Training and Generalization Effects of a Reading Comprehension Learning Strategy on Computer and Paper–Pencil Assessments

References

• Antoniou, F., & Souvignier, E. (2007). Strategy instruction in reading comprehension: An intervention study for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(1), 41–57.
   Google Scholar
• Ardoin, S. P., & Daly, E. J., III. (2007). Introduction to the special series: Close encounters of the instructional kind—How the instructional hierarchy is shaping instructional research 30 years later. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Bender, W. N. (2001). Learning characteristics in reading and language arts. In V. Lanigan (Ed.), Learning disabilities: Characteristics, identification, and teaching strategies (4th ed., pp. 68–98). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. New York, NY: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 423–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridgeman, B., Lennon, M. L., & Jackenthal, A. (2003). Effects of screen size, screen resolution and display rate on computer-based test performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 191–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, L. K. S. (1991). Promoting strategy generalization through self-instruction training in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 427–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Deshler, D. D., Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• DiLorenzo, K. E., Rody, C. A., Bucholz, J. L., & Brady, M. P. (2011). Teaching letter–sound connections with picture mnemonics: Itchy's Alphabet and early decoding. Preventing School Failure, 55(1), 28–34.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D., & Lenz, B. K. (1991). An instructional model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23, 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading “POSSE.” Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 14, 123–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faggella-Luby, M. N., & Deshler, D. D. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know; what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 70–78.
   Google Scholar
• Florida Department of Education. (2001). Reading: Grades 3–5 test item and performance task specifications. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Florida Department of Education. (2014). Florida standards assessments. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Flowers, C., Kim, D. H., Lewis, P., & Davis, V. C. (2011). A comparison of computer-based testing and pencil-and-paper testing for students with a read-aloud accommodation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26, 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Fontana, J. L., Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2007). Mnemonic strategy instruction in inclusive secondary social studies. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 345–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension on expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gast, D. L. (2010). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–344). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Graves, A. W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1(2), 90–100.
   Google Scholar
• Gunning, T. G. (2006). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic intervention research: Illustrations from the evolution of self-regulated strategy development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 251–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Idol-Maestas, L. (1985). Getting read to read: Guided probing for poor comprehenders. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 243–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2012). Componential Model of Reading (CMR) validation studies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 387–390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, C. L., Bucholz, J., & Brady, M. P. (2007). Yes, I can! Empowering paraprofessionals to teach learning strategies. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 18–23.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, M. J., & Deshler, D. D. (2010). Literacy instruction, technology, and students with learning disabilities: Research we have, research we need. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 289–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, D., & Huynh, H. (2010). Equivalence of paper-and-pencil and online administration modes of the statewide English test for students with and without disabilities. Educational Assessment, 15, 107–121.
   Google Scholar
• Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 3–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The Nation's report card: Reading 2007 ( NCES 2007–496). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Logan, S., Medford, E., & Hughes, N. (2011). The importance of intrinsic motivation for high and low ability readers’ reading comprehension performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 124–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manset-Williamson, G., & Nelson, J. M. (2005). Balanced, strategic reading instruction for upper-elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities: A comparative study of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 59–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, B. J., Patry, M., & Bernstein, D. J. (2001). An examination of the equivalence between non-adaptive computer-based and traditional testing. Journal of Educational Computer Research, 24, 29–39.
   Google Scholar
• Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 270–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills, C. B., & Weldon, L. J. (1987). Reading text from computer screens. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 19(4), 329–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, J. R., Smith, D. J., & Dodd, J. M. (1992). The effects of teaching a summary skills strategy to students identified as learning disabled on their comprehension of science text. Education and Treatment of Children, 15(3), 228–243.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, S. (2006). What's wrong with online readings? Text, hypertext, and the history web. History Teacher, 39, 441–454.
   Google Scholar
• Schumaker, J., Deshler, D., Alley, G., Warner, M., & Denton, P. (1984). Multipass: A learning strategy for improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 295–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., & Daly, E. J., III. (2010). Improving generalization of academic skills: Commentary on the special issue. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(1), 106–115.
   Google Scholar
• Solis, M., Ciullo, S., Vaughn, S., Pyle, N., Hassaram, B., & Leroux, A. (2012). Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of 30 years of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 327–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sporer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students’ reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19, 272–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Lexile Framework for Reading. (2010). Lexile Analyzer. Retrieved from http://www.lexile.com
   Google Scholar
• Trabasso, T., & Stein, N. L. (1997). Narrating, representing, and remembering event sequences. In P. W. Van den Broek, P. J. Bauer, & T. Bourg (Eds.), Developmental spans in event comprehension and representation (pp. 237–270). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• University of Kansas. (2011). Center for research on learning: Strategic instructional model. Retrieved from http://www.kucrl.org/sim/strategies.shtml
   Google Scholar
• Unzueta, C. H., & Barbetta, P. M. (2012). The effects of computer graphic organizers on the persuasive writing of Hispanic middle school students with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(3), 15–30.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying messing in LD intervention research: Findings from research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 67, 9–114.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. K. (1999). Teaching reading comprehension through collaborative strategic reading. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 284–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, S., Jiao, H., Young, M. J., Brooks, T., & Olson, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of testing mode effects in grade K–12 mathematics tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 219–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, S., & Clement, J. (2001). Assessing the lexile framework: Results of a panel meeting ( Working Paper No. 2001–08). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/200108.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wigent, C. A. (2013). High school readers: A profile of above average readers and readers with learning disabilities reading expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 134–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, B. Y. L., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar