reading, general education teachers must believe in and understand the role of explicit reading instruction. To teach reading to children at risk for reading failure as well as to those with learning disabilities, teachers need to possess positive perceptions regarding the role of systematic, explicit instruction and knowledge of language structure. They have to believe that children who struggle to learn to read require reading approaches that teach sound-symbol correspondences directly. Moreover, they need to have an awareness of language elements (e.g., phonemes) and knowledge of how these elements are represented in writing (e.g., knowledge of sound-symbol correspondences). Knowledge of the alphabetic principle, of how the English language is constructed, and of how speech sounds relate to print is also critical (Moats, 2004). Teachers also need a thorough understanding of the relationship between poor phonological awareness and reading failure, as well as a knowledge of how to implement activities in classroom instruction to develop phonological awareness. Works Cited Abbott, S., Reed, E., Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (2001). Year-long balanced reading/writing tutorial: A design experiment used for dynamic assessment. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 249–263. Adams, M. J., & Bruck, M. (2005). Resolving the great debate. American Educator, 19(2), 7–20. Baumann, J. F., & Bergeron. B. S. (2003). Story map instruction using childrens literature: Effects on first graders comprehension of central narrative elements. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 407-437. Baumann, J., Hoffman, J., Duffy-Hester, A., & Ro, J. (2000). The first R yesterday and today: U.S. elementary reading instruction practices reposed by teachers and administrators. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 338–377. Beck, I. L., & McKoewn, G. M. (2004). Developing questions that promote comprehension: The story map. Language Arts, 58, 913-918. Beck, I., & Juel, C. (2005). The role of decoding in learning to read. American Educator, 19(2), 8–42. Blachman, B. A. (2000). Phonological awareness. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3., pp. 251–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Blachman, B. A., Ball, E. W., Black, R. S., & Tangel, D. M. (2004). Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner-city classrooms. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–18. Bos, C. S., Mather, N., Friedman Narr, R., & Babur, N. (2003). Interactive, collaborative professional development in early literacy instruction: Supporting the balancing act. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 215–226. Brady, S., & Moats, L. C. (2001). Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations for teacher preparation. A position paper of the International Dyslexia Association. Baltimore: International Dyslexia Association. Carnine, D., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. (2001). Direct instruction reading (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Carnine, D., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. J. (2001). Direct instruction reading (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Christenson, S. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). Critical instructional factors for students with mild handicaps: An integrative review. Remedial and Special Education, 10(5), 21–31. Cooper, H. M. (2004). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Davis, Z. T. (2004). Effects of prereading story mapping on elementary readers comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 353-360. Davis, Z. T., & McPherson, M.D. (2004). Story map instruction: A road map for reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 19, 232-240. deBettencourt, L. U. (2004). Strategy training: A need for clarification. Exceptional Children, 54(1), 24–30. Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (2000). The effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 62–88. Dole, J., Duffy, G., Roehler, L., & Pearson, P. D. (2001). Moving from the old to the new: Research in reading comprehension instruction. Literature review of Educational Research, 61, 239–264. Duffy, G. G. (2003). Teachers progress toward becoming expert strategy teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 109–120. Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. W. (2003). Grouping practices and reading outcomes for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 399—411. Emery, D. W. (2000). Helping readers comprehend stories from the characters perspectives. The Reading Teacher; 49, 534–541. Englert, C. S., Tarrant, K. L., & Mariage, T. V. (2002). Defining and redefining instructional practice in special education: Perspectives on good teaching. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15(2), 62–86. Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2000). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3–17. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Peer assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206. Gurney, D., Gersten, R., Dimino, J., & Carnine, D. (2000). Story grammar: Effective literature instruction for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 335-343. Idol, L. (2004). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 196-205. Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (2004). Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 214-229. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Johnson, G. M. (2002). Principles of instruction for at-risk learners. Preventing School Failure, 42, 167–174. Jones, B. F., Palincsar, A. S., Ogle, D. S., & Carr, E. G. (Eds.). (2004). Strategic teaching and learning: Cognitive instruction in the content areas. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (2001). Assessment and instruction of reading and writing disability. New York: Longman. Lyon, G. R. (2002). Why reading is not natural. Educational Leadership, 3, 14–18. Lyon, G. R. (2003). The NICHD research program in reading development, reading disorders, and reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Lyons, G. R., & Moats, L. C. (2001). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 578–588. Marston, D., Deno, S. L., Dongil, K., Diment, K., & Rogers, D. (2005). Comparison of reading intervention approaches for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 20–38. Moats, L. C. (2004). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–102. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Newby, R. F., Caldwell, J., & Recht, D. R. (2004). Improving the reading comprehension of children with dysphonetic and dyseidetic dyslexia using story grammar. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 373-380. OConnor, R. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 43–54. OConnor, R. (2003). Teachers learning Ladders to Literacy. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 203–214. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. (2003). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. R. (2004). Strategies for comprehending text and coping with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 32–42. Pearson, P. D. (2004). Asking questions about stories. Ginn Occasional Papers (No. 15). Columbus, OH: Ginn. Pearson, P. D. (2004). Changing the face of reading comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 38, 724-738. Pearson, P. D., Johnson, D. D., Clymer, T, Indrisano, R., Venezky, R. L., Baumann, J. F., Hiebert, E., & Toth, M. (2004a). Dream chasers. Needham, MA: Silver, Burdett, & Ginn. Pearson, P. D., Johnson, D. D., Clymer, T., Indrisano, R., Venezky, R. L., Baumann, J. F., Hiebert, E., & Toth, M. (2004b). Wind by the sea. Needham, MA: Silver, Burdett, & Ginn. Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (2000). What we really know about strategy instruction. Educational Leadership, 48(1), 31–34. Pressley, M., Johnson, C., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J., & Kurita, J. (2004). Strategies that improve childrens reading comprehension of text. Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 3–32. Reutzel, R. D. (2003). Story mapping: An alternative approach to comprehension. Reading World, 24, 16-25. Reutzel, R. D. (2004). Story maps improve comprehension. The Reading Teacher 38, 400-404. Rich, S., & Pressley, M. (2000). Teacher acceptance of reading comprehension strategy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 43–64. Richek, M. A., & McTague, B. K. (2004). The “Curious George” strategy for students with reading problems. The Reading Teacher, 24, 220–225. Scanlon, D., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2000). Can a strategy be taught and learned in secondary inclusive classrooms? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 41–57. Schulte, A. C., Osborne, S. S., & Erchul, W. Schulte, A. C., Osborne, S. S., & Erchul, W. P. (2002). Effective special education: A United Slates dilemma. The School Psychology Review, 27, 66–76. Shaywitz, B. A., Holford, T. R., Holahan, J. M., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). A Matthew effect for IQ but not for reading: Results from a longitudinal study. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 894–906. Short, K. (3. (2001). Literacy environments that support strategic readers. In D. E. DeFord, C. A. Lyons, & G. S. Pinnell (Eds.), Bridges to literacy: Learning from Reading Recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (2000). A focus on curriculum design: When children fail. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(1), 1–16. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (2002). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Swanson, H. L. (2004). Strategy instruction: Overview of principles and procedures for effective use. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 3–14. Thomas, S., & Oldfather, P. (2005). Enhancing student and teacher engagement in literacy learning: A shared inquiry approach. The Reading Teacher, 49, 192–202. Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64. Torgesen, J. K., & Burgess, S. R. (2002). Consistency of reading-related phonological processes throughout early childhood: Evidence from longitudinal-correlational and instructional studies. In J. C. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning reading (pp. 161–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Torgesen, J. K., Murphy, H. A., & Ivey, C. (2004). The influence of an orienting task on the memory performance of children with reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 396–401. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. A. (2004). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276–286. Tralli, R., Colombo, B., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2000). The strategies intervention model: A model for supported inclusion at the secondary level. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 204–216. Troyer, S. J., & Yopp, H. K. (2000). Kindergarten teachers knowledge of emergent literacy concepts. Reading Improvement, 27, 34–40. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the IDEA. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). National assessment of educational progress: 1998 reading report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Udvari-Solner, A. (2000). Examining teacher thinking: Constructing a process to design curricular adaptations. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 245–254. Udvari-Solner, A., & Thousand, J. S. (1996). Creating a responsive curriculum for inclusive schools. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 182–192. Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (2003). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64, 211–225. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. B. (2000). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). What helps students learn? Educational Leadership, 51, 74–79. Whinnery, K. W., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). General, special, and remedial teachers acceptance of behavioral and instructional strategies for mainstreaming students with mild handicaps. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 6–17. Wong, B. Y. L. (2004). How do the results of metacognitive research impact on the learning disabled individual? Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 189–195. Read More