HIGH SCHOOL READERS: A PROFILE OF ABOVE AVERAGE READERS AND
READERS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES READING EXPOSITORY TEXT
By
Catherine Ann Wigent

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education
2011

ABSTRACT
HIGH SCHOOL READERS: A PROFILE OF ABOVE AVERAGE READERS AND
READERS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES READING EXPOSITORY TEXT
BY
Catherine Ann Wigent
High school students are challenged to meet higher standards in order to ensure that they
are prepared to face the literacy demands of our twenty-first century society (Beaufort, 2009; A.
S. Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill, & Thurlow, 2007; Vernon, Baytops, McMahon, Padden, &
Walther-Thomas, 2003). This study examined both above average high school readers and high
school readers with learning disabilities in order to better understand the impact of twelve years
of formal education on reading skills and strategy use while reading expository text. Specifically,
this study examined how the readers employed strategies related to knowledge construction,
monitoring, and evaluating while reading using verbal protocol analysis. Additionally, students’
self-perceptions of reading strategy use and comprehension was assessed through the use of
survey, objective assessment and written retelling. Thirteen students with learning disabilities
and twelve students with above average reading skills participated in this study.
This
study
suggests
that
above
average
readers
and
students
with
learning

disabilities
do
share
some
characteristics.
Both
groups
of
students
used
rereading
and

paraphrasing
as
their
primary
mode
of
knowledge
construction.
Additionally,
both
groups

self‐reported
similar
reading
strategies
as
useful.
However,
the
above
average
readers
used

the
strategies
more
effectively
and
self‐reported
using
reading
strategies
with
more

frequency.

This
study
suggests
that
students
with
learning
disabilities
may
benefit
from

continued
instruction
at
the
secondary
level
in
effective
strategy
use.




Copyright by
CATHERINE A. WIGENT
2011




To Chris

iv






AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people have worn many hats in guiding and supporting me during my doctoral
studies at Michigan State University. I would like to start by thanking my advisor and my
committee members. I would like to offer a sincere thank you to Dr. Troy Mariage for taking me
on as his advisee, and patiently guiding me on this journey. His time, advice, and belief in me are
much appreciated. In no particular order, I would like to thank my committee members for both
their time and professional input. Dr. Summer Ferreri has been gracious with her time, support,
and advice especially in the process of doing research. I am grateful for the deep knowledge and
understanding of literacy and special education that Dr. Carol Sue Englert graciously shared and
fostered throughout this processes. I am equally grateful for the vast knowledge of research and
writing that Dr. Cindy Okolo took the time and patience to share.
I must acknowledge Dr. Michael Pressley’s contribution to both this dissertation and my
doctoral studies. Dr. Pressley critiqued and praised with the same passion, whether it was a
graduate student or a renowned researcher. His no nonsense, to the point, KISS attitude (keep it
simple stupid) helped me to appreciate the power of good research. Furthermore, his belief in my
abilities at a point when I doubted them, buttressed me, and his faith and guidance in verbal
protocol analysis planted the seed for this dissertation.
I would like to thank Karen Chichester for her unselfish help and connections, which
ultimately made this research happen. Her belief in and dedication to education, research, and the
merits of literacy for all students is truly admirable.
I would also like to thank my many colleagues and friends at Michigan State University
of which there are too many to name. However, I must acknowledge Dr. Carrie Anna Courtad,
v






my mentor, my colleague, and my friend who helped me navigate the scary and new waters of
academia; many thank yous are never enough. Also, to Barb Meier who travelled much of this
journey with me and who was always present with advice and an open ear.
Finally, I want to thank my family. For my boys, Patrick and Kurt, who went without
homework help, dinners, and hugs goodnight when mommy was working on her dissertation.
Thank you boys for being quiet when I needed you to be quiet, and for being proud of me when I
needed it as well. Thank you to my mother, Pat Baker, my grandmother, Elaine VanderWier and
my sisters, Christine Clover and Colleen Hoffer. You are the women who came to help when you
were needed, who hugged me, who encouraged me and who listened to all the technical talk and
pretended to both understand and be interested.
To my husband Chris, who first and foremost embraced my goal as his own, and set the
wheels in motion for me to achieve that goal. Thank you for looking at me with pride in your
eyes and love in your heart. Without your faith, sacrifice, patience and love I would have never
achieved this goal, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

vi






TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

xi

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement
Purpose of Study
Organization of Study

1
2
4

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
Historical Perspective
Policy Influence on Secondary Students
Secondary Reading
Reading Comprehension
Framework of Reading Process
Conclusion
Research Questions

6
6
19
26
32
44
48
48

CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
Participants
Materials and Data Sources
Procedure
Data Analysis

51
52
56
57

CHAPTER FOUR
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
Introduction
Knowledge Construction
Monitoring
Evaluating
Events
Miscues
Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory
Comprehension Measures

64
64
67
68
69
70
72
77

CHAPTER FIVE
QUALITATIVE RESULTS
Introduction
Single Knowledge Construction Use
Patterned Knowledge Construction Use

85
86
90
vii






Multiple Strategy Use

94

CHAPTER SIX
DISCUSSION
Knowledge Construction, Monitoring, and Evaluating
Self-perception of Strategy Use
Reading Profiles
Implications
Limitations
Further Research Directions
Conclusion

102
106
106
108
110
110
112

APPENDICES
Appendix A. High school readers study: Parent consent form
Appendix B. High school readers study: Student assent form
Appendix C. Sample Passages
Appendix D. Written retelling scoring protocol: Water pollution
Appendix E. High school readers study: File review consent
Appendix F. Comprehension questions
Appendix G. Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory
Appendix H. Sample transcriptions

115
118
121
140
143
145
147
150

REFERENCES

156

viii






LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Framework of reading processes

45

Table 2. Comparison of grade level reading passages

54

Table 3. Coding examples

61

Table 4. Knowledge construction group totals

65

Table 5. Monitoring utterances group totals

68

Table 6. Evaluating utterances group totals

69

Table 7. Event averages and ranges

70

Table 8. MARSI individual means scores for LD students

72

Table 9. MARSI individual means scores for AA students

73

Table 10. MARSI group comparison

74

Table 11. Rankings for MARSI strategies

75

Table 12. Above average readers multiple-choice comprehension scores

78

Table 13. Learning disabled readers multiple-choice comprehension scores

79

Table 14. Above average readers written recall

80

Table 15. Learning disabled readers written recall

81

Table 16. Written retell t-test

82

ix






Table 17. LD percentages of verbal protocol analysis comments in written retell

82

Table 18. AA percentages of verbal protocol analysis comments in written retell

83

Table 19. Strategy use category totals

86

Table 20. Data summary

100

x






LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Learning disabled readers knowledge construction use

66

Figure 2. Above average readers knowledge construction use

67

Figure 3. Runoff

122

Figure 4. Runoff

125

Figure 5. Runoff

128

Figure 6. Runoff

131

Figure 7. Runoff

134

Figure 8. Runoff

137

xi






Chapter One
Introduction
Problem Statement
High school students today are faced with many literacy demands in their lives. Through
policy initiatives such as No Child Left Behind, reports of failing schools and dropping
graduation rates, the public has demanded both tougher standards and more stringent
assessments of students to ensure that they are able to engage in twenty-first century learning and
society (A. S. Erickson, et al., 2007; C. B. Swanson, 2008; Time to act: An agenda for advancing
adolescent literacy for college and career success, 2009; Umpstead, 2008; Vernon, et al., 2003).
Additionally, technology changes in society have created an environment where most jobs
require a high level of literacy skills, and students are using technology more than ever before to
communicate both formally and informally (Beaufort, 2009; Schmar-Dobler, 2003).
Almost half of high school students today must pass high school exit exams in order to
graduate with a typical academic diploma (Warren, Jenkins, & Kulick, 2006). Besides the exit
exam, high school requirements for graduation have increased (Teitelbaum, 2003). Due to the
increase in curriculum requirements for high school students coupled with the wide use of exit
exams, more students with disabilities are being educated in the general education classroom
(Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). Partially due to the demands on teachers to teach
the content necessary for students to pass high stakes assessments such as exit exams, most high
school classes still use a teacher centered, text based format for instruction which requires
students to have a high level of independent literacy skills such as being able to read, think and
write critically (Jetton & Alexander, 2004).

1






As students leave high school and enter college, post-secondary training, the military, or
the workforce, they are expected to have and use a cadre of literacy skills (Beaufort, 2009;
Kaestle, Campbell, Finn, Johnson, & Mickulecky, 2001). Technology has changed the job
landscape in terms of literacy skills for many workers, with traditional blue collar workers
required to use technology and literacy skills to input data, keep records, read computer screens,
and write documents (Beaufort, 2009). Indeed, students need to go beyond the ability to read the
words on a page and need to be able to interact with text by applying prior knowledge, asking
questions, making predictions and understanding the significance of the text (Conley, 2008;
Pressley, 2004). This type of reading allows students to use their literacy skills outside of school
and puts and emphasis on comprehension over content or word level skills.
Adolescents spend most of their time in high school in content area classes where the
focus of their education is on content areas such as math, science, history, and English, often
literature (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007). Very little time is devoted to explicitly teaching students
how to read at critically higher levels due to a number of institutional constraints such as the
departmental structure of the high school into content areas, the structure of textbooks, lack of
screening and assessment tools aimed at adolescent readers and the relatively small amount of
federal funding available for adolescent reading (From No Child Left Behind to every child a
graduate, 2008; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Inside and outside of school, students are
expected to perform literacy tasks that require them to read, write and think critically on multiple
topics and in multiple settings (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007).
Purpose of Study
Ironically, while the playing field has changed dramatically for adolescents, the focus on
literacy research, policy and instruction has been on early childhood literacy (From No Child
2






Left Behind to every child a graduate, 2008; Heller & Greenleaf, 2007; Shanahan & Shanahan,
2008; Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success,
2009). The hope that early literacy competence would translate to competent literacy skills in
adolescents has not panned out as evidenced by the flat literacy scores for adolescents over the
past thirty years (From No Child Left Behind to every child a graduate, 2008; Shanahan &
Shanahan, 2008). With the growing demands placed on adolescents today on multiple fronts, and
with these students poised to be the workforce of tomorrow, understanding how twelve years of
formal literacy instruction has manifested itself is an important endeavor.
While two-thirds of adolescent students are not proficient readers, at least a quarter of
adolescents are proficient readers. These proficient eleventh and twelfth-grade students represent
a group of high school readers who can offer a glimpse of what they have learned over their
school years as well as the skills that they are taking with them into the worlds of work and postsecondary education. Proficient high school readers can give educators an idea of the cognitive
processes and approach to reading that they use to construct meaning, monitor and evaluate text.
While proficient high school readers can provide information on how they effectively
process text while reading, many students lack the skills necessary to perform reading tasks
effectively and by examining their reading, one can begin to understand how the reading process
breaks down or where further instruction is needed. High school students who are poor readers
can illuminate a different path of reading than the proficient high school reader.
Examining both the proficient high school reader and the high school reader with
learning disabilities will allow researchers to fill in the gaps about what high school reading
looks like at the level before entering post-secondary training or the work force. This information
will allow educators to examine the profile of proficient high school readers in relation to less

3






skilled readers on multiple levels. Perhaps proficient high school readers and less skilled readers
employ similar approaches, but to different depths and qualities. By examining both proficient
high school readers and less skilled high school readers, instructional tools that focus on the gaps
identified can be created, whether those instructional tools are new strategies or more in depth
instruction on how to use existing strategies. Additionally, these profiles will assist in partially
understanding the developmental path to skilled reading. The purpose of this study is to examine
the reading processes demonstrated by high school readers as they engage in reading expository
text.
Organization of the Study
The organization of the remainder of the study is as follows:
Chapter two: Literature review.
The literature review examines the historical and current policies that have influenced
literacy education in the United States, along with the current literacy demands placed on
secondary students in the form of high stakes assessment, high school standards, and postsecondary expectations. The literature review develops a line of reasoning that argues for a
deeper understanding of the strategies and processes that the adolescent reader, especially with
learning disabilities, employs when reading expository, academic text.
Chapter three: Methods.
Chapter three outlines the methods used in this study. The chapter begins with a
description of the participants in terms of demographics and recruitment. The chapter then
outlines the data sources used in this study. Finally, the chapter outlines both the procedures used
and the coding of the data sources.
Chapter four: Quantitative.

4






Chapter four focuses on group comparisons between the above average readers and
readers with learning disabilities as they read expository text. Group comparisons are presented
in multiple measures including the types of processes the readers demonstrated while reading
expository text, as well as measures of the depth and breadth of those processes, such as length
of events, verbalizations, and miscues. Additionally, two measures of comprehension related to
the article are examined, a multiple-choice comprehension assessment and a written retelling of
the passage. Finally, group comparisons of the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies
Inventory, which highlights students’ self-perception of the processes they use while reading
expository are presented (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002).
Chapter five: Qualitative.
Chapter five examines the data on an individual level and highlights profiles of individual
students. Three profiles of knowledge construction are presented. One profile is a single use
strategy profile, which profiles one student from each group who uses predominately one
strategy while engaged in knowledge construction. The second profile highlights a patterned
approach to knowledge construction. The final profile demonstrates a multiple approach use to
knowledge construction. In addition to the reading profiles, measures of comprehension and selfperceptions of reading strategy use are discussed.
Chapter six: Discussion
Chapter six will discusses the main research question along with the sub-questions.
Implications of the research as well as limitations and future areas of research are also discussed.






5






Chapter
Two

Literature
Review

Overview

The
purpose
of
this
chapter
is
to
provide
a
substantive
review
of
key
literatures

related
to
understanding
how
secondary
students
with
and
without
learning
disabilities

comprehend
informational
text.

The
chapter
builds
an
argument
for
increasing
our

understanding
of
how
secondary
students
comprehend
informational
text,
given
the

significant
shifts
in
society,
policy,
theory,
and
advances
in
the
tools
to
understand
the

cognitive
processes
of
readers.

The
first
section
of
the
literature
review
examines

historical
and
current
mandates
and
policies
that
influence
literacy
instruction
at
the

secondary
level
with
particular
focus
on
comprehension,
expository
text
and

postsecondary
requirements
for
both
the
workplace
and
education.
The
chapter
then

examines
several
literacy
theories
that
have
been
used
to
understand
reading

comprehension,
including
the
cognitive
perspective
that
highlights
components
of

comprehension
such
as
word
recognition,
vocabulary,
fluency,
prior
knowledge
and

metacognition.

The
third
section
of
the
review
then
examines
reading
comprehension
as
it

relates
to
secondary
students
who
have
learning
disabilities.

Finally,
reading

comprehension
is
situated
in
the
framework
of
three
processes;
knowledge
construction,

monitoring,
and
evaluation
which
provide
the
structure
for
examining
high
school
reading

processes.


Historical
Perspective




In
order
to
gain
perspective
on
reading
comprehension
for
adolescents
in
the


current
school
climate,
it
is
prudent
to
examine
the
policies
that
have
shaped
reading
over

6






the
past
fifteen
years;
namely
Goals
2000:
Educate
America
Act
(P.L.
103‐227),
the
National

Reading
Panel
(National
Institute
of
Child
Health
and
Human
Development,
2000)and
the

No
Child
Left
Behind
(NCLB)
Act
(P.L.
107‐110).


Goals
2000.




While
the
Goals
2000:
Educate
America
Act
did
not
directly
address
reading


instruction
and
literacy;
it
did
impact
the
trajectory
of
reading
instruction
through
its

emphasis
on
standards‐based
reform
and
high
student
expectations.
The
focus
of
Goals

2000
legislation
was
on
results
through
the
use
of
standards‐based
reforms
aimed
at

defining
what
all
students
should
learn
and
assessing
their
skill
at
achieving
the
goals

("Goals
2000:
Reforming
Education
to
Improve
Student
Achievement,"
1998;
Stallings,

2002).

One
straightforward
measure
of
student
learning
is
standardized
testing.

Standardized
testing
also
allows
for
easy
reporting
of
scores
and
achievement,
unlike

assessments
in
the
vein
of
student
portfolios
or
classroom‐based
performance
assessments

(Pearson,
2000).

Under
Goals
2000,
states
had
much
latitude
to
set
the
content
standards

and
assessments;
however,
they
had
to
adhere
to
accountability
standards,
and
thus

utilized
and
developed
standardized
assessment
tools
to
measure
student
progress.
While

this
strong
alignment
between
the
curriculum
and
the
tests
was
designed
to
determine

student
progress,
it
actually
challenged
innovative
teaching
and
learning
including

comprehension
and
whole
language
instruction
("Goals
2000:
Reforming
Education
to

Improve
Student
Achievement,"
1998;
Pearson,
2000;
Shepard,
2000).
Quality
reading

instruction
that
incorporates
a
focus
on
comprehension
and
not
just
the
reading
of
words
is

comprised
of
a
variety
of
instructional
techniques
that
include
both
the
teaching
of
skills

and
literature
(RAND
Reading
Study
Group,
2004).


7






National
Reading
Panel.

Following
the
Goals
2000
act,
Congress
requested
a
national
panel
be
formed
to

assess
the
teaching
of
reading
from
a
research
based
perspective,
thus
in
1997,
The

National
Reading
Panel
was
established
(National
Institute
of
Child
Health
and
Human

Development,
2000).

The
National
Reading
Panel
was
subsequently
convened
of
a
group
of

volunteers,
which
included
reading
researchers,
representatives
from
colleges
of

education,
reading
teachers,
educational
administrators
and
teachers.

The
panel
was

charged
with
determining
effective,
research‐based
approaches
to
teaching
children
to

read.
The
panel
set
out
to
evaluate
experimental
and
quasi‐experimental
research
relevant

to
topics
that
were
central
to
teaching
children
to
read.
The
panel
found
about
100,000

studies
on
reading
published
since
1966.
Due
to
the
overwhelming
amount
of
information

the
panel
created
subgroups
of
major
topics
to
make
the
task
more
manageable.
The

subgroups
included
the
following:
alphabetic;
which
included
phonemic
awareness
and

phonics,
fluency,
comprehension
(which
included
vocabulary,
text
comprehension

instruction,
teacher
preparation
and
comprehension
strategies),
teacher
education,
reading

instruction
and
finally
computer
technology
and
reading
instruction.
All
of
the
studies
that

the
NRP
reviewed
met
the
following
standards:
(1)
they
were
published
in
refereed

journals
that
focused
on
preschool
through
grade
twelve
reading
development,
and,
(2)

they
used
experimental
or
quasi‐experimental
designs
with
either
multiple
baseline
or

control
group
methods.





The
findings
of
the
National
Reading
Panel
(NRP)
by
subgroup
are
as
follows.
Under


the
subgroup
Alphabetic,
the
NRP
found
that
teaching
phonetic
awareness
contributed
to

success
in
reading
and
spelling
if
taught
in
a
systematic
and
explicit
manner
(National

8






Reading
Panel,
2000).
However,
phonemic
awareness
instruction
cannot
be
a
complete

reading
program;
it
is
better
thought
of
as
a
foundational
component
of
a
broader
reading

program.
The
NRP
also
examined
systematic
phonics
instruction
under
the
subgroup
of

Alphabetic.
The
panel
found
systematic
phonics
instruction
to
be
effective
between

kindergarten
and
sixth
grade
and
with
disabled
readers.
This
instruction
was
able
to

increase
students’
abilities
to
read
and
spell
in
general.
However,
there
is
no
“one
size
fits

all”
phonics
instruction.
Once
a
student
has
mastered
phonetic
skill
and
can
apply
and
use

it
for
reading
and
spelling,
the
child
does
not
need
the
same
instruction
or
intensity
of

instruction
of
a
child
who
has
not
mastered
the
phonics
skills.




Fluency
was
also
examined
as
a
subgroup
and
was
defined
as
the
ability
to
read
with


oral
speed,
accuracy
and
expression
(National
Reading
Panel,
2000).
The
panel
found
that

guided
oral
reading
had
a
positive
impact
on
word
recognition,
fluency,
and

comprehension
across
many
grade
levels.
The
panel
also
examined
studies
on
independent

silent
reading
and
found
that
while
it
sounds
intuitively
good
to
increase
the
amount
of

time
a
student
read
independently,
they
found
no
evidence
to
support
increased
reading

skills.
The
panel
was
careful
to
note
that
their
findings
did
not
suggest
that
independent

silent
reading
was
detrimental;
just
that
there
was
not
enough
evidence
to
make
a
causal

claim
that
independent
silent
reading
increased
reading
skill.





The
Comprehension
subgroup
included
vocabulary
instruction,
text
comprehension


and
teacher
preparation
and
comprehension
strategies
instruction.
The
NRP
found
that

vocabulary
instruction
increased
comprehension
but
only
if
done
to
match
the
reading

ability
of
the
student
(National
Reading
Panel,
2000).
However,
there
is
little
known
about

best
methods
for
vocabulary
instruction.
In
reference
to
teaching
comprehension,
similar

9






findings
emerged;
teaching
multiple
means
of
comprehension
techniques
is
helpful,
but

there
is
little
research
to
support
which
strategies
are
most
effective
and
for
which
types
of

text.
With
regard
to
teacher
preparation
and
comprehension
strategy
instruction,
the
panel

found
that
teaching
strategies
is
complex
and
requires
extensive
teacher
use
and

preparation.
Additionally,
many
questions
arose
in
relation
to
how
to
most
effectively
teach

teachers
to
instruct
comprehension
strategy
use,
at
what
age
is
strategy
use
most

effectively
taught,
and
can
comprehension
strategy
use
be
taught
in
the
content
areas?




Another
subgroup
of
the
NRP
included
teacher
education
and
reading
instruction


(National
Reading
Panel,
2000).
This
subgroup
lacked
large
numbers
of
experimental

studies
and
only
half
the
studies
measured
student
and
teacher
outcomes.
Overall,
this

subgroup
produced
more
questions
than
answers.
Some
of
the
panel’s
questions
included

determining
the
correct
mix
of
pre‐service
and
in‐service
professional
development,
length

of
professional
development,
and
how
to
support
teachers
for
long
term
sustainability
of

professional
development.





The
final
subgroup
studied
by
the
NRP
included
computer
technology
and
reading


instruction
(National
Reading
Panel,
2000).
Due
to
the
fact
that
using
computer
technology

to
teach
reading
is
a
new
field,
there
were
only
21
studies
for
the
panel
to
examine.
The

panel
suggests
that
using
technology
for
reading
instruction
is
a
viable
option
that
requires

further
exploration.
They
also
suggest
that
the
use
of
hypertext
and
word
processors
may

support
the
teaching
of
reading.
The
use
of
hypertext
allows
students
to
retrieve
additional

information
while
they
are
reading
and
while
it
is
not
considered
reading
instruction,
it

may
help
students’
ability
to
comprehend.
Likewise,
word
processors
are
not
reading


10






instructional
tools,
but
may
facilitate
good
reading
because
it
fosters
connectivity
between

reading
and
writing.




The
National
Reading
Panel
(NRP)
report
and
its
recommendations
for
reading


instruction
influenced
the
teaching
and
instruction
adopted
by
many
schools
from

kindergarten
through
twelfth‐grade,
and
it
was
an
influential
force
behind
the
national

Reading
First
initiative
(Allington,
2005).
Additionally,
the
NRP
report
was
founded
on
a

research‐based
premise
and
pushed
forward
the
federal
agenda
for
research‐based

instruction
(Shanahan,
2003).
The
NRP
report
was
meant
to
inform
policy
makers,
parents,

and
educators
about
the
best
evidence‐based
practices
for
reading
instruction;
its
purpose

was
not
to
endorse
various
commercial
programs,
find
the
silver
bullet
for
reading

instruction,
or
be
completely
exhaustive
(Shanahan,
2003).
Indeed,
there
is
no
silver
bullet

of
reading
instruction;
good
reading
instruction
is
done
by
good
teachers
with
a
wide
range

of
instructional
practices
geared
toward
individual
students
(Allington,
2005;
Pressley,

2006;
Pressley,
et
al.,
2001;
Shanahan,
2003).

No
Child
Left
Behind.




The
No
Child
Left
Behind
(NCLB)
Act
of
2002
was
a
reauthorization
of
the


Elementary
and
Secondary
Education
Act
and
represented
a
new
level
of
involvement
in

education
for
the
federal
government
(Davenport
&
Jones,
2005;
Hardman
&
Dawson,

2008;
McGuinn,
2005;
Stallings,
2002;
Umpstead,
2008).

With
the
Goals
2000
legislation
of

1994,
the
standards
and
accountability
movement
began
to
take
shape,
but
the
NCLB
act

shifted
the
standards
approach
to
education
from
the
states
to
the
federal
government
and

included
a
more
systematic
set
of
accountability
principles
(Hardman
&
Dawson,
2008;

McGuinn,
2005).
The
NCLB
act
set
out
specific
goals
that
the
states
had
to
meet
in
order
to

11






receive
funding
and
forsake
sanctions.
Essentially,
NCLB
called
for
the
states
to
hire
highly

qualified
teachers,
set
and
reach
high
academic
standards,
assess
student
progress
toward

the
academic
standards,
and
report
data
on
student
progress
or
face
sanctions
(Umpstead,

2008).





Specifically,
NCLB
allowed
states
to
set
their
own
standards
in
math,
reading,
and


science,
but
the
schools
had
to
report
students’
achievement
disaggregated
into
categories

(McGuinn,
2005).
Student
data
had
to
be
disaggregated
by
racial
and
ethnic
groups,

socioeconomic
groups,
students
with
disabilities,
and
students
with
Limited
English

Proficiency
(McGuinn,
2005).
Additionally,
in
order
to
determine
the
effectiveness
of
the

state
standards,
the
National
Assessment
of
Educational
Progress
(NAEP)
had
to
be
given

in
grades
four
and
eight
to
a
sample
of
students
to
assess
math
and
reading
(McGuinn,

2005).
NCLB
also
created
new
federal
programs
to
address
evidence‐based
instruction

including
the
Reading
First
initiative
and
Mathematics
and
Science
Partnerships
(McGuinn,

2005).
NCLB
created
an
educational
system
with
a
strong
focus
on
accountability
and

evidence‐based
instruction
that
was
tied
to
school
funding;
this
allowed
the
federal

government
to
have
an
unprecedented
influence
on
the
nation’s
education
agenda

(Davenport
&
Jones,
2005;
McGuinn,
2005).
NCLB
also
placed
special
education
students

and
other
disadvantaged
groups
of
students
in
the
spotlight
in
terms
of
accountability.





The
Reading
First
initiative
is
the
arm
of
NCLB
that
addresses
scientific,
evidence‐

based
reading
instruction.
Reading
First
used
information
and
recommendations
from
the

National
Reading
Panel
report
to
create
reading
programs
that
were
based
in
phonics

(Stevens,
2003).
According
to
the
United
States
Department
of
Education
website,
the
goal

of
Reading
First
is
to
put,
“proven
methods
of
early
reading
instruction
in
classrooms”

12






("Reading
First,"
2008).
The
website
further
defines
proven
methods
as
“scientifically

based
reading
research”
which
will
“ensure
that
all
children
learn
to
read
well
by
the
end
of

third
grade”
(U.S.
Department
of
Education,
2008).
The
focus
on
early
literacy
with
a
hope

that
it
would
have
a
“vaccination”
effect
on
adolescent
literacy
skills
never
came
to
fruition

for
adolescent
readers
based
on
their
relatively
flat
reading
scores
over
the
past
thirty

years
and
the
rising
literacy
scores
for
elementary
children
(Shanahan
&
Shanahan,
2008
,

p.
43).


No
Child
Left
Behind
and
special
education.





The
No
Child
Left
Behind
Act
(NCLB)
brought
special
education
into
the
arena
of


standards‐driven
education
reform
that
had
been
dominating
education
policy
in
the

United
States
since
the
release
of
A
Nation
At
Risk
in
1983
(Hardman
&
Dawson,
2008).

Requiring
all
students
with
disabilities
to
meet
the
same
bar
of
achievement
as
general

education
students
seemed
intuitively
against
the
idea
of
individualized
instruction.
Some

schools
and
states
were
concerned
that
students
with
disabilities
had
high
failure
rates

because
they
were
not
exposed
to
the
general
education
curriculum
because
the
schools

deemed
that
the
general
education
curriculum
was
not
appropriate
for
students
with

disabilities
(Katsiyannis,
Zhang,
Ryan,
&
Jones,
2007).
However,
the
Individuals
with

Disabilities
Education
Act
(IDEA)
of
1997
and
2004,
both
include
statements
about
the

benefits
of
high
expectations,
access
to
the
general
education
curriculum
and
in
2004,

access
to
the
general
education
curriculum
in
the
general
education
setting
(Hardman
&

Dawson,
2008).
Hence,
the
2004
reauthorization
of
IDEA
required
states
to
establish
goals

for
students
with
disabilities
in
alignment
with
their
Adequate
Yearly
Progress
(AYP)
goals

as
well
as
address
graduation
rates
and
dropout
rates
for
students
with
disabilities
(2007).

13






Furthermore,
IDEA
required
that
all
students
with
disabilities
be
included
in
all
state
and

district
assessment
(in
accordance
with
NCLB)
with
appropriate
accommodations
or

alternative
assessments
as
addressed
in
each
student’s
Individualized
Education
Plan
(IEP)

(Katsiyannis,
et
al,
2007).
This
alignment
between
NCLB
and
IDEA
solidified
special

education’s
place
in
the
standards‐driven,
accountability
movement
in
education
in
the

United
States.






The
standards‐driven
system
of
accountability
has
produced
some
positive


outcomes
for
students
with
disabilities.
According
to
Katsiyannis,
Zhang,
Ryan
and
Jones

(2007)
more
students
are
participating
in
high‐stakes
testing
and
their
performance
on

these
tests
is
increasing.
Likewise,
Nagle,
Yunker,
and
Malmgren
(2006)
found
that
state

assessment
participation
afforded
students
with
disabilities
new
opportunities.

Additionally,
more
special
education
teachers
are
engaged
in
training
on
standards
and

assessment
(Kaysiyannis,
et
al,
2007).
While
the
Individual
Education
Plan
(IEP)
has
often

been
seen
as
a
“compliance
paper”
versus
an
“accountability
tool,”
Ysseldyke
et
al,
(2004)

report
that
IEP
teams
can
use
the
document
as
a
tool
to
make
decisions
about
high‐stakes

testing
and
the
standards
that
need
to
be
addressed.
The
key
to
success
for
students
with

disabilities
in
the
general
education
curriculum
and
on
high‐stakes
testing
is
the
planning,

accommodations,
and
instruction
that
must
come
first.
Ysseldyke
et
al.
(2004)
further

asserts
that
assessments
foster
better
communication
between
the
school
and
parents
in

regards
to
students’
skills,
accommodations
and
the
options
that
are
available
to
students.

Likewise
Voltz
and
Fore
(2006)
do
concede
that
one
benefit
of
the
standards‐based
reform

is
that
that
teachers
who
may
have
previously
written
off
students
as
unable
to
achieve
at
a

standards‐based
level
will
now
be
forced
to
at
least
attempt
to
instruct
students
at
a
higher

14






level
and
school
administrations
will
be
forced
to
be
accountable
for
the
achievement
of
all

students.
Hence,
with
increased
communication,
planning,
and
instruction
in
the
general

education
curriculum
along
with
more
training
for
teachers,
students
with
disabilities
can

achieve
on
high‐stakes
assessments.





However,
there
are
still
multiple
concerns
about
the
link
between
assessment
and


learning
for
students
with
disabilities
and
how
the
standards‐based
reforms
will
affect

students
with
disabilities
in
terms
of
both
school
completion
and
appropriate
curriculum

attainment
(Hardman
&
Dawson,
2008;
Katsiyannis,
et
al.,
2007;
Nagle,
Yunker,
&

Malmgren,
2006;
Voltz
&
Fore,
2006;
Ysseldyke,
et
al.,
2004).
While
there
is
no
doubt
that

standards‐driven
accountability
has
changed
education,
there
is
still
a
lack
of
consensus
on

whether
the
accountability
movement
enhances
student
learning
(Nagel
et
al,
2006).

Hardman
and
Dawson
(2008)
assert
that
the
standards
movement
is
influenced
by
a

constructivist
approach
to
instruction
whereby
teachers
guide
and
students
are
active
and

self‐regulated.
This
runs
counter
to
the
explicit
skill‐based
instruction
favored
in
special

education
and
it
is
questioned
whether
special
education
students
who
are
not
inherently

self‐directed
will
be
able
to
integrate
skills
in
a
general
education
setting
with
a

constructivist
approach
to
instruction
(Hardman
&
Dawson,
2008).
A
potential
answer
to

this
instructional
question
is
a
shared
ownership
between
special
and
general
education,

however
there
is
not
evidence
that
the
divide
between
special
education
and
general

education
has
been
closed
(Nagel
et
al,
2006).




The
standards‐based
accountability
movement
has
given
rise
to
individual


accountability
in
the
form
of
grade‐level
and
graduation
completion
exams
(Katsiyannis,
et

al.,
2007).
Additionally,
some
fear
that
high
stakes
tests
may
cause
low
performing
students

15






to
be
“pushed
out”
in
order
to
raise
the
test
scores
of
the
school
as
a
whole
(Sunderman,

Kim,
&
Orfield,
2005).
While
Katsiyannis
et
al.
(2007)
report
that
high
school
graduation

rates
for
students
with
disabilities
rose
between
1996
and
2000
and
dropout
rates

decreased
during
that
time,
that
was
well
before
NCLB
act
of
2001
was
beginning
to

influence
policy
implementation.
Indeed,
Swanson
(2008)
reports
that
the
average

nationwide
graduation
rate
is
around
70%,
however,
in
urban
areas
it
is
closer
to
50%
and

for
the
subgroups
of
African‐Americans
and
Latinos
even
lower.
With
anecdotal
evidence
of

students
being
pushed
out
or
counseled
into
getting
General
Equivalence
Degrees
(GED)

and
falling
graduation
rates,
meeting
the
unique
needs
of
at‐risk
and
special
education

students
in
the
general
education
setting
should
be
a
major
concern
for
the
standards‐
based
accountability
system
(Sunderman,
et
al.,
2005).




This
retrospective
clearly
shows
that
the
trajectory
of
reading
initiatives
has
been


moving
toward
a
standards‐based,
evidence‐based
instructional
model
with
a
focus
on

early
intervention
and
prevention.
The
Reading
First
initiative
clearly
states
that
their
goal

is
to
have
all
children
reading
well
by
the
third
grade,
which
is
a
laudable
goal.
However,

reading
is
a
life
long
quest
and
good
third
grade
reading
is
an
important
first
step,
but

reading,
writing
and
critical
thinking
should
be
important
goals
throughout
a
child’s

education.
As
the
National
Assessment
of
Education
Program
(NAEP)
has
demonstrated
by

examining
reading
through
the
grades,
reading
should
be
a
priority
for
all
students
at
all

grade
levels.


National
Assessment
of
Education
Program.




The
National
Assessment
of
Education
Program
(NAEP)
has
assessed
reading


abilities
of
students
in
the
fourth,
eighth
and
twelfth‐grades
in
both
public
and
private

16






schools
since
1992
(Livingston,
2008).
Students
are
rated
as
“Basic”
which
means
partial

mastery
of
skills,
“Proficient”
which
means
that
they
have
demonstrated
competency,
and

“Advanced”
which
means
superior
performance
(Livingston,
2008).
Additionally,
when

students
are
not
able
to
meet
the
Basic
level,
they
are
labeled
as
“below
basic”
(Livingston,

2008).

Overall,
the
2007
trend
of
the
NAEP
assessments
show
that
fourth
and
eighth‐
graders
national
averages
were
higher
in
2007
over
1992
by
four
and
two
points

respectively
(Livingston,
2008).





While
the
NAEP
testing
seems
straightforward
and
shows
small
improvements
in


reading
since
1992,
the
NAEP
and
literacy
testing
in
general
has
proven
controversial

(Davenport
&
Jones,
2005).
NAEP
was
in
existence
long
before
NCLB
was
enacted;
its
first

administration
was
in
1969
(Hombo,
2003).
NAEP
reports
national
trends
and
does
not

report
regional
or
individual
data,
making
the
NAEP
essentially
a
low‐stakes
assessment.

However,
the
NAEP
is
one
of
the
only
national
standardized
measures,
and
hence,
it
has

increasingly
been
seen
as
a
key
part
of
the
nation’s
reporting
system.


The
NCLB
act,

Reading
First
and
popular
media
have
all
focused
on
the
NAEP
findings,
thereby
elevating

the
importance
of
the
assessment
as
being
increasingly
high‐stakes
(Hombo,
2003).
Along

with
the
high
stakes
testing
come
concerns
over
teaching
to
the
test
or
test
anxiety

(Hombo,
2003).
Additionally,
there
has
been
some
concern
over
the
discrepancy
between

NAEP
scores
and
the
scores
of
students
on
state
assessment
standards
(Cavanagh,
2007;

Davenport
&
Jones,
2005;
Hombo,
2003).
States
are
allowed
to
chose
or
create
their
own

assessments
in
reading
(and
other
subjects)
to
determine
the
percentage
of
students
who

are
proficient,
however;
those
test
often
do
not
line
up
neatly
with
the
results
of
the
NAEP

(Cavanagh,
2007;
Davenport
&
Jones,
2005).
This
chasm
between
the
tests
is
often
used

17






when
criticizing
both
the
efficacy
of
the
NCLB
act
and
the
states’
ability
to
choose
fair
and

equitable
assessments
(Davenport
&
Jones,
2005).
All
in
all,
both
NAEP
and
the
Program
for

International
Student
Assessment
(PISA)
show
that
only
30%
of
U.S.
students
are
proficient

readers;
defined
as
able
to
both
understand
and
read
the
text.
This
statistic
has
remained

relatively
constant
at
a
national
level
for
thirty
years
(Davenport
&
Jones,
2005)





The
NAEP
demonstrates
some
growth
in
the
fourth‐grade
reading
scores
but

stagnant
results
in
the
eighth
and
twelfth‐grade
reading
scores
have
been
reported
since

the
1970’s
(Christenbury,
Bomer,
&
Smagorinsky,
2009;
Heller
&
Greenleaf,
2007).
Indeed,

the
NAEP
data
has
been
integral
in
highlighting
the
importance
of
early
intervention
and

prevention
efforts,
such
as
Reading
First.

However,
this
emphasis
on
early
intervention

and
prevention
may
have
shifted
attention
away
from
secondary
comprehension.
Given
the

stagnant
reading
levels
demonstrated
by
secondary
students,
a
focus
on
secondary
readers

is
warranted.
Struggling
middle
and
high
school
readers
may
be
able
to
read
the
words
on

the
page,
but
they
struggle
to
comprehend,
think
critically,
follow
instructions
and
draw

conclusions;
all
skills
essential
for
both
workplace
and
postsecondary
educational
pursuits

(Christenbury,
et
al.).

The
NAEP
data
demonstrates
the
need
for
continued
literacy

instruction
for
adolescents,
which
moves
beyond
reading
words
and
towards
critical

thinking,
writing
and
understanding
of
text.

Policy
Influence
on
Secondary
Students





The
following
section
will
discuss
the
importance
of
literacy
instruction
in
light
of


the
policies
and
trends
that
affect
secondary
students.
Increasingly,
high
schools
have

mandated
criteria
for
graduation
and
diploma
granting
that
have
upped
the
ante
for
many

high
school
students
(A.
S.
Erickson,
et
al.,
2007).
Additionally,
more
students
with

18






disabilities
are
educated
within
the
general
education
setting
in
order
to
comply
with
Least

Restrictive
Environment
(LRE)
mandate
of
the
Individuals
with
Disabilities
Education
Act

(IDEA)
and
the
No
Child
Left
Behind
Act’s
(NCLB)
highly
qualified
teachers
mandate.

Finally,
I
will
examine
the
intersection
of
literacy
and
the
twenty‐fist
century
workplace,

postsecondary
education
and
emerging
technologies.

High
school
mandates.




Since
the
1980’s
and
especially
in
the
wake
of
the
report,
A
Nation
at
Risk,
which


called
for
higher
academic
standards
to
bolster
American
youth’s
competitiveness
in
the

world
market,
graduation
requirements
and
high
stakes
testing
has
been
on
the
rise
in

United
States
high
schools
(A.
S.
Erickson,
et
al.,
2007;
Vernon,
et
al.,
2003).
By
2006,

twenty‐three
states
had
passed
laws
requiring
high
school
completion
exit
exams
(Warren,

et
al.,
2006).
High
school
exit
examinations
are
coupled
with
increased
graduation

requirements
and
higher
academic
standards
(Teitelbaum,
2003).
While
this
movement
to

place
more
stringent
requirements
on
secondary
students
through
mandatory
exit
exams,

higher
standards,
and
more
graduation
requirements
was
done
to
improve
achievement,

the
current
National
Assessment
of
Education
Program
(NAEP)
data
show
a
flat
growth
in

the
area
of
literacy
for
both
eighth
and
twelfth
graders
with
only
one‐third
of
those

students
reading
at
a
proficient
or
above
proficient
level
(Heller
&
Greenleaf,
2007).





Passing
high
stakes
tests
and
mandatory
exit
exams
in
order
to
earn
a
high
school


diploma
is
an
important
milestone
for
students
because
a
high
school
diploma
is
still
a

requirement
for
such
things
as
college
admissions,
entry
into
the
military,
employment
and

eligibility
for
government
financial
aide
(A.
S.
Erickson,
et
al.,
2007).

Due
to
students’

inability
to
pass
mandatory
exit
exams,
many
states
are
offering
alternative
diplomas,

19






especially
to
students
with
disabilities
(A.
S.
Erickson,
et
al.;
Katsiyannis,
et
al.,
2007).
While

the
use
of
high
stakes
testing
to
determine
eligibility
for
graduation
has
been
legally

questioned,
the
courts
have
upheld
schools’
rights
to
institute
such
policies
as
long
as

students
are
given
enough
time
to
prepare,
are
tested
on
material
that
they
are
taught,
and

are
given
reasonable
accommodations
(O'Neill,
2001).
Students
with
disabilities
perform

poorer
on
exit
exams
than
students
in
the
general
population,
for
example,
74%
of
students

with
learning
disabilities
failed
Indiana’s
graduation
exit
exam
in
2000
(A.
S.
Erickson,
et

al.,
2007,
p.
118).

Thus,
many
of
the
negative
consequences
associated
with
not
having
a

standard
high
school
diploma
will
affect
theses
students
for
a
lifetime
(Erickson,
et
al,

2007).





One
way
to
address
this
intersection
of
higher
standards
and
lower
or
flat


achievement
for
high
school
students
may
lie
in
the
areas
of
instruction
and
literacy.
A

study
of
social
studies
teachers
in
Mississippi
found
that
teachers
report
that
they
spend

more
time
doing
teacher
centered
practices
such
as
lecture,
multiple
choice
questions
and

use
of
the
textbook,
and
fostering
procedural,
organization
and
review
skills
when
faced

with
teaching
for
achievement
on
high
stakes
tests
(Volger,
2005).
Conversely,
teachers

reported
using
fewer
strategies
focused
on
teaching
students
such
skills
as
higher
order

thinking
(Volger).
This
is
in
contrast
to
what
Heller
and
Greenleaf
(2007)
assert
is
needed

in
order
to
improve
student
achievement
in
the
middle
and
high
school
years.
Indeed,

Heller
and
Greenleaf
call
for
more
comprehension
and
higher
order
thinking
in
all
content

areas
with
recognition
that
each
content
area
will
need
to
develop
its
unique
vocabulary

and
skill
set.
 

Least
Restrictive
Environment
and
Individuals
with
Disabilities
Act.

20









The
concept
of
Least
Restrictive
Environment
(LRE)
can
be
traced
to
the
1960’s
and


is
based
on
the
constitutional
principles
of
due
process,
equal
protection
and
liberty
(S.
J.

Taylor,
2004).

Least
Restrictive
Environment
advocates
for
community‐based
and
school‐
based
placements
for
persons
with
disabilities
along
a
continuum
of
settings
from
least

restrictive,
typically
an
individual
home
or
general
education
setting
to
most
restrictive,

typically
an
institutional
or
special
school
setting.
The
concept
of
LRE
became
rooted
in

special
education
when
it
was
written
into
the
Education
for
All
Handicapped
Children
Act

(PL
94‐142)
of
1975
(Taylor,
2004).


Due
to
the
low
academic
performance
of
students
with
disabilities
coupled
with

more
students
identified
as
disabled
and
demands
for
social
equity,
more
students
with

disabilities
are
being
educated
in
the
general
education
setting
(Rea,
et
al.,
2002).

For

example,
during
the
1995‐96,
school
year,
45.3%
of
students
with
disabilities
spent
80%
or

more
of
their
day
in
the
general
education
setting,
however,
during
the
2004‐2005,
school

year,
52.1%
of
students
with
disabilities
spent
80%
or
more
of
their
day
in
general

education
("Contexts
of
Elementary
and
Seconday
Education,"
2006).


However,
the
question
remains
whether
this
trend
toward
placement
in
the
general

education
classrooms
is
raising
the
academic
performance
of
students
with
disabilities.

Fore
et
al,
(2008)
assert
that
there
is
not
a
general
consensus
on
whether
general
education

placement
is
better
academically
for
students
with
learning
disabilities.
However,
Rea
et
al

(2002)
found
in
their
examination
of
a
small
suburban
school
that
students
with
learning

disabilities
included
in
language
arts,
math,
science
and
social
studies
earned
higher
course

grades
and
achieved
comparable
scores
on
state
tests
as
their
pull
out
counterparts.
It
is

theorized
that
students
can
achieve
with
the
standard
school
curriculum
with
support
in

21






the
general
education
classrooms,
however
this
was
a
relatively
small
sample
(Rea
et
al,

2002).


The
bottom
line
is
that
more
students
with
disabilities
are
receiving
their
education

in
the
general
education
setting.
Consequently,
more
students
have
access
to
the
general

education
curriculum
and
due
to
the
Annual
Yearly
Progress
mandates
of
No
Child
Left

Behind,
more
students
with
disabilities
are
participating
in
high
stakes
tests
(Steele,
2007).

In
order
to
determine
how
students
are
fairing,
it
is
imperative
to
examine
both
the

graduation
rates
for
students
with
disabilities
along
with
the
post‐secondary
outcomes
for

students
with
disabilities.

Graduation
Rates
and
Post­secondary
Outcomes




Despite
the
mandatory
exit
exams,
more
rigorous
academic
standards
in
math
and


science
and
more
access
to
the
general
education
curriculum,
all
aimed
at
increasing
high

school
student
achievement,
many
students
are
failing
to
obtain
high
school
diplomas
(C.
B.

Swanson,
2008).

The
importance
of
a
high
school
diploma
is
reflected
in
the
harmful
life

outcomes
associated
with
high
school
dropouts
especially
for
high
school
dropouts
from

minority
groups
and
special
education.






Dropping
out
of
school
for
students
with
disabilities
is
associated
with
many


negative
outcomes
for
the
students.
According
to
the
second
wave
of
the
National

Longitudinal
Transition
Study
(NLTS‐2)
high
school
drop
outs
are
18%
less
likely
than
high

school
completers
to
enroll
in
two
to
four
year
colleges
when
cognitive
abilities
and

achievement
are
controlled
for
in
the
analysis
(Wagner,
Newman,
Cameto,
Lavine,
&
Garza,

2006,
p.
11).
Dropouts
are
more
likely
to
work
more
hours,
live
independently
and
support

children
and
less
likely
to
have
a
driver’s
license,
register
to
vote,
or
have
a
checking

22






account
(Wagner
et
al,
2006,
p.
11).
Additionally,
a
third
of
all
dropouts
with
disabilities

have
spent
a
night
in
jail,
which
is
a
three‐fold
increase
over
student
with
disabilities
who

complete
high
school
(Wagner
et
al,
2006,
p.
11).
High
school
completion
affords
students

with
disabilities
additional
school
and
work
opportunities
after
secondary
school.


However,
the
reality
for
up
to
half
of
all
urban
youth,
including
students
with

disabilities,
is
that
a
high
school
diploma
is
out
of
reach
(C.
B.
Swanson,
2008).
Overall,
it
is

estimated
that
only
70%
of
the
students
in
the
United
States
complete
high
school
(C.
B.

Swanson,
2008).
Additionally,
the
NLTS‐2
reports
that
youth
with
disabilities
from
low

income
households,
defined
as
below
$25,000
per
year
income,
have
a
64
percent
high

school
completion
rate
versus
an
82
percent
high
school
completion
rate
of
students
from

households
above
the
$50,000
annual
income
mark
(Wagner,
et
al.,
2006,
p.
6).

Furthermore,
the
NLTS‐2
found
that
white
students
with
disabilities
scored
higher
(7
to
13

points)
on
all
academic
subtests
than
African‐American
students
with
disabilities,
Hispanic

students
with
disabilities
or
students
with
disabilities
from
other
ethnicities
(Wagner,
et
al,

2006,
p.
5).
While
there
is
an
achievement
difference
related
to
race/ethnicity,
there
is
no

significant
difference
between
high
school
completion
rates
for
students
with
disabilities

from
different
racial
and
ethnic
backgrounds
(Wagner
et
al,
2006,
p.
6).
Students
with

sensory
impairments
(visual
and
hearing)
have
the
highest
rates
of
high
school
completion

at
95
and
90
percent
respectively,
students
with
autism
and
orthopedic
impairments

completed
school
at
a
rate
of
85
percent
while
students
with
learning
disabilities,
mental

impairment,
traumatic
brain
injury
and
speech
and
other
health
impairments
complete

high
school
between
72
and
79
percent
of
the
time,
only
students
with
emotional

impairments
have
lower
rates
of
high
school
completion
at
56
percent
(Wagner
et
al,
2006,

23






p.
6).
Students
with
multiple
disabilities
tend
to
stay
in
school
until
the
age
of
21,
however

they
are
the
least
likely
to
obtain
a
high
school
diploma
(Wagner
et
al,
2006,
p.
13).


These
alarming
statistics
highlight
an
emerging
crisis
in
the
United
States.
It
is

hoped
that
our
public
education
system
will
afford
students
educational
opportunities
in

their
youth
that
will
allow
them
to
pursue
higher
education,
vocational
training
or
work

upon
completion,
however
with
sinking
graduation
rates,
that
realization
is
not
a
reality
for

many
students
(C.
B.
Swanson,
2008).
Additionally,
it
is
not
a
reality
for
the
neediest
of

students;
students
in
urban
settings
and
many
students
with
disabilities
(C.
B.
Swanson,

2008;
Wagner,
et
al.,
2006).
The
lack
of
a
high
school
diploma
reduces
students’

opportunities
in
the
areas
of
post‐secondary
education
and
work.


Post­secondary
requirements.




The
twenty‐first
century
has
brought
numerous
changes
in
education,
technology


and
the
workplace.
Our
society
is
becoming
evermore
dependent
on
new
digital
literacies

to
find
information,
create
information
and
communicate
(Kim
&
Kamil,
2004;
Rhodes
&

Robnolt,
2009).
Indeed,
94%
of
twelve
to
seventeen
year
olds
who
have
access
to
the

Internet,
report
using
the
Internet
for
school
work
with
41%
reporting
that
they
have
used

instant
messaging
or
e‐mail
to
contact
teachers
or
classmates
for
help
with
school
work

(Lenhart,
Simon,
&
Graziano,
2001).
It
is
not
just
in
the
classroom
that
literacy
demands

have
changed,
but
also
in
the
workplace,
with
writing
demands
on
the
rise
as
new

technologies
create
an
environment
were
record
keeping
and
information
processing
are

more
in
demand
than
ever
before
(Beaufort,
2009).

With
the
quickly
changing,

technological
landscape
of
twenty‐first
century
life,
youth
must
rely
on
their
abilities
to


24






read,
write,
think,
and
process
information
more
than
ever
before
(Beaufort,
2009;
Schmar‐
Dobler,
2003).







Today’s
students
are
faced
with
more
technology
and
more
change,
however,
they


must
rely
on
strong
traditional
literacy
skills
in
order
to
navigate
their
way
through
the

new
technologies
(Coiro
&
Dobler,
2007;
Gambrell,
2005;
Kim
&
Kamil,
2004;
Schmar‐
Dobler,
2003).
Indeed,
students
use
similar
comprehension
strategies
when
reading
paper

text
and
online
text,
such
as
activating
prior
knowledge,
monitoring
comprehension,

determining
important
ideas,
synthesizing,
drawing
inferences
and
asking
questions

(Schmar‐Dobler,
2003).
Likewise,
Kim
and
Kamil
(2004)
assert
that
strong
literacy
skills

are
needed
when
communicating
online
due
to
the
lack
of
eye
contact
and
the
inherent

anonymity
of
online
communication,
the
writer
must
by
able
to
communicate
their

meaning
accurately.
This
is
not
to
imply
that
online
and
traditional
text
literacies
are

identical,
however,
it
is
clear
that
there
is
a
distinct
overlap
in
skills
that
are
needed
to
be

successful
in
both
literacies.





The
need
for
strong
literacy
skills
in
the
twenty‐first
century
spills
over
into
the


workplace
for
students
working
at
virtually
every
level
(Beaufort,
2009).

The
majority
of

written
documents
in
the
workplace
from
manuals
to
memos
are
written
at
the
high
school

or
college
level
of
difficulty
(Kaestle,
et
al.,
2001).
Additionally,
due
to
workplace
demands

and
restructuring,
workers
at
all
levels
are
likely
to
encounter
unfamiliar
written

information
that
needs
to
be
managed
such
as
charts,
graphs,
manuals,
computer
screen

information,
and
written
forms
(Kaestle
et
al,
2001).
Finally,
workplace
literacy
is
a

concern
for
all
levels
of
employment
given
that
more
than
half
of
today’s
workers
do
not

have
a
college
degree
and
the
majority
of
workers
report
that
they
learned
all
their
basic

25






literacy
skills
at
home
or
at
school
with
only
8%
seeking
additional
basic
skills
from
their

employers
(Kaestle
et
al,
2001,
Beaufort,
2009).
Given
the
literacy
demands
placed
on

workers,
the
role
of
the
schools
in
providing
comprehensive
literacy
skills
for
students,
at

all
levels,
is
imperative.


Secondary
Reading




In
the
following
section,
the
goals
and
processes
of
reading
are
examined
for


secondary
students.
It
is
clear
that
high
level
literacy
skills
such
as
comprehension
and

critical
thinking
are
valued
in
our
society,
however
these
skills
are
also
critical
for
students

if
they
are
to
graduate
from
high
school,
seek
post‐secondary
employment
or
post‐
secondary
education.
Our
twenty‐first
century
society
demands
high
levels
of
literacy
skills

from
our
students
and
our
workers.
Thus,
it
is
important
to
examine
both
the
processes
of

reading
along
with
how
to
best
foster
better
comprehension
for
secondary
students.


Goal
of
reading
instruction.

The
goal
of
reading
instruction
is
not
to
teach
children
to
read
the
words,
or
to
read

quickly
and
efficiently,
but
to
understand
what
they
have
read
and
to
be
able
to
use
reading

to
enrich
their
lives.
A
focus
on
comprehension
occurred
in
the
late
1970’s
with
Durkin’s

(1978/1979)
study
which
looked
at
third
through
sixth
grade
classrooms
and

comprehension.
Durkin
observed
the
assessment
of
comprehension
skills,
but
not
much

teaching
of
those
skills.
For
example,
students
are
often
asked
to
summarize,
self‐question

or
predict,
however
they
were
not
necessarily
taught
how
to
perform
those
tasks
while

reading.
During
the
next
few
decades,
the
focus
of
comprehension
moved
from
study
skills

instruction
to
strategies
instruction
and
focused
on
theories
such
as
schema
theory,


26






metacognition,
Vygotskian
theories
of
development,
and
reader
response
theory
(Pressley,

2006)

In
today’s
complex
world,
good
readers
must
know
why
they
are
reading
and

recognize
when
they
are
not
meeting
that
goal,
and
change
gears
as
needed
(Westby,

2004).
This
self‐awareness
or
metacognition
of
reading
coupled
with
the
ability
and

knowledge
to
change
“gears”
or
reading
strategies
as
warranted
are
hallmarks
of
good

readers
(Pressley
&
Afflerbach,
1995;
Pressley
&
Lundeberg,
2008a).
It
is
not
surprising

then
that
teachers
are
well
aware
of
the
need
for
more
comprehension
instruction

especially
in
the
content
areas
(Pressley,
2004).
Reading
comprehension
for
secondary

students
is
often
over
looked
in
lieu
of
content
instruction
even
though
there
is
a
general

consensus
that
comprehension
is
a
goal
of
reading
(RAND
Reading
Study
Group,
2002).


Secondary
content
teachers
generally
do
not
see
themselves
as
reading
teachers,

even
though
they
ask
their
students
to
comprehend
information
from
informational
print

and
digital
media
(Bean,
1990;
Sturtevant
&
Linek,
2003).

The
nature
of
content
area
texts

also
indicates
that
these
texts
are
distinctly
different
than
narrative
texts.

Students
are

exposed
to
texts
that
utilize
many
different
text
structures
(e.g.,
compare/contrast,

cause/effect,
problem/solution,
timeline/sequence,
argumentation)
and
utilize
discipline

specific
vocabulary
that
represent
complex
concepts
(e.g.,
photosynthesis,
Westward

Expansion)
(Ciardiello,
2002;
Cook
&
Mayer,
1988;
Freebody
&
Anderson,
1983;

Montelongo,
Berber‐Jimenez,
Hernandez,
&
Hosking,
2006).
Students
are
increasingly

asked
to
synthesize
information
from
multiple
sources
of
information,
such
as
texts,
digital

media,
graphs,
and
tables.

Each
of
these
unique
features
of
informational
text
increases
the

cognitive
demands
on
secondary
students.

These
demands
are
evidenced
by
the
extensive

27






literatures
on
the
comprehension
challenges
of
expository
texts,
including
difficulties

students
have
in
utilizing
text
structure
to
aid
comprehension
(Ciardiello,
2002;
Cook
&

Mayer,
1988),
summarizing
main
ideas
(P.

Afflerbach,
1990),
utilizing
metacognitive

strategies
to
guide
breakdowns
in
comprehension
monitoring
(Duke,
Pressley,
&
Hilden,

2004;
Hacker,
2004;
Klingner
&
Vaughn,
1999;
Westby,
2004),
and
effectively
using

cognitive
strategies
before,
during,
and
after
reading
(Klingner
&
Vaughn,
1999;
Palincsar
&

Brown,
1984;
Sharon
Vaughn,
Klingner,
&
Bryant,
2001).



Learning
theories
and
comprehension.

In
order
to
fully
understand
the
scope
of
influences
on
reading
comprehension,

various
learning
theories
related
to
reading
comprehension
can
be
examined.
The
learning

theories
that
influenced
reading
follow
a
somewhat
time
oriented
path
beginning
with

behaviorist
ideas
in
the
1950’s
and
early
1960’s,
moving
toward
an
interest
in
cognition

beginning
in
the
mid
1960’s
through
today
(Alexander
&
Fox,
2004).
Beginning
in
the
mid

1980’s
and
evolving
with
increasing
sophistication,
the
sociocultural
aspects
of
reading
are

examined
(Alexander
&
Fox,
2004).

During
the
1950’s
and
early
1960’s
a
behaviorist
view
of
learning
was
predominate

and
post
World
War
II
America
was
ripe
with
a
baby
boom
of
new
learners
entering
school

(Alexander
&
Fox,
2004).
Reading
was
viewed
as
a
conditioned
behavior
that
was
the
result

of
careful
programming
and
practice
(Alexander
&
Fox,
2004).
A
Skinnerian
perspective
did

not
view
reading
as
a
developmental
process,
but
a
set
of
behaviors
acquired
through
the

manipulation
of
the
environment
(Alexander
&
Fox,
2004).
From
a
behaviorist
perspective,

observable
behavior
is
of
paramount
importance
and
anything
that
cannot
be
observed,

cannot
be
altered
by
the
outside
environment
(Kazdin,
1982).

Thus,
researchers
during

28






this
time
were
focused
on
the
components
of
reading
and
perceptual
activities
(Alexander

&
Fox,
2004).
For
example,
identifying
visual
signals
(i.e.
letter
“b”)
and
translating
that
into

sound,
using
sounds
to
make
words,
phrases
and
eventually
sentences
(Alexander
&
Fox,

2004).
Additionally,
the
behaviorist
research
was
focused
on
finding
instruments
and

means
for
remediation
(Alexander
&
Fox,
2004).

This
behaviorist
perspective
was
challenged
in
the
1960’s
with
the
Chomsky
view
of

linguistics
as
nativist
(Pearson,
2000).
Chomsky’s
view
of
language
was
that
it
was
both
a

complex
and
a
natural
process
that
children
were
hard
wired
to
learn
in
their
own

community
(Pearson,
2000).
This
perspective
challenged
the
behaviorist
view
and
opened

the
door
for
linguists
and
psycholinguists
to
explore
the
processes
of
reading
including

comprehension,
as
inner
workings
of
the
mind
and
to
examine
how
these
inner
workings

influenced
learning
to
read.
However,
the
behaviorist
perspective
did
contribute
to
the

development
of
reading
theory
by
opening
the
doors
to
the
processes
of
reading
involving

visual
cues
and
how
those
visual
cues
are
translated
into
sounds.


Chomsky’s
view
of
the
child
as
a
natural
learner
of
language
and
the

psycholinguistic
view
that
children
imitate
the
language
in
their
community,
was
set
aside

in
favor
to
a
cognitive
information
processing
view
(Alexander
&
Fox,
2004;
Pearson,

2000).

However,
Chomsky
and
the
psycholinguistics
would
be
revisited
in
the
form
of

sociocultural
theory
in
the
1980’s.

In
the
mid
1970’s,
emerging
new
technologies
and
intelligent
machines
enamored

the
United
States
populace,
thereby
fueling
a
fascination
with
how
the
human
mind
worked

in
terms
of
both
its
structure
and
processes.
This
fascination
was
also
individualistic
in

nature;
it
explored
how
the
individual
mind
worked
to
acquire
and
use
knowledge;

29






essentially
ignoring
the
naturalistic
and
sociocultural
underpinnings
of
the
Chomsky

perspective
and
the
psycholinguistic
perspective.
This
interest
coupled
with
the
federal

government’s
increase
in
funding
of
reading
research
fueled
the
research
and
resulting

theories
focusing
on
cognitive
information
processing
(Alexander
&
Fox,
2004).

Research
into
cognitive
information
processing
changed
the
traditional
view
of

reading
comprehension
by
introducing
the
idea
of
schema
theory,
which
is
still
influential

today
(Alexander
&
Fox,
2004).
Six
functions
of
schemata
were
provided
by
Anderson

(1978)
and
Anderson
and
Pichert
(1978)
which
outline
how
schemata
affects
a
readers

ability
to
learn
and
remember
information,
including:
(1)
providing
niche
for
text

information
which
can
be
easily
accessed
when
needed,
(2)
allowing
a
reader
to
make

inferences,
(3)
making
determinations
on
the
importance
of
text
when
reading,
(4)

facilitating
the
ability
to
remember,
(5)
summarizing
and,
(6)
editing
read
information

(Anderson,
2004;
Pearson,
2000)

Cognitive
information
processing
further
influenced
reading
with
theories
on
prior

knowledge,
including
its
acquisition
and
how
readers
use
prior
knowledge
to
make
sense

of
texts
(Pichert
&
Anderson,
1977).
There
was
also
research
focusing
on
the
organization

of
the
mind
and
novice
versus
expert
readers
and
how
the
mind
was
different
for
each

learner
(Chi,
Feltovich,
&
Glaser,
1981;
Lundeberg,
1987).
Cognitive
theorists
also

considered
the
role
of
text
itself,
such
as
text
structure,
cohesion,
and
story
grammar

(Kintsch
&
van
Dijk,
1978;
B.
Taylor
&
Beach,
1984;
Thorndyke,
1977).
Finally,
research

emerged
on
the
techniques
and
instructional
environments
that
facilitated
the

understanding
of
text
such
as
inferencing,
self‐questioning,
predicting,
and
summarization

(Brown,
Campione,
&
Day,
1981;
Hansen,
1981;
Raphael
&
Wonnacott,
1985).

30









Interestingly,
in
the
mid‐eighties
the
computer‐based,
machine‐like,
and


individualistic
research
agendas
began
to
lose
favor
as
application
of
information

processing
in
classroom
and
group
settings
did
not
always
have
the
computer‐like

precision
that
was
hoped
for
when
applying
some
principles
(Alexander
&
Fox,
2004).

Additionally,
works
from
such
authors
as
Vygotsky,
Lave,
and
Heath
provided
both
an

alternate
viewpoint
as
well
as
alternate
methodologies
(ethnography,
qualitative)
for

literacy
researchers
(Alexander
&
Fox,
2004;
F.
Erickson,
1986;
Florio‐Ruane
&
Clark,
1983;

Michaels,
1981).


The
focus
shifted
from
individuals
acquiring
knowledge
to
how
the
understanding

of
many
influenced
the
learning
of
the
group;
thus
ushering
in
a
focus
on
both
the
social

and
cultural
underpinnings
of
literacy
(Cole,
1996;
Wertsch,
1991).
This
sociocultural

perspective
brought
new
ideas
about
literacy
to
the
forefront,
such
as
social
constructivism

(Bloome,
1994;
Moll,
Amanti,
Neff,
&
Gonzalez,
1992),
shared
cognition
(Cole,
1996;
Lave
&

Wenger,
1991),
and
cognitive
apprenticeship
(Rogoff,
1991)
.


Cognitive
perspective.




Each
of
the
above
perspectives
contributed
to
the
complex
understanding
of
reading


and
reading
comprehension
generally
held
today.
Indeed
the
RAND
Study
Group
(2002)

conceptualized
reading
comprehension
to
encompass
the
reader,
the
text
and
the
activity

with
all
three
dimensions
occurring
in
a
larger
sociocultural
context.

Using
this

conceptualization
of
reading
comprehension,
the
current
study
takes
a
micro
look
at

reading
comprehension
by
focusing
primarily
on
the
reader
as
he/she
employs
cognitive

strategies
while
reading
texts
independently.
The
RAND
Study
Group
acknowledges
that
a

portion
of
reading
comprehension
is
made
up
of
the
readers
cognitive
capabilities
such
as

31






attention,
memory,
analytic
ability,
inferencing
and
visualization.
Additionally,
strategies

that
good
readers
use
include
such
cognitive
processes
as
making
predictions,
asking

questions,
constructing
images,
clarifying,
summarizing,
using
prior
knowledge
and

paraphrasing
(Peter
Afflerbach,
2002;
Duke,
et
al.,
2004).
Focusing
on
these
cognitive

processes
of
reading
comprehension
in
no
way
implies
that
reading
comprehension
is
a

solely
cognitive
activity.

Indeed,
the
means
for
students
to
learn
such
cognitive
processes

are
sociocultural
in
nature
(i.e.,
learned
in
interactions
with
other
knowledgeable
others

through
various
activity
settings,
texts,
and
contexts).
However,
this
study
examines
the

cognitive
processes
and
strategies
employed
by
individual
readers
to
better
understand

how
those
cognitive
processes
and
strategies
are
utilized
during
the
reading
process.


Reading
Comprehension





In
order
to
examine
the
processes
and
strategies
students’
use
in
the
act
of


comprehending
text,
it
is
important
to
define
reading
comprehension
and
examine
the

reading
skills
related
to
successful
reading
comprehension.
The
following
definition
of

comprehension
is
adopted
from
the
RAND
Reading
Study
Group,
“the
process
of

simultaneously
extracting
and
constructing
meaning
through
interaction
and
involvement

with
written
language”
(RAND
Reading
Study
Group,
2002,
p.
11).

Globally,
students
who

can
read
accurately
and
fluently,
with
good
oral
vocabularies
and
listening
skills
coupled

with
expansive
world
knowledge
from
experiences
in
the
home,
school
and
community,

and
with
exposure
to
literacy
experiences
will
be
on
their
way
to
becoming
good

comprehenders
(RAND
Reading
Study
Group,
2002).
Undeniably,
reading
comprehension

is
a
complex
task,
however,
in
order
to
examine
reading
comprehension
on
a
closer
level,
it

is
beneficial
to
break
it
down
into
components
that
contribute
to
reading
comprehension

32






such
as
word
recognition,
vocabulary
knowledge,
fluency,
prior
knowledge
and

metacognition.


Word
recognition.




Word
recognition
is
an
important
facet
of
reading
comprehension
for
the
obvious


fact
that
one
cannot
comprehend
written
text
without
first
being
able
to
recognize
words

and
read
them.
This
however,
is
a
simplistic
view
of
the
processes
involved
in
learning
to

read.
In
order
to
deconstruct
this
process,
Ehri’s
phase
theory
for
acquiring
word
reading

skills
will
be
overviewed
(Ehri
&
Snowling,
2004).
The
four
phases
include
prealphabetic,

partial‐alphabetic,
full‐alphabetic,
and
consolidated‐alphabetic
phases
with
each
one

overlapping
the
other
(Ehri
&
Snowling,
2004).
In
the
prealphabetic
stage
children
do
not

have
a
grasp
of
the
letter‐sound
relationship
and
“read”
words
they
associate
with
visual

features
or
guessing.
This
phase
is
sometimes
referred
to
as
the
logographic
phase
because

children
will
read
words
that
they
are
exposed
to
in
their
environment
that
are
associated

with
visual
cues,
such
as
“stop,”
and
“McDonalds,”
however,
when
the
visual
cues
are

removed,
students
are
not
able
to
read
the
words
(Ehri
&
Snowling,
2004).
The
second

phase
is
the
pre‐alphabetic
stage
because
children
know
some
letters,
such
as
their
names.

However,
children
are
not
decoding,
but
reading
words
through
partial
letter
cues
often

coupled
with
visual
cues
such
as
seeing
the
letter
“b”
and
a
picture
of
a
barn
(Ehri
&

Snowling,
2004).
The
third
stage
is
the
full‐alphabetic
phase
because
students
have

knowledge
of
the
graphemes
and
phonemes
in
words
and
students
are
able
to
decode

unfamiliar
words
(Ehri
&
Snowling,
2004).
For
most
students,
this
phase
requires

instruction
in
phonemic
awareness
and
phonics
(Ehri
&
Snowling,
2004;
Pressley,
2006).

The
final
consolidated‐alphabetic
phase
is
characterized
by
the
student’s
working

33






knowledge
of
repeated
letter
sequences
and
blended
units,
such
as
affixes,
root
words,

onsets,
rimes,
and
syllables
(Ehri
&
Snowling,
2004).





In
typical
reading
development,
students
progress
through
the
stages
in
a
relatively


systematic
manner,
however,
that
is
not
the
case
for
all
students
and
some
students
face

obstacles
and
acquire
sub
skills
that
impact
their
ability
to
decode
words
in
a
fluent

manner
(Ehri
&
Snowling,
2004).
Problems
with
comprehension
crop
up
when
readers
are

not
able
to
fluently
decode
words
due
to
their
inability
to
decode
for
a
variety
of
reasons

(Ehri
&
Snowling,
2004).
Some
research
shows
that
good
and
poor
readers
make
similar

phonetic
mistakes,
however
poor
readers
make
more
of
them
(Mann,
2003).
Additionally,

readers
who
have
not
progressed
through
the
phases,
or
who
have
acquired
sub
skills,
may

be
utilizing
a
lot
of
working
memory
in
the
act
of
decoding
hence
impacting
their
ability
to

comprehend
(Ehri
&
Snowling,
2004;
Mann,
2003).
It
is
clear
that
the
ability
to
decode

words
effectively
and
fluently
has
an
impact
on
a
reader’s
ability
to
comprehend
text.


Vocabulary.




The
National
Reading
Panel
(2000)
asserts
there
is
a
link
between
text


comprehension
and
vocabulary
knowledge,
hence
the
more
vocabulary
knowledge,
either

orally
or
print‐wise,
the
better
a
student
will
be
able
to
comprehend
text.
Likewise,

Freebody
and
Anderson
(1983)
found
that
vocabulary
“had
a
consistent,
direct
effect
on

performance.”

(p.
286).
In
terms
of
students
with
learning
disabilities,
Vaughn
and

Klingner
(2004)
assert
that
these
students
in
particular,
lag
behind
their
peers
in
terms
of

vocabulary
knowledge
because
of
general
language
deficits,
recall
problems
or
memory

problems
which
impacts
the
students’
ability
to
comprehend
text.




34






However,
the
research
is
mixed
on
how
to
best
teach
vocabulary
and
whether

vocabulary
instruction
in
isolation
is
able
to
effect
comprehension
(National
Reading
Panel,

2000;
RAND
Reading
Study
Group,
2002).

Hence,
both
the
National
Reading
Panel
and
the

RAND
Reading
Study
Group
recommend
that
vocabulary
instruction
should
be
varied
and

include
direct
and
indirect
instruction.
Furthermore
vocabulary
instruction
should
include

strategy
instruction
that
teaches
students
how
to
learn
the
meanings
of
new
words

encountered
in
the
text.
Similarly,
Vaughn
and
Klingner
(2004)
suggest
that
many
students

with
learning
disabilities
need
more
explicit
instruction
in
vocabulary
because
they
will
not

pick
up
the
meanings
of
words
incidentally
through
experiences
with
text,
and
that

students
need
an
in‐depth
understanding
of
concepts
and
not
just
words
to
enhance
their

comprehension.





Fluency.




The
National
Reading
Panel
defines
fluent
readers
as,
“able
to
read
orally
with


speed,
accuracy,
and
proper
expression”
(2000,
p.
11).

Fluency
is
an
important
factor
of

reading
comprehension
because
when
a
student’s
reading
is
labor
intensive
and
choppy,
it

is
difficult
then
for
the
student
to
remember
and
understand
what
has
been
read
(2000;

RAND
Reading
Study
Group,
2002).
Archer,
Gleason
and
Vachon
(2003)
assert
the
link

between
reading
comprehension
and
fluency
is
important
because
students
have
limited

cognitive
resources,
and
comprehension
and
decoding
compete
for
these
resources
making

comprehending
more
difficult
if
decoding
is
not
fluent.
Furthermore,
Archer,
Gleason
and

Vachon
assert
that
as
students
get
older
and
continue
to
struggle
with
decoding
and

fluency,
they
are
exposed
to
less
text,
often
choosing
alternative
activities
over
reading,

which
can
be
laborious
and
difficult.
Ironically,
one
way
to
combat
poor
fluency
is
more

35






reading,
thus
many
students
exacerbate
their
problems
with
fluency
instead
of
enhancing

their
fluency.
 

Prior
knowledge.


The
use
of
prior
knowledge
in
constructing
meaning
is
another
important
strategy

examined
in
the
literature
(P.

Afflerbach,
1990;
Crain‐Thoreson,
Lippman,
&
McClendon‐
Magnuson,
1997).

In
Afflerbach’s
think‐aloud
study
on
expert
readers
and
main
idea

construction,
he
found
that
main
idea
construction
occurred
significantly
more
when

skilled
readers
were
reading
text
with
familiar
topics.
Afflerbach
proposes
that
when

reading
unfamiliar
topics,
more
working
memory
is
used
to
comprehend
the
text,
and
main

idea
construction
becomes
more
difficult.
However,
in
Crain‐Thoreson,
Lippman
and

McClendon‐Magnuson’s
(1997)
study
with
high
school
students,
prior
knowledge
was

found
to
inhibit
comprehension
in
some
cases,
perhaps
because
it
was
not
integrated
with

the
passage
properly
or
interfered
with
the
meaning
construction
of
the
text.
On
the
other

hand,
some
students
reported
a
lack
of
prior
knowledge,
and
scored
quite
well
on
the

comprehension
tests
(Crain‐Thoreson
et
al.
1997).
Crain‐Thoreson
et
al.
propose
that
the

students
who
lacked
prior
knowledge
were
more
effective
in
their
use
of
paraphrasing
and

inferencing,
or
that
they
actually
did
have
a
wealth
of
general
knowledge
on
the
topic
being

read
which
was
related
to
their
own
life
experiences.
For
instance,
a
music
student

reported
having
prior
knowledge
on
Beethoven,
however,
scored
poorly
on
the

comprehension
of
a
passage
on
Beethoven.
The
student
reported
themes
of
music
in
her

head
while
reading,
however
her
verbal
protocol
showed
no
evidence
that
she
linked
her

prior
knowledge
to
the
passage
she
was
reading.
It
seems
that
prior
knowledge
can
be


36






useful
when
used
as
a
strategy
and
linked
specifically
with
the
reading,
however,
merely

possessing
a
lot
of
prior
knowledge
on
a
subject
may
not
be
helpful
if
it
is
not
activated.


In
Hartman’s
think
aloud
study
of
eight
proficient
high
school
students
reading,
he

examined
how
the
students
made
connections
not
only
within
the
text
the
students
were

reading,
but
from
across
related
texts
and
outside
the
text
(1995).

Hartman
asserts
that

the
students
constructed
meaning
from
the
text
in
different
and
“messy”
ways,
making

connections
across
a
web
of
texts
that
the
students
had
previously
encountered
and

defining
text
in
a
broad
sense
to
encompass
a
passage
read
to
a
short
discourse
or

utterance.
Thus,
students
use
many
resources
when
constructing
knowledge
of
a
reading

passage
and
that
understanding
can
and
does
change
as
the
student
experiences
various

other
passages
(Hartman,
1995).


Text
structure.

Good
readers
and
comprehenders
use
their
knowledge
of
text
structure
to
assist
in

the
meaning
construction
and
planning
of
reading
(Caldwell
&
Leslie,
2003;
Englert
&

Hiebert,
1984;
Kletzien,
1991;
Lundeberg,
1987;
RAND
Reading
Study
Group,
2004).
Before

skilled
readers
begin
to
read,
they
will
overview
the
text,
know
the
purpose
for
reading
the

text,
and
activate
prior
knowledge
related
to
the
text
and
the
text
structure
(Englert
&

Hiebert,
1984;
Pressley
&
Afflerbach,
1995).
For
instance,
in
Caldwell
and
Leslie’s
(2003)

think‐aloud
with
middle
school
students,
they
found
that
the
students
were
better
able
to

comprehend
the
narrative
text
than
the
expository
text.
The
researchers
assert
that
middle

school
students
are
more
familiar
with
the
structure
of
narrative
text,
and
thus,
better
able

to
comprehend
the
text
(Caldwell
&
Leslie,
2003).
Likewise,
Kletzien
(1991)
found
in
her

think‐aloud
study
with
high
school
students
on
passages
with
differing
levels
of
difficulty

37






that
good
comprehenders
commented
on,
and
seemed
more
aware
of
the
structure
and

organization
of
the
passages.
For
instance
in
Kletzien’s
study,
a
student
commented,
“This

paragraph
is
giving
causes.
It
is
listing
all
the
causes”
(1991,
p.74).
Additionally,
Lundeberg

(1987)
observed
in
her
think‐aloud
study
on
expert
and
novice
lawyers
that
the
experts

demonstrated
that
they
were
not
only
familiar
with
the
structure
of
the
text,
in
this
study

legal
cases,
but
that
they
used
that
knowledge
to
regulate
their
reading.
For
example,
the

expert
lawyers
relied
on
text
structure
and
language
to
determine
how
to
go
about
reading

the
case;
they
asked
for
the
type
of
case
and
used
headings
to
demonstrate
their
search
for

structure.
Verbal
protocol
analysis
revealed
how
novices
to
expert
readers
use
text

structure
to
aid
in
their
reading
and
understanding.


Additionally,
Englert
and
Hiebert
(1984)
found
in
their
study
of
third
and
sixth‐
grade
students
that
knowledge
of
text
structure
and
reading
comprehension
were
related

and
improved
with
age.
In
regards
to
students
with
learning
disabilities,
Englert
and

Thomas
(1987)
found
in
their
study
with
participants
ranging
from
third
through
seventh

grade,
those
students
with
learning
disabilities
did
not
tap
into
text
structure
knowledge

and
it
subsequently
affected
both
their
reading
and
writing
performance(1987).
Of

particular
note
in
the
study
of
students
with
learning
disabilities,
the
students
had
items

read
aloud
to
them
in
order
to
ameliorate
word
level
difficulties
these
students
would
have

such
as
word
recognition
and
fluency
(1987).
Thus,
lack
of
text
structure
knowledge

impacts
students
with
learning
disabilities
in
their
ability
to
read
expository
text
at
least
in

the
mid
and
upper
elementary
grades.


Metacognition
and
comprehension
monitoring.


38









If
the
goal
of
reading
lies
in
comprehending
passages
that
are
read,
we
can
assume


that
the
reader
is
aware
of
his
or
her
own
comprehension
as
reading
occurs.

However,

good
comprehension
monitoring
is
not
always
the
case
and
it
is
incumbent
upon
the
reader

to
regulate
and
monitor
his/her
reading
in
order
to
ensure
understanding
(Hacker,
2004).

Some
students
are
able
to
detect
errors
in
reading,
but
are
unable
to
correct
those
mistakes

while
some
students
fail
to
detect
errors
in
the
first
place
(Hacker,
2004).
Comprehension

monitoring
is
a
metacognitive
task
that
requires
the
reader
to
detect
when
comprehension

is
not
occurring
and
regulate
the
reading
task
to
accomplish
comprehension
of
the
text

(Baker,
1989;
Pressley
&
Afflerbach,
1995).




Hacker
(2004)
further
asserts
that
strategy
use
is
an
integral
piece
of


comprehension,
comprehension
monitoring
and
metacognition.
Hacker
creates
two

subgroups
of
strategies,
including
monitoring
strategies
such
as
rereading,
looking
back,

predicting
upcoming
information,
and
comparing
points,
and
control
strategies
which

include
summarizing
text,
clarifying
text,
and
correcting
text.
Furthermore,
Hacker
asserts

that
these
strategies
reduce
the
demands
on
the
working
memory
of
the
reader
and
assist

in
information
processing.





This
form
of
comprehension
monitoring
has
been
evident
in
multiple
studies
using


verbal
protocol
analysis
in
the
form
of
re‐reading
and
slowing
down
when
the
text
has

been
both
confusing
or
even
particularly
relevant
(Lundeberg,
1987;
Pressley
&
Lundeberg,

2008a;
Wineburg,
1991).
For
example,
Lundeberg
(1987)
observed
that
the
expert
lawyers

in
her
study
marked
parts
of
the
legal
cases
they
were
reading,
then
went
back
and
checked

the
facts
when
reading
the
ruling
in
the
case.
While
Lundeburg
observed
that
the
novices

used
the
same
strategies
as
the
experts,
the
experts
used
them
more
often.
In
Wineburg’s

39






(1991)
think‐aloud
study
of
high
school
students
and
historians
reading
historical
text,
he

noted
one
student
who
did
engage
in
monitoring
strategies,
such
as
re‐reading,
pausing,

and
accessing
prior
knowledge.
However,
Wineburg
also
notes
that
historians
tended
to

slow
down
their
reading
not
necessarily
for
comprehension,
but
to
evaluate,
process
and

engage
in
a
kind
of
conversation
with
the
author.
Wineburg
and
Lundeberg
highlight
the

difference
between
the
general
monitoring
of
understanding
and
comprehension,
and
the

deeper
monitoring
of
the
expert
reader.
When
skilled
readers
engage
with
material
for

which
they
are
experts,
the
monitoring
changes
from,
“do
I
understand
this?”
to
“how
can
I

use
this,”
“what
is
the
author’s
purpose,”
“what
are
the
implications
of
this?”
The
expert

reader
appears
to
be
searching
for
deep
meaning
while
the
school‐age
reader
appears
to
be

searching
for
information,
however,
this
may
be
a
question
of
reading
purpose
with
both

types
of
comprehension
monitoring
relevant
to
completing
the
reading
goal
at
hand.





Baker
(1989)
found
in
her
study
of
adult
readers
that
the
readers
were
able
to


monitor
their
comprehension,
however
the
more
proficient
readers
and
students
were

more
aware
of
their
own
comprehension
monitoring
and
more
able
to
control
the

monitoring.
Baker
further
asserts
that
better
readers
were
more
metacognitively
aware

than
the
less
proficient
readers
(1989).

Young
children
along
with
less
proficient
readers

have
been
shown
to
be
less
apt
to
monitor
their
own
comprehension
or
understanding
of
a

passage
and
to
focus
more
on
the
decoding
process
(Mokhtari
&
Reichard,
2002;
S.
G.
Paris

&
Jacobs,
1984;
S.
G.

Paris
&
Winograd,
1990).
Furthermore,
Paris
and
Jacobs
(1984)
study

of
183,
eight
and
ten
year
olds,
demonstrated
that
more
proficient
readers
were
more

metacognitively
aware
of
reading
strategies
at
both
eight
and
ten
years
of
age.
Since

metacognition
and
comprehension
monitoring
can
aid
in
distinguishing
between
good
and

40






poor
readers,
a
measure
of
students’
metacognition
while
reading
can
shed
light
on
the

reading
process
that
the
students
are
engaged
in
while
reading.
Metacognition
and

comprehension
monitoring
are
important
pieces
in
the
picture
of
proficient
reading.


Reading
comprehension
and
reading
disabilities.

While
learning
disabilities
and
reading
disabilities
have
various
meanings
and
some

debate
surrounds
their
very
existence
based
on
a
social
constructivist
model,
they

generally
encompass
a
group
of
students
who
struggle
with
one
or
more
of
the
processes
of

reading
(Spear‐Swerling,
2004).
Spear‐Swerling
proposes
a
model
of
phases
of
typical

reading
development
beginning
with
word
recognition
and
progressing
to
proficient

reading.

In
Spear‐Swerling’s
reading
development
model,
a
child
first
develops
strategic

reading
around
the
third
or
fourth
grade,
which
includes
automatic
word‐recognition
skills

along
with
the
use
of
text
structure,
vocabulary,
and
summarization
to
aid
comprehension.

As
a
child
progresses
through
later
adolescence,
he/she
would
progress
to
proficient

reading
which
would
include
higher‐order
comprehension
skills
such
as
evaluating
and

integrating
information,
reading
critically
and
using
a
range
of
reading
processes
to
aid
in

comprehension
(pp.
524‐525).


The
model
suggests
that
a
break
down
can
occur
at
various
levels
that
would

contribute
to
a
student’s
inability
to
become
either
a
strategic
reader
or
proficient
reader

(Spear‐Swerling,
2004).
In
particular,
students
may
have
a
specific
word
recognition
deficit

(inability
to
read
individual
words)
from
oral
language
deficits
or
phonological
deficits

(Rack,
Snowling,
&
Olson,
1992).

However,
some
students
may
have
adequate
word

recognition
skills
but
weak
comprehension
strategies
that
are
not
related
to
the
early
weak

word
recognition
skills.
For
example,
children
may
have
adequate
word
recognition
skills,

41






but
around
fourth
grade,
may
struggle
with
comprehension
due
to
weak
vocabulary,

limited
background
knowledge
or
lack
of
reading
comprehension
strategies
(Garner,
1990;

Kletzien,
1991;
Stanovich,
1986).
Additionally,
some
students
have
weak
word
recognition

along
with
poor
comprehension
skills,
and
these
students
are
often
coined
“garden
variety”

poor
readers
(Gough
&
Tunmer,
1986).





Specific
reading
difficulties.





With
the
framework
of
phases
in
mind,
it
is
helpful
to
examine
specifically
where


and
how
a
reading
difficulty
can
manifest
itself.
However,
it
is
important
to
keep
in
mind

that
reading
is
an
intensely
complex
activity,
and
theories
on
the
development
of
reading

such
as
the
ones
outlined
above,
will
have
inherent
weaknesses
in
capturing
that

complexity.
Additionally,
Siegel
(2003)
asserts
that,
“no
reliable
evidence
supports
the

concept
of
subtypes
and
no
clear
subtypes
have
been
delineated”
in
reference
to
reading

disabilities
(p.
159).
While
these
frameworks
of
reading
development
will
assist
in

examining
areas
where
reading
can
break
down,
it
is
important
to
note
that
there
are

multiple
levels
where
proficient
reading
can
break
down.





Without
a
doubt,
the
development
of
phonological
processing
is
a
foundation
of


proficient
reading
(Stanovich,
1988).
For
our
purposes,
phonological
processing
is
defined

as
enveloping
multiple
processes
such
as
the
ability
to
associate
sounds
with
letters
or

groups
of
letters
(Ehri
&
Wilce,
1985).
If
beginning
readers
are
not
able
to
master

phonological
processing,
they
will
sometimes
memorize
words
and
visual
representations;

however,
this
is
not
efficient
as
it
places
a
high
demand
on
visual
memory
and
will
slow
the

reader
down
as
they
progress
(Siegel,
2003).
Furthermore,
using
studies
of
pseudo‐words,

researchers
have
shown
that
fundamental
breakdowns
in
phonological
processing
can

42






persist
into
adulthood
with
some
of
the
adults
able
to
read
reasonably
fluently,
but
not
able

to
read
pseudo‐words,
thus
not
being
able
to
apply
phonological
processing
to
unknown

words
(Bruck,
1990;
Shafrir
&
Siegel,
1994).





Another
area
that
can
cause
breakdowns
in
the
reading
process
is
working
memory


which
is
the
ability
to
store
information
in
short
term
memory
while
processing
text

(Siegel,
2003).

Readers
need
to
use
efficient
processes
to
recognize
and
understand
text
in

order
to
limit
the
demands
on
the
short
term
memory,
and
readers
who
have
not
mastered

phonological
processing
place
higher
demands
on
working
memory,
leaving
less
for

comprehension
(Mann,
2003).

However,
according
to
Swanson
and
Saez
(2003)
working

memory
deficit
is
not
always
related
to
phonological
processing.
Further,
Swanson
and

Saez
assert
that
children
with
learning
disabilities
can
do
well
academically
in
some
areas

due
to
multiple
reasons,
such
as
external
support,
high
domain
knowledge
or
with
tasks

that
place
a
relatively
small
demand
on
the
working
memory.
Finally,
due
to
developmental

factors
such
as
better‐organized
prior
knowledge
and
development
of
faster
processing

speeds;
older
children
seem
to
have
more
working
memory
capacity.

Both
working

memory
and
phonological
processing
must
be
considered
when
examining
deficits
in

reading,
especially
when
considering
instruction
aimed
at
mediating
reading
difficulties
(H.

L.
Swanson
&
Saez,
2003).




It
is
clear
from
the
plethora
of
studies
on
reading
what
constitutes
good
reading


(Biancarosa
&
Snow,
2006;
Pressley
&
Afflerbach,
1995;
RAND
Reading
Study
Group,

2002).
Phonological
awareness
has
been
shown
to
be
an
important
component
of

beginning
reading
(Ehri
&
Wilce,
1985;
Stanovich,
1988),
which
assists
in
students
learning

to
read
words
and
develop
vocabulary
(Ehri
&
Snowling,
2004;
Freebody
&
Anderson,

43






1983),
which
is
tied
to
a
reader’s
ability
to
read
fluently
(Archer,
Gleason,
&
Vachon,
2003).

Additionally,
good
readers
are
aware
of
text
structure
(Englert
&
Hiebert,
1984;
Englert
&

Thomas,
1987),
use
prior
knowledge
effectively
(Crain‐Thoreson,
et
al.,
1997),
and
are

metacognitive
throughout
their
reading
adjusting
speed
and
reading
strategies
to
aid
in

comprehension
(Hacker,
2004;
Wineburg,
1991).

From
these
studies,
it
is
easy
to
see
that

reading
is
a
highly
complex
endeavor
that
incorporates
many
components
from

letter/sound
integration
to
word
recognition
to
comprehension
construction,
thus
a

reading
difficulty
can
manifest
itself
across
multiple
areas.
Therefore,
students
with

reading
difficulties
may
exhibit
vastly
different
approaches
to
reading
text
and
constructing

knowledge
and
meaning
from
that
text
based
on
how
the
reading
difficulty
manifests
itself

for
the
reader.

Understanding
how
secondary
students
with
and
without
reading

disabilities
construct
meaning
can
shed
light
into
the
nature
and
types
of
ways
these

students
come
to
understand
what
they
read.

Framework
of
Reading
Processes




The
purpose
of
this
study
is
to
take
a
snap
shot
of
what
high
school
readers
do
as


they
read
and
construct
meaning
from
text.
In
order
to
examine
what
readers
do,
a

framework
of
reading
processes
must
be
established.
The
framework
adopted
for
this

study
is
based
on
Pressley
and
Afflerbach’s
(1995)
framework
of
constructively
responsive

reading,
which
asserts
that
expert
readers
engage
in
three
basic
processes
while
reading;

constructing
meaning,
monitoring,
and
evaluating,
which
can
be
captured
through
verbal

protocol
analysis.
Because
of
the
complexity
of
the
act
of
reading,
these
activities
are
often

intertwined
and
overlap,
however,
in
order
to
examine
what
readers
are
doing
as
they


44






read,
these
categories
need
to
be
deconstructed.
The
following
table
summarizes
the

categories
and
a
discussion
follows.


Table
1.
Framework
of
reading
processes

Reading
Actions

Constructing
meaning


Components

1. Text
organization

2. Prior
knowledge

3. Speculating
beyond
text

4. Paraphrasing

5. Main
idea
construction

6. Visualization

7. Rereading


Monitoring


1. Content
monitoring

2. Word
level
monitoring


Evaluating


1. Acceptance

2. Skepticism

3. Overt
reaction
–
laughter,

surprise,
negativity








Constructing
meaning.





Constructing
meaning
from
text
is
a
major
goal
of
reading
and
is
accomplished
by


utilizing
many
skills.
Skilled
readers
are
active
readers,
who
employ
a
multitude
of

45






strategies
and
conscious
acts
in
order
to
comprehend
what
they
are
reading
(Pressley
&

Afflerbach,
1995;
Pressley
&
Wharton‐McDonald,
1997).

The
following
is
a
brief

description
of
some
of
what
readers
do
when
they
read
expository
text
for
comprehension.


Students
often
will
begin
making
predictions
and
tapping
into
prior
knowledge
from

the
moment
they
read
the
title
of
the
text
or
view
the
text
structure
(Pressley
&
Afflerbach,

1995).

Indeed,
sensitivity
to
text
structure
in
expository
text
aids
students
in

comprehension,
and
is
an
area
that
some
students
with
learning
disabilities
may
need

instruction
and
scaffolding
in
to
become
more
proficient
in
comprehending
text

(Armbruster,
Anderson,
&
Ostertag,
1987;
Englert
&
Thomas,
1987).
Awareness
and
use
of

text
structure
when
reading
expository
material
clearly
aids
in
comprehension
(Gersten,

Fuchs,
Williams,
&
Baker,
2001).


Good
readers
engage
with
the
material
through
making
predictions,
attempting
to

connect
ideas
with
prior
knowledge,
summarizing
or
paraphrasing
important
ideas
and

choosing
to
reread
or
skim
material
for
further
understanding
(Pressley
&
Afflerbach,

1995).
Hence,
if
a
reader
lacks
the
prior
knowledge
to
connect
ideas
covered
in
the
reading

of
expository
text,
it
will
impact
their
comprehension
of
the
text
(Gersten,
Fuchs,
Williams,

&
Baker,
2001).
On
the
other
hand,
it
is
important
for
readers
to
regulate
their
prior

knowledge
and
not
make
irrelevant
inferences
as
that
could
become
overwhelming
and

distracting
(Duke,
et
al.,
2004).


Constructing
meaning
from
text
requires
the
reader
to
get
the
gist
of
the
text
or

understand
the
main
idea.
The
ability
to
find
the
main
ideas
in
expository
text
aids
in

making
appropriate
inferences,
being
able
to
paraphrase,
and
knowing
the
important
parts

of
the
text
to
reread
or
skim
(Williams,
2003).
Indeed
finding
the
main
idea
is
a
difficult

46






task
and
intertwined
with
the
ability
access
prior
knowledge,
make
inferences
and

recognize
the
text
structure
(Bakken,
Mastropieri,
&
Scruggs,
1997;
Williams,
2003).


Monitoring
and
evaluating.




Reading
for
comprehension
also
requires
the
reader
to
monitor
what
they
are


reading
for
understanding
and
to
be
able
to
take
actions
to
regulate
their
reading
and

resolve
any
problems
(Pressley
&
Afflerbach).
Again,
these
actions
are
not
simplistic
and

require
readers
to
be
actively
engaged
and
metacognitive
in
their
reading
(Gersten,
et
al.,

2001;
Pressley
&
Afflerbach,
1995).
Often
readers
will
recognize
that
they
have
lost
their

place,
concentration,
or
understanding
and
will
need
to
go
back
and
reread
or
skim

portions
of
the
text.
Additionally,
readers
monitor
their
understanding
of
new
vocabulary

or
unfamiliar
words
and
make
decisions
about
how
to
resolve
any
misunderstandings

whether
they
reread,
skim,
look
for
context
clues,
or
decide
to
skip
the
unknown
word.

Again,
knowledge
of
text
structure,
prior
knowledge,
main
idea
selection,
and
vocabulary

all
play
a
role
in
the
reader’s
ability
to
effectively
monitor
reading
comprehension
and

make
adjustments
as
needed.




Finally,
this
framework
purports
that
readers
make
various
evaluations
while
they


are
reading
(Pressley
&
Afflerbach,
1995;
Pressley
&
Wharton‐McDonald,
1997).
Readers

make
evaluations
at
different
levels
and
at
different
times
throughout
the
reading
(Pressley

&
Afflerbach).

Sometimes
readers
will
make
an
evaluation
immediately
upon
reading
the

title
or
see
the
text
structure,
which
can
indicate
the
use
of
prior
knowledge
to
begin
to

make
connections
and
integration.
At
other
times,
readers
may
have
a
reaction
to
the
text

that
can
take
the
form
of
agreement,
disagreement
or
questioning
of
the
content
(Pressley

&
Afflerbach).
Again,
evaluation
of
text
is
complex
and
requires
the
reader
to
employ
many

47






facets
of
reading
in
order
to
make
an
evaluation
such
as
knowledge
of
vocabulary
and

activation
of
prior
knowledge.
Monitoring
reading
is
the
“future
oriented,”
requiring
the

reader
to
make
decisions
about
what
needs
to
happen
next,
while
evaluation,
“focuses
on

what
has
been
processed”
(Pressley
&
Afflerbach,
p.
79).


Conclusion




It
is
clear
that
adolescent
readers
are
asked
by
society
to
demonstrate
high
levels
of


literacy
proficiency
in
multiple
areas
including
high
stakes
assessments,
exit
exams
for
high

school,
content
course
work
and
in
post‐secondary
training,
education
and
jobs.
However,

literacy
scores
for
adolescents
have
remained
relatively
flat
over
the
past
thirty
years.
In
a

review
of
reading
comprehension
studies
related
to
students
with
learning
disabilities

from
1966
through
1992,
only
23%
of
the
studies
examined
high
school
aged
students

(Talbott,
Lloyd,
&
Tankersley,
1994).
While
there
are
clear
expectations
for
what
high

school
students
should
do
when
they
read,
there
is
also
a
paucity
of
research
on
what
they

actual
do
when
they
read.
Essentially,
we
do
not
know
what
the
end
product
of
twelve

years
of
formal
education
in
reading
and
reading
comprehension
looks
like.





If
society’s
expectations
of
adolescent
readers
are
to
be
fulfilled,
we
must
have
a


greater
understanding
of
what
high
school
readers
do
when
they
read
including
the
skills

and
processes
that
they
employ.

A
clear
profile
of
proficient
adolescent
readers
will

contribute
to
our
understanding
of
the
developmental
path
of
proficient
readers
while
a

profile
of
struggling
readers
may
assist
in
both
understanding
how
reading
comprehension

can
break
down
and
how
reading
comprehension
can
be
boosted
through
instruction.


Research
Questions


48









In
order
to
begin
to
understand
adolescent
readers,
this
study
will
focus
on
what


high
school
readers
do
in
the
domains
of
constructing
knowledge,
monitoring,
and

evaluating
while
reading
expository
text
as
well
as
their
self‐perceptions
of
the
strategies

they
use
while
reading
expository
text.
The
over
arching
research
question
is,
what
do

above
average
and
learning
disabled
eleventh
and
twelfth
grade
readers
do
while
engaged

in
reading
expository
text?
This
main
question
is
broken
into
the
following
sub
questions.

a.

What
knowledge
construction
processes
do
11th
and
12th
grade
above
average
and

learning‐disabled
readers
demonstrate
when
constructing
understanding
through
reading

expository
texts?

b.

What
monitoring
processes
do
11th
and
12th
grade
above
average
and
learning‐disabled

readers
demonstrate
when
constructing
understanding
through
reading
expository
texts?

c.

What
evaluating
processes
do
11th
and
12th
grade
above
average
and
learning
disabled

readers
use
when
constructing
understanding
through
reading
expository
texts?

d.

How
are
above
average
and
learning‐disabled
11th
and
12th
grade
students

quantitatively
and
qualitatively
similar
and/or
different
in
how
they
utilize
knowledge

construction,
evaluation,
and
monitoring
strategies
when
constructing
understanding

through
reading
expository
texts?

e.

What
are
the
self‐perceptions
of
high
achieving
and
learning
disabled
11th
and
12th

grade
students
as
to
their
use
of
reading
strategies
when
reading
expository
texts?

f.

How
are
high
achieving
and
learning
disabled
11th
and
12th
grade
students
self‐
perceptions
quantitatively
and
qualitatively
similar
and/or
different
in
how
they
utilize

reading
strategies
when
reading
expository
texts?

g.

In
looking
across
the
reading
processes
elicited
in
the
verbal
protocol
and
students'
self‐
49






perceptions
on
the
MARSI,
what
patterns
and
themes
emerge
around
across
group
(high

achieving,
LD)
and
within
group
comparisons?











































50






Chapter
Three

Methods

Participants




Twenty‐five
eleventh‐
and
twelfth‐grade
students
from
a
high
school
in
Michigan


participated
in
this
study.
Twelve
of
the
students
were
classified
as
above
average
readers

based
on
their
enrollment
in
an
honors
English
class
or
membership
in
the
National
Honor

Society.
Additionally
all
of
the
above
average
readers
scored
above
12.2
grade
level

equivalency
on
the
Gray
Silent
Reading
Test
(GSRT)
(Wiederholt
&
Blalock,
2000).

Conversely,
students
with
learning
disabilities
were
identified
based
on
meeting
the

criteria
for
having
a
learning
disability
in
reading
according
to
the
State
of
Michigan

definition.
The
State
of
Michigan
(Revised
Administrative
Rules
for
Special
Education,
2002)

definition
of
learning
disabilities
according
to
rule
340.1713,
defines
a
specific
learning

disability
as
the
following:

a
disorder
in
one
or
more
of
the
basic
psychological
processes
involved
in

understanding
or
in
using
language,
spoken
or
written,
that
may
manifest
itself
in
an

imperfect
ability
to
listen,
think,
speak,
read,
write,
spell,
or
do
mathematical

calculation.
The
term
includes
such
conditions
as
perceptual
impairments,
brain

injury,
minimal
brain
dysfunction,
dyslexia,
and
developmental
aphasia.
The
term

does
not
include
children
who
have
learning
problems
that
are
primarily
the
result

of
a
visual,
hearing,
or
motor
impairment;
a
cognitive
impairment;
an
emotional

impairment;
autism;
or
of
environmental,
cultural,
or
economic
disadvantage
(p.
6).








Additionally,
the
students
with
learning
disabilities
scored
at
least
two
grade
levels
below

their
current
grade
on
the
Gray
Silent
Reading
Test
(GSRT).
Furthermore,
standard

achievement
scores
in
reading
for
the
students
in
the
learning
disabilities
group
on
the

Woodcock‐Johnson
III,
averaged
79.77,
which
falls
within
the
low
range.
The
scores
ranged

from
a
high
of
89
to
a
low
of
69.

ACT
and
PSAT
scores
were
collected
for
students
in
the

above
average
reader
category.
Overall,
nine
students
took
the
ACT
and
scored
an
average

51






of
23.67,
in
the
basic
reading
category
with
a
range
of
19
to
35.
In
the
reading
category,
a

score
of
17
indicates
that
the
student
is
prepared
for
first
year
college
level
courses.
Three

students
took
the
PSAT
and
scored
an
average
of
55.3
on
the
basic
reading
section
with
a

range
of
53
to
57.
The
national
average
scores
in
reading
for
2009,
for
eleventh
graders

was
47
("The
College
Board:
Scores
&
Review,"
2010).

Recruitment.




The
participants
were
recruited
at
their
high
school
through
oral
presentations
in


their
English
classes,
which
consisted
of
resource
room
English
classes
and
honors
English

classes.
An
additional
recruitment
presentation
was
given
at
a
National
Honor
Society

meeting.
Students
were
given
written
consent
forms
for
their
parents
to
sign
and
written

assent
forms
for
them
to
sign
(see
Appendix
A
and
B).
Once
students
turned
in
consent
and

assent
forms
and
it
was
established
that
they
met
the
criteria
for
the
study,
the
researcher

contacted
the
students
via
phone
to
set
up
a
mutually
agreeable
time
to
meet
at
the
high

school
during
non‐academic
time.


Materials
and
Data
Sources




Multiple
data
sources
were
used.
In
addition
to
the
think
aloud
data,
student


demographic
and
achievement
data
were
collected
as
well
as
comprehension
data
related

to
the
passage
read
and
survey
data
related
to
the
perceived
reading
strategies
used.
The

think
aloud
protocol
used
grade‐level
reading
material
matched
to
each
student.
The

students
also
answered
comprehension
questions
related
to
the
think
aloud
passage
and

performed
a
written
re‐tell
of
the
passage.
Finally,
the
students
filled
out
a
survey
about

their
perceptions
of
the
reading
strategies
they
employ
while
reading.
Each
component
is

discussed
further
in
the
following
section.


52









Think­aloud
reading
material.





It
is
important
that
the
reading
material
be
at
the
instructional
level
for
the


participants,
so
as
not
to
distort
the
think‐aloud
(Kletzien,
1991).
As
Kletzien
found
in
her

think‐aloud
with
high
school
students
reading
text
with
varying
levels
of
difficulty,
students

reading
text
above
their
instructional
level
exhibited
traits
similar
to
poor
readers
reading

at
their
independent
level,
such
as
focusing
on
individual
words
versus
big
ideas.

Additionally,
it
is
important
to
consider
the
structure
of
the
text,
as
it
has
been
shown
that

skilled
readers
pay
attention
to
structure
and
organization
of
text
to
their
advantage
(Cote

&
Goldman,
2004;
Lundeberg,
1987;
Pressley
&
Lundeberg,
2008b).

Consequently,

expository
passages
were
used
that
corresponded
to
individual
reading
levels.
The
reading

levels
of
the
text
were
determined
by
using
the
Flesch‐Kincaid
Grade‐Level
test
formula.




In
order
to
ensure
that
the
reading
passages
for
each
student
were
at
their


individual
instructional
level,
the
participants
were
assessed
using
the
Gray
Silent
Reading

Test.
Each
participant
was
given
a
passage
to
read
which
was
matched
with
his/her

reading
level.
Each
passage
was
adapted
from
a
400
word
expository
article
on
pollution

problems
(Spargo,
1989)
and
was
rewritten
to
reflect
a
range
of
reading
levels
from

seventh‐grade
through
twelfth‐grade
levels
(Appendix
C).
The
topic
of
pollution
was

chosen
because
it
is
part
of
the
school’s
required
curriculum
for
all
high
school
students.

This
ensured
that
all
of
the
students
had
some
familiarity
with
the
topic.
Additionally,
six

main
ideas
were
generated
from
the
original
passage
with
fifty‐two
details.

Please
see

appendix
D,
for
a
summary
of
main
ideas
and
details
that
were
maintained
for
each

passage.
The
chart
below
summarizes
the
number
of
words
for
each
grade‐level
passage,


53






the
number
of
sentences,
the
average
sentence
length,
and
the
number
of
main
ideas
and

details.


Table
2.
Comparison
of
grade
level
reading
passages

Passage

7th
Grade

Pollution

Passage

8th
Grade

Pollution

Passage

9th
Grade

Pollution

Passage

10th
Grade

Pollution

Passage

11th
Grade

Pollution

Passage

12th
Grade

Pollution

Passage


#
of

Words


#
of

Sentences


Average

Sentence

Length


Number
of

Main
Ideas


Number
of

Details


556


55


10.1


6


52


581


52


11.2


6


52


562


44


12.8


6


52


559


35


15.9


6


52


559


30


18.6


6


52


559


25


22.3


6


52







Comprehension
measures.

Two
measures
of
comprehension
were
used
in
the
study.
The
first
measure
was
a


written
retelling
of
the
information
read
in
the
passage.
The
students
were
asked
to
do
a

written
retelling
of
the
passage
in
any
format
that
they
wanted.
This
written
retelling

served
two
purposes.
First,
it
assisted
in
defining
the
reading
task
for
the
students
because

it
required
the
student
to
engage
in
a
sub
process
of
writing
called
text
generation
which

required
the
writer
to
both
plan
ideas
and
then
connect
them
into
expressive
sentences,

phrases
and
words
(Puranik,
Lombardino,
&
Altmann,
2008).
Second,
the
retelling


54






contributed
to
the
data
collected
in
the
think
aloud
as
it
generated
information
about
what

the
students
found
most
relevant
in
the
article.


The
second
measure
of
comprehension
was
a
ten
question
multiple‐choice

assessment
that
contained
five
literal
and
five
inferential
comprehension
questions.
The

publisher
of
the
article
developed
the
comprehension
questions
(Spargo,
1989).
The

comprehension
questions
were
written
at
a
ninth‐grade
reading
level
based
on
the
Flesch‐
Kincaid
readability
formula.
Any
student
with
below
a
ninth‐grade
reading
level
had
the

questions
read
aloud
to
him/her
by
the
researcher.
This
data
source
provided
further

confirmation
that
the
think‐aloud
protocol
did
not
interfere
with
the
students’
abilities
to

comprehend
the
passage.
See
appendix
F
for
sample
comprehension
questions.


Metacognitive
Awareness
of
Reading
Strategies
Inventory.

Finally,
the
students
were
asked
to
fill
out
the
Metacognitive
Awareness
of
Reading

Strategies
Inventory
(MARSI)
that
measures
adolescent
and
adult
metacognitive
as
well
as

perceived
use
of
strategies
while
reading
academic,
expository
text
(Mokhtari
&
Reichard,

2002;
Sheorey
&
Mokhtari,
2002).
Skilled
readers
tend
to
be
more
metacognitively
aware

while
engaged
in
reading
for
comprehension,
thus
the
MARSI
serves
as
a
tool
to
triangulate

the
data
and
validate
the
differences
between
the
two
groups,
students
with
learning

disabilities
and
above
average
readers
(S.
G.
Paris
&
Jacobs,
1984;
Pressley
&
Afflerbach,

1995).
Additionally,
the
MARSI
was
developed
as
a
comprehensive
measure
of

comprehension
monitoring
and
as
a
tool
to
aid
teachers
in
both
assessment
and
instruction

in
addition
to
being
useful
in
classroom
or
clinical
research
(Mokhtari
&
Reichard,
2002).

The
MARSI
is
made
up
of
three
subscales,
which
were
determined
by
Cronbach’s

alpha
to
have
internal
consistency
reliability
coefficients
as
follows;
Global
Reading

55






Strategies
(.92),
Problem
Solving
Strategies
(.79),
and
Support
Strategies
(.87),
with
an

overall
reliability
of
.93
in
terms
of
measuring
metacognitive
awareness
of
reading

strategies
used
(Mokhtari
&
Reichard,
2002;
Sheorey
&
Mokhtari,
2002).


The
MARSI
is
made
up
of
30
statements
accompanied
by
a
1
through
5
Likert
rating

scale
and
is
appropriate
for
students
with
fifth
through
college‐level
reading
abilities

(Mokhtari
&
Reichard,
2002).
The
MARSI
was
designed
to
measure
Global
Reading

Strategies,
Problem‐solving
Strategies,
and
Support
Reading
Strategies
(Mokhtari
&

Reichard,
2002).
Global
reading
strategies
include
setting
purpose,
activating
prior

knowledge,
predicting,
previewing,
using
text
structure
and
using
context
clues;
problem­
solving
strategies
include
adjusting
reading
rate,
visualizing,
guessing
meaning
of
unknown

words;
and
support
reading
strategies
include,
paraphrasing,
self‐questioning,
and

summarizing
(Mokhtari
&
Reichard,
2002).
See
appendix
G
for
a
sample
of
the
MARSI

survey.


Procedure




The
researcher
met
with
each
student
individually
to
explain
the
think‐aloud


procedure,
acclimate
the
student
to
the
audio
recording,
and
allow
the
student
to
practice
a

think‐aloud
on
a
short
expository
passage
(Meyers,
Lytle,
Palladino,
Devenpeck,
&
Green,

1990).
Each
reading
passage
was
marked
with
a
small
dot
at
the
end
of
every
third

sentence
to
prompt
the
students
to
report
what
they
are
thinking
as
they
read.
Students

were
informed
of
the
dot,
but
also
told
that
they
could
ignore
it
if
they
were
thinking
aloud.





Once
the
student
indicated
and
demonstrated
that
he/she
was
comfortable
with
the


think‐aloud
procedure,
the
student
performed
the
audio
recorded
think‐aloud.
In
order
to

acclimate
the
student
to
the
think
aloud,
the
researcher
modeled
the
think
aloud,
and
then

56






asked
the
student
to
practice
the
think
aloud
using
a
passage
different
from
the
passage
for

the
recorded
think
aloud.
The
student
practiced
the
think
aloud
until
there
were
no

hesitations
and
the
student
indicated
that
he/she
felt
comfortable
with
the
procedure
of

the
think
aloud.
The
student
was
asked
to
read
the
passage
at
a
comprehension
level
that

would
allow
him/her
to
write
down
the
main
ideas
and
details
from
the
passage
and

answer
questions
about
the
passage
after
reading.
The
student
was
also
told
to
verbalize

whatever
he/she
is
thinking
while
reading
the
passage.
If
a
student
initially
failed
to

verbalize
his/her
thoughts,
the
researcher
prompted
the
student
to,
“comment
please.”


Students
were
informed
during
practice
that
this
would
be
the
prompt
if
needed.





When
the
student
finished
reading
the
passage,
the
student
was
asked
to
write


whatever
information
they
remembered
from
the
passage
on
a
blank
piece
of
paper
using

whatever
format
they
felt
comfortable
utilizing.
After
the
written
retelling,
the
student
was

asked
to
answer
the
literal
and
inferential
multiple
choice
comprehension
questions.

Finally,
the
student
filled
out
the
30‐item
Metacognitive
Awareness
of
Reading
Strategies

Inventory
(MARSI).
The
complete
procedure
typically
took
forty‐five
to
sixty
minutes

depending
on
the
student,
and
all
sessions
were
completed
in
one
sitting.


Data
Analysis




Quantitative.





A
number
of
quantitative
measures
for
the
verbal
protocol
were
calculated.
In
order


to
determine
what
students
do
when
they
read
expository
text,
totals
were
tallied
for

reading
processes
demonstrated
in
the
areas
of
knowledge
construction,
monitoring
and

evaluation.
In
order
to
address
the
research
question
about
how
the
two
groups
are

quantitatively
similar
and
different
in
relation
to
the
verbal
protocol,
numerous
word

57






counts
were
tallied
and
averaged.
The
total
number
of
words
read
along
with
the
total

number
of
words
spoken
was
tallied.
The
number
of
events
was
counted,
which
was

defined
as
the
number
of
times
a
student
read
part
of
the
passage
and
commented
on
the

passage.
Additionally,
the
number
of
words
read
and
spoken
during
the
events
was

counted.
The
totals
and
averages
of
the
misspoken
words,
missed
punctuation,
omitted

words,
and
added
words
were
also
counted.





In
order
to
answer
the
research
question
related
to
the
students’
perceptions
of
the


reading
strategies
used,
quantitative
measures
were
used
to
analyze
the
Metacognitive

Awareness
of
Reading
Strategies
Inventory
(MARSI).
The
MARSI,
has
three
main
sections

(global
reading
strategies,
problem‐solving
strategies,
support
reading
strategies)
and
an

overall
survey
rating.
Independent
sample
t‐tests
were
used
to
determine
if
the
two
groups

were
different
in
their
self‐perceptions
of
strategy
use
in
each
category
and
for
overall
use.



Additionally,
the
self‐perceptions
of
reading
strategy
use
for
each
group
was
rank‐ordered

to
determine
further
differences
and
similarities
between
the
two
groups.





Once
the
written
retelling
was
coded
(see
description
in
next
section),
the
number


of
main
ideas,
details,
and
total
ideas
recalled
was
analyzed
using
independent
sample
t‐
tests
to
determine
if
there
was
a
difference
between
the
two
groups.





Coding.






Coding
was
performed
on
the
transcripts
of
the
verbal
protocols
to
determine
the


categories
and
sub‐categories
of
comments
made
by
the
student
participants.
Additionally,

the
written
retelling
of
the
passage
was
coded
to
determine
how
many
main
ideas
and

main
ideas
plus
details
were
evident
in
the
written
retelling
from
each
student
participant.





Verbal
protocol.

58










The
coding
for
the
verbal
protocol
analysis
was
developed
to
encompass
as
much
of


the
verbal
protocol
as
possible.
In
order
to
accomplish
this,
a
pilot
study
was
done
to

determine
how
much
of
the
verbal
protocol
can
be
captured
accurately.
In
the
pilot
study,

high
school
students
not
participating
in
the
current
study,
read
Timed
Reading
(Spargo,

1989)
passages
while
engaging
in
a
think‐aloud.
The
students
were
audio
taped
and
their

think‐alouds
were
transcribed.
The
verbal
protocols
in
Pressley
and
Afflerbach’s
(1995)

book,
Verbal
Protocols
of
Reading:
The
Nature
of
Constructively
Responsive
Reading
were

used
as
a
template
to
begin
the
coding.
The
verbal
protocols
as
outlined
by
Pressley
and

Afflerbach
in
the
areas
of
constructing
knowledge,
monitoring
and
evaluating
along
with

the
categories
for
the
pilot
were
used
as
a
template,
and
strategies
for
each
category

emerged.





The
verbal
protocols
were
transcribed
and
then
separated
into
lines
based
on
the


student
pauses.
The
read
text
and
the
spoken
text
were
separated
into
two
columns.
See

Appendix
H,
for
sample
transcriptions.
Read
text
was
defined
as
words
that
were
read

directly
from
the
text
of
the
article,
while
spoken
text
was
defined
as
words
spoken
outside

of
the
written
text.
For
a
first
pass,
the
words
spoken
outside
of
the
written
text
were

analyzed
to
determine
their
broad
category,
which
included
knowledge
construction,

monitoring
or
evaluating.
A
second
pass
was
done
to
determine
the
specific
category

within
each
broad
category.
During
the
second
pass,
any
comment
that
did
not
seem
to
“fit”

into
the
template
from
the
pilot
study
was
marked
with
a
question
mark.
A
third
pass
was

done
to
resolve
any
questions
using
the
template
from
Pressley
and
Afflerbach’s
(1995)

book,
Verbal
Protocols
of
Reading:
The
Nature
of
Constructively
Responsive
Reading.
For
any

new
sub‐categories
that
emerged
during
the
third
pass,
subsequent
passes
were
made
to

59






determine
if
other
comments
fit
into
the
new
sub‐category.
Inter‐observer
agreement
was

calculated
for
five
percent
of
the
samples
to
verify
the
coding.
A
special
education
teacher

was
trained
in
the
coding
procedure
and
given
the
transcripts.
The
inter‐observer

agreement
for
the
coding
was
calculated
at
91%.




Coding
explanations
and
samples.


Knowledge
construction
included
paraphrasing
or
restating
part
of
the
text
in
the


student’s
own
words,
often
prefaced
by
comments,
such
as,
“so…,”
or
“I
guess.”

Also

included
under
knowledge
construction
was
when
a
student
reread
a
section
of
the

passage.
Visualization
was
another
specific
category
that
emerged
within
knowledge

construction
and
was
characterized
by,
“I
see,”
or
“I
am
thinking
it
looks
like.”

Knowledge

construction
included
speculating
beyond
the
text
and
relating
the
text
to
prior
knowledge.

Speculation
beyond
the
text
included
explaining
what
would
happen
next
even
though
it

was
not
in
the
text.
Students
using
the
term,
“like”
and
relating
the
text
to
information

outside
the
text
or
giving
a
personal
example
not
used
in
the
text
signaled
prior
knowledge.

Finally,
knowledge
construction
included
integration
or
the
use
of
pictures
accompanying

the
text
to
assist
in
making
meaning
of
the
text.





Monitoring
emerged
as
two
broad
categories,
monitoring
the
content
or
monitoring


for
unknown
words
or
phrases.
Monitoring
for
content
was
further
separated
into

monitoring
for
content
understanding
which
was
signaled
by
comments
such
as,
“I
knew

that,”
or

“that
makes
sense,”
and
monitoring
content
when
confused
or
not
understanding,

sometimes
signaled
by
“I
don’t
understand”
or
“I
don’t
know
what
that
means.”

Occasionally,
students
monitored
their
content
by
posing
questions
such
as,
“wait
a
second,

isn’t
that
the
same
thing?”
or
“didn’t
they
just
say
that?”

Monitoring
for
word
meaning
was

60






signaled
by,
“what
is
that
word?”
“sorry,”
or
“I
don’t
know
that
word.”
Many
times,
these

comments
followed
attempts
to
sound
out
the
word
or
re‐read
the
passage.






Evaluation
comments
were
often
characterized
by
agreement
or
disagreement,
or
a


positive
or
negative
reaction
to
the
text.
Since
the
passage
was
about
water
pollution,
often

a
negative
reaction
would
include,
“that’s
gross,”
or
“ewww.”
On
the
other
hand,
a
positive

reaction
may
include
a
statement
such
as,
“that’s
interesting.”
Evaluative
comments
that

signaled
agreement
with
the
text
may
include,
“well,
of
course
that
would
happen,”
which

disagreement
many
include,
“why
is
that
there?”
Specific
examples
of
the
text
coupled
with

student
comments
are
found
in
the
following
table.

Table
3.
Coding
Examples

Category


Subcategories


Knowledge

Paraphrasing

Construction


Text

Many
manufacturing

facilities
use
huge

quantities
of
freshwater
to

carry
away
wastes
of

many
kinds,
and
this

waste‐bearing
water,
or

effluent,
is
discharged
into

streams
and
rivers,
which

in
turn
disperse
the

polluting
substance.


Examples
of
Student

Comments

B‐1,
“So
they’re
using

freshwater
to
get
rid
of
all

their
garbage
and
its
like

making
it
go
like
disperse

through
the
lake.”


Rereading


The
other
is
the
amount
of
 A‐1,
“Agriculture
within
the

agriculture
within
the

river
basin.”

river
basin.


Visualization


Correction
of
a
pollution

problem
in
a
river
must

include
the
river
basin.



61




A‐5,
“I
am
picturing
in
my

head
a
river.”




Table
3
(Contd)




Correction
of
a
pollution

problem
in
a
river
must

consist
of
an
integrated

approach,
and
should

included
measures
to

correct
all
sources
of

pollution
within
the
river

basin
or
land
area



B‐1,
“So
you
can
tell
what’s

wrong
in
a
river
by
what
it

puts
in
the
ocean.”


Use
of
prior

knowledge





Speculating

beyond
text


Some
industries
pollute

water
in
a
different
way

by
using
large
quantities

of
water
to
cool
certain

equipment;
therefore
the

heat
from
the
equipment

makes
the
water
hot.


B‐7,
“So,
the
cooling
stuff

like
we
use
in
FERMI
would

pollute
some
of
the
water.”


Integration



The
land
area
surrounding
 B‐5,
“Looking
down
at
the

the
river
is
a
drainage

picture.”

basin
or
watershed.


(use
of

tables/pictures)


Monitoring


Content
–

understanding


One
factor
is
the
type
of

agriculture
within
the

river
basin.


Content
–

confused
or
do

not
understand


Many
manufacturing

B‐9,
“I
don’t
know
what
that

facilities
use
huge

means.”

quantities
of
freshwater
to

carry
away
wastes
of

many
kinds,
and
this

waste‐bearing
water,
or

effluent…


Content
–

asking
a

question


The
other
is
the
amount
of
 A‐7,
“Wait
a
second,
isn’t

agriculture
within
the

that
the
same
thing?”

river
basin.


Word
meaning


Many
of
these
will
contain
 A‐5,
“Don’t
know
what
that

chemicals
that
are
either

word
means.”

toxic
or
noxious.


62




A‐5,
(After
re‐reading),
“Oh,

okay.”




Table
3
(Contd)

Evaluating


A‐7,
“That’s
gross.”


Reaction
to
text
 The
industries
then

positive

discharge
the
hot
water

into
rivers
and
lakes


A‐1,
“That’s
pretty

interesting.”


Agreement


Untreated
animal
wastes

pollute
the
water
system

when
these
lagoons

overflow
or
leak.


A‐7,
“Well
of
course
it’s

going
to,
it’s
poop
and
urine.

“


Disagreement





Reaction
to
text
 Agriculture
includes

negative

animal
wastes
and

fertilizer
runoff.


Fish
for
human

B‐5,
“I
don’t
know
what
that

consumption
are
raised
in
 means,
I
don’t
what
that
is,
I

large
livestock
farms.

don’t
know
what
that
means

in
this
paragraph.







Written
retell
coding.


The
coding
for
the
written
retelling
was
done
using
a
scoring
rubric
listing
all
the


main
ideas
and
details
in
the
order
that
they
appeared
in
the
passages
(see
Appendix
D).

Each
written
retelling
was
examined
and
scored
using
the
rubric.
The
number
and

percentages
of
main
ideas
and
main
ideas
plus
details
were
calculated
for
each
participant.

The
same
special
education
teacher
was
trained
in
scoring
the
main
ideas
and
details
as
for

the
coding.
Inter‐observer
agreement
was
calculated
on
five
percent
of
the
sample
to
verify

the
scoring
protocol
and
the
overall
agreement
was
83%.












63






Chapter
Four

Quantitative
Results

Introduction




This
study
relied
on
both
quantitative
and
qualitative
measures
to
answer
the


research
questions
related
to
what
high
school
students
do
and
what
high
school
students

perceive
that
they
do
while
reading
expository
text.
This
study
used
the
transcripts
of
the

verbal
protocols
of
the
twenty‐five
students
to
quantify
multiple
aspects
of
what
students

do
while
reading
expository
text.
The
verbal
protocols
were
analyzed
to
determine
the

types
of
utterances
the
students
made
outside
of
reading
the
text.
An
utterance
was
defined

as
a
statement
made
outside
of
the
text
and
was
separated
by
pauses
made
by
the
student

in
his/her
speech.
Each
utterance
was
coded
in
one
of
three
categories
(knowledge

construction,
monitoring
or
evaluating)
with
each
category
broken
into
multiple
sub‐types.

Group
averages
were
calculated
for
each
category
and
sub‐type.

Various
other
quantitative
measures
were
calculated
such
as
amount
of
turns
(read

words
coupled
with
spoken
words),
the
amount
of
words
read
and
spoken
per
turn,
and

miscues
of
read
words.
These
quantitative
measures
of
the
verbal
protocol
assisted
in

describing
the
similarities
and
differences
between
the
two
groups
when
reading

expository
text.
Additionally,
the
study
used
the
Metacognitive
Awareness
of
Reading

Strategies
Inventory
(MARSI)
to
measure
the
students’
self‐perceptions
of
what
they
do

when
they
read
expository
text.
Finally,
two
comprehension
measures
were
used
to
assess

the
students’
comprehension
while
performing
the
verbal
protocol.


Knowledge
Construction


64






The
majority
of
spoken
utterances
fell
within
the
category
of
knowledge
construction
with

a
total
of
463
knowledge
construction
utterances
out
of
589
overall
utterances
or
an

overall
of
78.6%.
Within
knowledge
construction,
the
majority
of
the
utterances
were

paraphrases
(259)
and
rereads
(175)
with
prior
knowledge
(13),
integration
(8),

speculating
beyond
the
text
(4)
and
visualization
(4)
making
up
the
rest
of
the
utterances.

Within
group
comparisons
showed
that
the
above
average
readers
made
some
type
of

knowledge
construction
utterance
88%
of
the
time,
while
the
students
with
learning

disabilities
made
knowledge
construction
utterances
72%
of
the
time.
See
the
table
below

for
the
percentage
breakdown
for
each
group
within
knowledge
construction
utterances.


Table
4.
Knowledge
construction
group
totals

GROUP
 TOTALS


RE‐

VISUAL‐

SPECULA‐

PRIOR


INTEGRA‐

PHRASE


READ


IZATION


TING


KNOW‐

TION


BEYOND

LD


PARA‐

LEDGE


54.8%


41.1%


1.6%


0.4%


2%


0%


N(248)


N(136)


N(102)


N(4)


N(1)


N(5)


N(0)


88%


57.2%


33.9%


0%


1.3%


3.7%


3.7%


N(215)


AA


71.9%


N(123)


N(73)


N(0)


N(3)


N(8)


N(8)







Individually,
utterances
for
students
in
both
groups
tended
to
be
grouped
into
one


or
two
categories.
Of
the
students
in
the
AA
group,
ten
of
the
twelve
students
demonstrated

comments
from
the
two
or
less
sub‐types
in
the
knowledge
construction
category.

65






Typically,
students
used
some
combination
of
paraphrasing
and/or
rereading.
Likewise,
in

the
LD
group,
ten
of
the
thirteen
students
demonstrated
comments
from
two
or
less
sub‐
types,
again
typically
paraphrasing
or
rereading
comments.
Thus,
the
majority
of
the

students
in
both
groups
stuck
to
one
type
or
two
types
of
comments
within
the
knowledge

construction
category.
See
the
graphs
below
for
the
by
participant,
within
group

breakdown.




30


25


20

Paraphrase

Reread


15


Visualization

Speculating


10


Prior
Know

Integration


5


0




Figure
1.
Learning‐disabled
readers
knowledge
construction
use



For
interpretation
of
the
references
to
color
in
this
and
all
other
figures,
the
reader
is

referred
to
the
electronic
version
of
this
thesis
(or
dissertation).






66






25


20


Paraphrase


15


Reread

Visualization

Speculating


10


Prior
Know

Integration

5


0

B‐1
 B‐2
 B‐3
 B‐4
 B‐5
 B‐6
 B‐7
 B‐8
 B‐9
 B‐10
 B‐11
 B‐12





Figure
2.
Above
average
readers
knowledge
construction
use

Monitoring

The
monitoring
category
comprised
the
next
largest
category
with
92
utterances
out

of
589
total
utterances
thus
making
up
15.6%
of
all
utterances.
The
students
with
learning

disabilities
made
more
monitoring
utterances
at
68
(19.7%)
than
the
above
average

readers
who
made
24
(9.8%)
utterances.
The
majority
of
monitoring
utterances
made
by

the
students
with
learning
disabilities
were
made
in
reference
to
word
meanings
at
23

(33.8%)
utterances.

However,
the
students
with
learning
disabilities
were
relatively

similar
in
their
number
of
utterance
across
monitoring
content
affirming
understanding,

indicating
confusion
and
indicating
a
problem
with
word
meaning.
The
above
average

readers
made
the
most
utterances
monitoring
content
while
confirming
understanding;


67






this
category
made
up
14
utterances
for
58.3%
of
their
monitoring
utterances.
The
above

average
readers
did
not
make
any
utterances
indicating
problems
with
word
meaning.
See

the
table
below
for
the
total
monitoring
breakdown.


Table
5.
Monitoring
utterances
group
totals

GROUP


CONTENT
–


CONTENT


CONFUSED


QUESTION


19.7%


27.9%


30.8%


7.4%


33.8%


N(68)


N(19)


N(21)


N(5)



N(23)


9.8%


58.3%


33.3%


8.3%


0%


N(24)


AA


CONTENT‐

UNDERSTANDING


LD


TOTAL


N(14)


N(8)


N(2)


N(0)


WORD

MEANING




Evaluating


Evaluating
utterances
made
up
the
final
category
of
utterances
with
the
least

amount
for
both
groups
with
a
total
of
34
(5.8%)
utterances
made
out
of
589
total

utterances.
The
evaluative
utterances
(5)
made
up
only
2%
of
the
total
utterances
made
by

the
above
average
readers
while
the
evaluative
utterances
(29)
made
by
the
students
with

disabilities
made
up
only
8.4%
of
the
total
utterances
made
overall.
However,
the
students

in
the
learning
disabilities
group
made
85.3%
(29)
of
the
total
utterances
in
the
evaluating

category
with
the
above
average
readers
making
only
14.7%
(5)
of
the
utterances
in
this

category.
The
majority
of
the
utterances
(20)
made
in
the
learning
disabilities
group
came

68






from
one
student
in
the
category
of
“negative
reaction.”
See
the
table
below
for
the
break

down
of
the
evaluating
utterances
and
categories.


Table
6.
Evaluating
utterances
group
totals

GROUP


TOTAL


AGREEMENT
 DISAGREE‐

REACTION


8.4%


75.8%


10.3%


13.8%


0%


N(29)


N(22)


N(3)


N(4)


N(0)


2%


60%


0%


20%


20%


N(5)


AA


POSITIVE


REACTION

LD


NEGATIVE


N(3)


N(0)


N(1)


N(1)


MENT




Events

An
event
is
defined
as
a
pairing
of
read
text
with
spoken
text.
An
event
does
not

include
when
the
student
is
sounding
out
words,
adding
words
(like,
“the”
or
“an”)
or

misspoken
words.
An
event
occurs
when
the
student
reads
the
text,
pauses
and
then
makes

utterances
in
relation
to
the
text.
In
order
to
get
a
clearer
picture
of
what
the
students
do

while
they
read
expository
text,
events
were
counted
along
with
the
average
number
of

words
read
and
the
average
number
of
words
spoken
for
the
events.
Students
in
the

learning
disabilities
group
had
more
events
with
15.1
average
events
to
the
above
average

readers
who
had
12.7
events.
There
was
a
large
range
of
number
of
events
in
both
groups

with
the
learning
disabilities
group
having
a
low
of
three
events
to
a
high
of
26
events
and


69






the
above
average
readers
having
a
low
of
six
events
and
a
high
of
24
events.
Both
groups

averaged
about
the
same
number
of
words
read
per
event
with
the
learning
disabled
group

reading
an
average
of
51.8
words
per
event
and
the
above
average
readers
reading
52

words
per
event.
Likewise,
the
average
number
of
words
spoken
per
event
was
similar

between
both
groups
with
the
learning
disabled
group
saying
an
average
of
20.8
words
per

event
and
the
above
average
readers
saying
21.8
words
per
event.
Again,
each
group
had
a

wide
range
of
words
read
and
spoken
per
event.
See
the
table
below
for
a
breakdown
of

group
averages
and
ranges
for
number
of
events,
words
read
and
words
spoken.


Table
7.
Event
averages
and
ranges

GROUP


AVERAGE
 STANDARD
 AVERAGE
 STANDARD
 AVERAGE
 STANDARD

#
EVENTS
 DEVIATION


WORDS


DEVIATION


READ


WORDS


DEVIATION


SPOKEN


LD


15.1


5.48


51.8


46.27


20.8


18.43


AA


12.7


5.02


52.0


22.96


21.8


16.11





Miscues

Miscues
for
the
read
passage
were
counted
in
five
categories,
and
the
students
in
the

learning
disabled
(LD)
group
had
the
highest
averages
of
miscues
in
the
read
passages.

Even
though
all
passages
were
at
the
student’s
individual
reading
level,
the
LD
students

generally
demonstrated
a
choppier
reading
style
due
to
the
amount
of
miscues
which

included
misspoken
words,
missed
punctuation,
unknown
words,
omitted
words
and


70






added
words.
Misspoken
words
were
counted
when
a
student
stumbled
on
a
word
or

changed
the
tense
of
a
word.
For
instance,
a
student
would
say,
“base”
for
“basin”
or
“river”

for
“rivers.”
The
students
in
the
LD
group
averaged
21.2
misspoken
words
per
passage

while
the
students
in
the
above
average
(AA)
group
averaged
just
3.5
words
per
passage.

The
AA
students
did
not
miss
any
punctuation,
which
was
generally
a
failure
to
stop
at
a

period
and
to
keep
reading
through
to
the
next
sentence.
The
LD
group
had
a
total
of
10

missed
punctuations,
however
one
student
had
five,
one
had
four
and
the
other
student

had
one,
so
10
of
the
13
students
in
the
LD
group
did
not
have
any
missed
punctuation.

Unknown
words
were
further
evaluated
to
determine
if
the
student
resolved
it
correctly
or

incorrectly.
Unknown
words
were
counted
when
a
student
attempted
to
sound
out
the

word.
Again,
the
students
in
the
AA
group
did
not
have
any
unknown
words.
However,
the

students
in
the
LD
group
averaged
18
unknown
words
per
passage
with
32.9%
of
those

words
resolved
correctly
and
67.9%
percent
of
the
words
resolved
incorrectly
which

included
sounding
the
word
out
wrong
or
giving
up.
The
range
of
unknown
words
within

the
LD
group
was
large
with
one
student
having
no
unknown
words
to
one
student
having

a
high
of
40
unknown
words.
The
student
with
40
unknown
words
resolved
four
of
them

correctly.
Finally,
omitted
and
added
words
were
counted.
Omitted
words
were
counted
if

the
student
omitted
a
word
from
the
read
passage,
and
was
typically
a
small
word
like,
“of”

or
“the.”
The
students
in
the
LD
group
averaged
2.5
omitted
words
per
passage
while
the

students
in
the
AA
group
averaged
0.25
words
per
passage.
Added
words
were
counted

when
the
student
inadvertently
added
a
word
to
the
reading.
Again,
this
was
often
a
small

word
such
as
“the”
or
“in.”
Again
the
LD
group
averaged
more
added
words
with
an
average

of
4.1
words
per
passage
while
the
AA
group
averaged
0.75
words
per
passage.
The
count

71






of
the
miscues
demonstrates
that
even
with
passages
at
individual
reading
levels,
the

students
in
the
LD
group
struggle
with
the
fluency
of
their
reading
while
reading

expository
passages
compared
to
the
AA
group.


Metacognitive
Awareness
of
Reading
Strategies
Inventory

The
Metacognitive
Awareness
of
Reading
Strategies
Inventory
(MARSI)
was
given
to

the
twenty‐five
students
in
this
study
to
determine
their
self‐perceptions
about
the

strategies
they
use
when
reading
expository
text.
The
MARSI
is
comprised
of
thirty
items

that
fall
into
three
broad
categories.
The
MARSI
uses
a
likert
scale
with
a
low
of
one
to
a

high
of
five.
Unpaired
T‐tests
were
done
to
compare
the
two
groups
in
their
overall
ratings

and
their
ratings
in
each
of
the
three
sub‐groups
in
order
to
determine
if
the
there
was
a

statistically
significant
difference
between
the
two
groups
in
terms
of
their
self‐
perceptions.
In
each
subcategory
as
well
as
overall,
the
students
in
the
AA
group
rated

themselves
as
more
likely
to
use
the
reading
strategies
compared
to
the
students
in
the
LD

group
further
confirming
previous
studies
that
suggest
that
more
proficient
readers
tend
to

be
more
metacognitive
in
their
reading
(Baker,
1989;
S.
G.
Paris
&
Jacobs,
1984;
S.
G.

Paris

&
Winograd,
1990).
See
the
table
below
for
a
summary
of
the
statistical
analysis.


Table
8.
MARSI
individual
mean
scores
for
LD
students

ID


Overall


Global


Support


2.3


Problem‐

Solving

3.1


LD‐1


2.3


LD‐2


2.7


2.8


3.8


1.4


LD‐3


1.97


2.0


2.6


1.3


LD‐4


2.97


2.9


3.3


3.0


72




1.7




Table
8
(Contd)




LD‐5













4.1


2.3


LD‐6


2.8


2.5


3.6


2.4


1.96


1.6


2.6


1.9


LD‐8


2.9


2.9


3.4


2.4


LD‐9


2.7


2.5


3.1


2.7


LD‐10


2.9


2.5


3.4


3.1


LD‐11





2.9


LD‐7





3.07


2.5


2.5


3.1


1.8


LD‐12


3.6


3.4


4.4


3.3


LD‐13


3.3


3.0


4.0


3.2


2.52


2.61


3.43


2.33



Total


Table
9.

MARSI
individual
means
scores
for
AA
Students

ID


Overall


Global


Support


3.6


Problem‐

Solving

4.1


AA‐1


3.5


AA‐2


3.3


3.3


4.8


2.0


AA‐3


3.8


3.7


4.6


3.2


AA‐4


3.5


3.3


4.1


3.3


AA‐5


3.9


4.3


4.3


2.9


AA‐6


4.5


4.6


4.9


4.0


AA‐7


4.4


4.2


4.3


4.7


AA‐8


3.2


3.2


4.0


2.4


73




2.8




Table
9
(Contd)









3.8


3.6


4.4


3.6


AA‐10


3.3


2.9


3.9


3.3


AA‐11





AA‐9


3.7


3.9


3.9


3.1


AA‐12


3.4


3.4


3.5


3.2


Total


3.68


3.67


4.22


2.94


Table
10.
MARSI
group
comparison

Strategies


LD


AA


t


df


Overall


2.74


3.69


5.26***


23


(0.48)


(0.42)





Note.
*=p
<
0.005,
**=p
<
0.0004,
***=p
<
0.0001.
Standard
Deviations
appear
in

parentheses
below
means.





While
it
is
clear
that
the
LD
group
rate
themselves
as
using
reading
strategies
less


across
the
board,
further
inspection
does
show
some
similarities
between
the
groups.
Both

the
LD
and
the
AA
groups
rated
themselves
as
using
the
strategies
in
the
sub‐type
Problem

Solving
strategies
the
most,
which
includes
such
strategies
as
guessing
the
meaning
of

unknown
words
or
phrases,
rereading
and
back
tracking.
Both
groups
rated
themselves
as

using
the
strategies
in
the
sub‐type,
Global
Strategies
next
in
frequency,
which
includes

such
strategies
as
using
tables
and
figures
to
increase
understanding,
using
context
clues

and
prior
knowledge.
Finally,
each
group
rated
their
use
of
strategies
in
the
sub‐type

Support
Strategies
with
the
least
frequency.
This
sub‐type
includes,
paraphrasing,


74






summarizing,
and
using
reference
materials.
Thus,
regardless
of
group,
the
frequencies
of

the
subtypes
were
the
same.
It
is
not
surprising
that
the
AA
readers
are
demonstrating

more
metacognitive
awareness,
however,
it
is
interesting
to
note
that
the
AA
and
LD

readers
are
proportionately
similar.





In
order
to
dig
deeper
into
the
rankings
to
determine
further
similarities
or


differences,
all
scores
were
averaged
for
each
group
across
the
thirty
items
and
within
the

subtypes.
The
scores
were
then
ranked
from
highest
(most
used)
to
lowest
(least
used)

within
the
subtypes
and
groups.
There
were
thirteen
items
in
the
Global
Strategies
section.

All
thirteen
items
were
ranked
according
to
the
average
score
across
the
group
and
both

groups
had
the
same
five
of
seven
items
in
the
top
half
of
the
rankings
within
their
group.

Thus,
both
LD
and
AA
students
ranked
similar
strategies
as
more
frequently
used
in
the

Global
Strategies
sub‐type
as
shown
in
the
following
table.


Table
11.
Rankings
for
MARSI
strategies

LD
Ranking





Statement


AA
Ranking




2


1


I
think
about
what
I
know
to
help
me
understand

what
I
read.


3


2


I
use
context
clues
to
help
me
better
understand

what
I
am
reading.


3


4


I
check
my
understanding
when
I
come
across

conflicting
information.



4


7


I
preview
the
text
to
see
what
it’s
about
before

reading
it.



5


6


I
check
the
meaning
of
unknown
words
or
phrases.



75






Table
11
(Contd)

6


5


I
have
a
purpose
in
mind
when
I
read.







There
were
also
some
similarities
in
the
Problem
Solving
Strategies
sub‐group,


which
had
a
total
of
eight
statements.
Both
of
the
groups
gave
the
statement,
“I
read
slowly

but
carefully
to
be
sure
I
understand
what
I
am
reading,”
as
the
least
used
strategy
within

the
sub‐group.

Additionally,
both
of
the
groups
rated
the
statement,
“when
text
becomes

difficult,
I
reread
to
increase
my
understanding,”
as
second
in
frequency.
Interestingly,
the

LD
group
rated,
“I
try
to
guess
the
meaning
of
unknown
words
or
phrases,”
as
the
most

used
strategy
in
this
sub‐group,
while
the
students
in
the
AA
group
rated
that
as
one
of
the

least
used
strategies
in
the
sub‐group.

Considering
that
the
LD
students
averaged
18

unknown
words
per
reading
passage
and
the
AA
students
did
not
average
any
unknown

words,
it
is
not
surprising
that
the
LD
students
rated
“I
try
to
guess
the
meaning
of

unknown
words
or
phrases,”
as
a
strategy
that
they
use
often.
Additionally,
the
AA
students

would
not
need
to
guess
the
meaning
of
unknown
words
or
phrases
for
the
passages
read

as
none
of
the
AA
readers
demonstrated
that
they
came
across
unknown
words
in
the
read

passages.

Clearly
the
students
in
the
LD
group
had
more
problems
with
word
identification

than
the
AA
students.


Finally,
the
students
in
the
AA
group
rated
“I
try
to
get
back
on
track
when
I
lose

concentration,”
as
the
most
used
strategy,
while
the
students
in
the
LD
group
rated
that

third
in
frequency.



76









The
Support
Strategies
group
had
nine
statements
and
was
overall
rated
as
the
least


used
sub‐group.
However,
this
sub‐group
had
many
similarities
in
rankings
between
the
LD

and
AA
groups.
Both
of
the
groups
rated
“I
paraphrase
to
better
understand
what
I
read,”
as

the
most
used
strategy
and
“I
go
back
and
forth
in
the
text
to
find
relationships
among

ideas
in
it,”
as
the
second
most
used
strategy.
Additionally,
both
of
the
groups
rated,
“
I

underline
or
circle
information
in
the
text
to
help
me
remember
it,”
as
the
third
most
used

strategy.
Finally,
both
groups
rated,
“I
take
notes
while
reading
to
help
me
understand
what

I
read,”
as
the
least
used
strategy
in
this
sub‐group.





While
the
MARSI
clearly
showed
that
the
students
in
the
AA
group
rate
themselves


as
using
reading
strategies
at
a
more
frequent
rate
than
their
peers
in
the
LD
group,
the
two

groups
show
similarities
in
the
strategies
that
they
use
more
frequently
within
their

groups.
Hence,
the
above
average
readers
and
the
readers
with
learning
disabilities
are

using
similar
strategies
but
to
different
degrees
of
frequency.


Comprehension
Measures

Two
different
comprehension
measures
were
used
in
this
study.
First,
students

answered
multiple‐choice
questions
about
the
passage
after
performing
the
verbal

protocol.
The
purpose
of
this
was
to
verify
that
the
verbal
protocol
did
not
interfere
with

the
students’
understanding
of
the
passage.
Students
in
the
LD
group
scored
an
average
of

77%
on
the
multiple‐choice
measure
with
a
range
of
50%
to
100%.
Students
in
the
AA

group
scored
an
average
of
95%,
with
a
low
of
70%
and
a
high
of
100%.
The
multiple‐
choice
questions
included
five
literal
and
five
inferential
questions.
The
LD
students
scored

an
average
of
75.38%
on
the
literal
questions
with
a
range
between
20%
and
100%
while

the
AA
students
scored
an
average
of
91.67%
on
the
literal
questions
with
a
range
of
60%

77






to
100%.
On
the
inferential
questions,
the
LD
students
scored
an
average
of
78.46%
with
a

range
between
20%
and
100%,
and
the
AA
students
scored
an
average
of
98.33%
with
a

range
between
80%
and
100%.
The
individual
scores
are
listed
in
the
table
below.


Table
12.
Above
average
readers
multiple
choice
comprehension
scores

Identification


Literal


Inferential


AA‐1


100%


100%


AA‐2


60%


80%


AA‐3


100%


100%


AA‐4


100%


100%


AA‐5


100%


100%


AA‐6


100%


100%


AA‐7


80%


100%


AA‐8


100%


100%


AA‐9


80%


100%


AA‐10


80%


100%


AA‐11


100%


100%


AA‐12


100%


100%


Total
Mean


91.67%


98.33%










78






Table
13.
Learning
disabled
readers
multiple
choice
comprehension
scores

Identification


Literal


Inferential


LD‐1


20%


100%


LD‐2


100%


100%


LD‐3


100%


80%


LD‐4


80%


60%


LD‐5


80%


80%


LD‐6


40%


80%


LD‐7


100%


100%


LD‐8


100%


80%


LD‐9


80%


20%


LD‐10


60%


100%


LD‐11


80%


100%


LD‐12


80%


60%


LD‐13


60%


60%


Total
Mean


75.38%


78.46%







The
second
comprehension
measure
was
a
written
retell
of
the
passage,
which
was


used
to
set
the
purpose
for
the
reading.
Each
student’s
written
retell
was
coded
on
an
excel

sheet
listing
all
the
main
ideas
and
details
for
the
passages.
The
number
of
main
ideas
and

details
across
the
different
level
passages
were
matched.
There
were
six
possible
main

ideas
in
the
passages
and
52
details
for
a
total
recall
(main
idea
and
details)
of
58.


79






Percentages
of
the
main
idea
recall
and
the
total
recall
(details
and
main
ideas)
were

calculated
and
averaged
for
each
group.
Students
in
the
LD
group
averaged
19.24%
of
main

idea
recall
while
students
in
the
AA
group
averaged
51.41%
of
main
idea
recall.
Likewise

the
LD
group
demonstrated
9.01%
of
total
recall
from
the
passage
while
the
AA
group

average
24.71%
of
total
recall.
The
table
below
lists
the
individual
scores
for
all

participants
on
both
main
idea
recall
and
total
recall.


Table
14.
Above
average
readers
written
recall

Identification


Main
Idea


Total
Recall


AA‐1


50%


27.5%


AA‐2


0%


6.9%


AA‐3


33.3%


17.2%


AA‐4


66.7%


24.1%


AA‐5


50%


29.3%


AA‐6


66.7%


34.5%


AA‐7


66.7%


29.3%


AA‐8


66.7%


27.6%


AA‐9


16.7%


10.3%


AA‐10


66.7%


32.8%


AA‐11


66.7%


32.8%


AA‐12


66.7%


24.1%


Total
Mean


51.4%


24.7%





80






Table
15.
Learning
disabled
readers
written
recall

Identification


Main
Idea


Total
Recall


LD‐1


0%


6.9%


LD‐2


0%


10.3%


LD‐3


50%


19%


LD‐4


0%


3.4%


LD‐5


16.7%


8.6%


LD‐6


0%


5.2%


LD‐7


0%


3.4%


LD‐8


66.7%


20.7%


LD‐9


0%


5.2%


LD‐10


33.3%


10.3%


LD‐11


66.7%


15.5%


LD‐12


16.7%


3.4%


LD‐13


0%


5.2%


Total
Mean


19.2%


9.0%







Unpaired
t‐tests
were
done
to
compare
the
two
groups
written
retelling.

Percentage


of
main
ideas
and
total
recall
(main
ideas
plus
details)
for
each
group
was
tested,
and
it
was

determined
that
the
groups
were
statistically
different.
See
the
table
below
for
the
t‐test

results.




81






Table
16.
Written
retell
t‐test

Categories


LD


AA


t



df


Main
Ideas


19.24


51.
41


3.25*


23


5.23**


23


(26.23)
 (22.99)




Total
Recall


9.01


24.71





(5.95)


(8.88)


Note.
*=p
=
0.0035,
**=p
<
0.0001.
Standard
Deviations
appear
in
parentheses
below

means.





The
written
retell
was
also
compared
to
the
verbal
protocol
analysis
to
determine
if


the
knowledge
construction
comments
such
as
paraphrasing
or
rereading
were
mirrored
in

the
written
retell.
Overall,
the
students
in
the
AA
group
had
more
knowledge
construction

comments
in
the
written
retell
with
25.4%,
compared
to
the
LD
group,
which
had
14.3%
of

their
verbal
protocol
comments
reflected
in
the
written
retell.
Further
analysis
showed
that

the
AA
group
had
more
paraphrasing
comments
(37.9%)
and
more
rereading
comments

(18.3%)
reflected
in
their
written
retells
than
the
LD
group,
which
had
27.3%
paraphrasing

comments
and
4.5%
rereading
comments.
The
tables
below
show
the
individual

breakdown
of
the
comparisons
between
the
verbal
protocol
analysis
and
the
written
retell.

Table
17.
LD
percentages
of
verbal
protocol
analysis
comments
in
written
retell

ID


Total


Paraphrasing


Reread


Other


LD‐1


11.1%


20.0%


0%


NA


LD‐2


35.5%


46.2%


0%


NA


82






Table
17
(Contd)

LD‐3


13.3%


20.0%


10%


NA


LD‐4


3.3%


10%


0%


NA


LD‐5


6.7%


11.1%


0%


LD‐6


35.3%


35.3%


NA


25%

(visualization)

NA


LD‐7


6.7%


25%


0%


NA


LD‐8


25%


14.3%


NA


LD‐9


6.7%


14.3%


0%


100%
(prior

knowledge)

NA


LD‐10


15.8%


15.8%


NA


NA


LD‐11


18.8%


24.0%


0%


NA


LD‐12


13.0%


11.8%


16.7%


NA


LD‐13


13.3%


NA


13.3%


NA




Table
18.
AA
percentages
of
verbal
protocol
analysis
comments
in
written
retell

ID


Total


Paraphrasing


Reread


Other


AA‐1


44.4%


50%


0%


NA


AA‐2


20.0%


0%


21.4%


NA


AA‐3


30%


37.5%


0%


NA


AA‐4


14.3%


15.4%


NA


AA‐5


20.7%


42.9%


9.1%


0%
(prior

knowledge)

40%
(prior

knowledge

and

speculating

beyond
text)


83






Table
18
(Contd)

AA‐6


34.6%


62.5%


22.2%


NA


AA‐7


30.4%


35.0%


0%


NA


AA‐8


18.2%


16.7%


18.2%


NA


AA‐9


27.3%


16.7%


0%


AA‐10


43.8%


45.5%


40.0%


100%

(Visualizing)

NA


AA‐11


46.7%


53.8%


0%


NA


AA‐12


40.9%


47.1%


20.0%


NA




While
the
quantitative
analysis
showed
differences
between
the
two
groups
in
their

strategy
use,
metacognition
and
comprehension,
there
were
also
some
proportionate

similarities.
Further
analysis
in
chapters
five
and
six
will
highlight
these
similarities
and

differences.

















84






Chapter
Five

Qualitative
Results

Introduction




In
addition
to
quantitative
methods
to
describe
high
school
readers,
qualitative


methods
where
employed
to
examine
the
high
school
readers
on
a
more
individual
level.

The
main
research
question
seeks
to
investigate
what
high
school
readers
do
while
reading

expository
text,
and
two
of
the
sub‐questions
are
related
to
investigating
how
the
above

average
readers
and
their
peers
with
learning
disabilities
are
qualitatively
similar
and

different.
One
sub‐question
is
related
to
how
students
demonstrate
their
use
of
knowledge

construction,
monitoring
and
evaluating
when
reading
expository
text
and
one
sub‐
question
is
related
to
their
self‐perceptions
of
what
they
do
while
reading
expository
text.

The
following
section
examines
three
meaning
construction
profiles
that
emerged
from
the

data
and
six
case
studies
of
the
twenty‐five
participants
in
a
more
in‐depth
manner
to

better
demonstrate
similarities
and
differences
in
both
their
approaches
to
reading

expository
text
and
their
perceptions
of
what
they
do
when
they
read
expository
text.
The

six
case
studies
were
chosen
from
their
respective
categories
because
they
demonstrated
a

good
representation
of
the
category.



There
were
three
main
categories
of
meaning
construction
that
student
profiles
fell

into
when
examining
the
broad
question
of
what
students
do
when
constructing
meaning

while
reading.
The
first
category
is
Single
Knowledge
Construction
Strategy
Use,
which
is

characterized
by
the
student
using
predominately
one
type
of
knowledge
construction

strategy
in
the
think
aloud
protocol,
typically
rereading
or
paraphrasing.
The
second

category
is
Patterned
Knowledge
Construction
Use,
which
is
characterized
by
the
students

85






using
a
patterned
approach
to
knowledge
construction
by
moving
back
and
forth
between

rereading
and
paraphrasing.
Finally,
a
Multiple
Strategy
Use
category
emerged
in
which

students
demonstrated
using
multiple
knowledge
construction
strategies
without
any
type

of
back
and
forth
pattern
characterized.
The
following
table
gives
a
break
down
of
the

categories
and
the
number
of
AA
and
LD
students
in
each
category.



Table
19.
Strategy
use
category
totals

Category


#
AA


%
AA


#
LD


%
LD


Single
Use


6


50%


6


46.2%


Pattern
Use


4


33.3%


5


38.5%


Multiple
Use


2


16.7%


2


15.3%




Single
Knowledge
Construction
Use

Within
the
category
of
knowledge
construction,
there
were
six
sub‐categories.
Most

students
employed
more
than
one
sub‐category
when
reading
expository
text,
however,

many
demonstrated
only
limited
flexibility.
The
preference
for
a
single
use
of
sub‐category

demonstrates
a
similarity
on
the
surface
between
the
readers
in
the
two
groups
and

warrants
a
closer
examination
of
the
verbal
protocol.
Sara
and
Colleen
were
chosen
from

the
12
students
who
demonstrated
this
single
use
because
they
both
used
rereading
for

knowledge
construction.

The
two
students
who
demonstrated
a
clear
preference
for
rereading
were
Sara,
an

above
average
reader
and
Colleen,
a
student
with
a
learning
disability.
Sara
read
the

twelfth‐grade
passage,
while
Colleen
read
the
eighth‐grade
passage.
Both
students
made

roughly
the
same
number
of
rereads
in
their
passages,
however,
beyond
the
number,
their

86






think
alouds
were
quite
different.
Ironically,
their
comprehension
measures
and
self‐
perceptions
were
similar.



Sara’s
approach
to
rereading
was
dispersed
throughout
the
passage
and
more

targeted.
Sara
tended
to
reread
only
sections
of
sentences
versus
whole
sentences
or

paragraphs.
For
instance
after
reading
the
following
two
sentences,
“The
land
area

surrounding
the
river
is
a
drainage
basin
or
watershed.
Correction
of
a
pollution
problem

in
a
river
must
consist
of
an
integrated
approach,
and
should
include
measures
to
correct

all
the
sources
of
pollution
within
the
river
basin
or
land
area,”
she
chose
to
reread,

“Integrated
approach,
source
of
pollution
within
the
river
basin
or
land
area.”
After

rereading,
Sara
went
on
to
the
next
paragraph.
In
the
beginning
of
the
passage,
Sara
would

read
three
to
four
sentences
of
the
text
and
then
chose
to
reread,
typically
only
the
final

part
of
the
paragraph.
Toward
the
end
of
the
passage,
she
would
read
a
sentence
and
then

reread
part
of
the
sentence
and
move
on
to
the
next
sentence.


Colleen
demonstrated
a
different
use
of
rereading.
She
would
read
one
to
two

paragraphs
and
then
reread
the
end
of
the
final
paragraph.
Colleen
would
reread
whole

sentences.
It
did
not
appear
that
she
was
looking
for
anything
in
particular,
she
would
just

loop
back
to
a
point
in
the
paragraph
and
reread
until
she
had
gotten
to
what
she
had
not

read
and
she
would
continue
reading
the
text.
Colleen
had
three
big
chunks
of
rereading

versus
Sara’s
back
and
forth
method.
Colleen
would
read
a
couple
of
paragraphs
and
then

reread
three
sentences,
read
a
couple
more
sentences,
reread
four
sentences,
read
another

paragraph,
and
then
reread
eight
sentences.
Finally,
she
finished
reading
the
passage
and

did
not
go
back
and
reread
at
the
end.
At
the
end
of
Sara’s
passage,
she
reread
the

conclusion.
These
two
different
styles
of
rereading
demonstrate
that
rereading
is
not
a

87






straightforward
endeavor
and
may
be
more
complicated.
Additionally,
Colleen

demonstrated
more
problems
with
fluency
and
word
recognition,
which
may
have
led
her

to
reread
paragraph
endings
in
order
to
look
for
a
conclusion
or
to
make
sense
of
the

paragraph
as
a
whole.





Unlike
Sara’s
reading
of
the
twelfth‐grade
passage,
which
was
fluent,
Colleen’s

reading
of
the
eighth‐grade
passage
was
choppy
and
labor
intensive.
Colleen
read
two

sentences
within
the
whole
passage
without
having
a
pronunciation
problems
or
having
to

stop
and
sound
out
a
word.
Colleen
frequently
struggled
with
the
pronunciation
of
words,

but
would
make
a
best
guess
and
continue
on
in
the
reading.
For
instance,
Colleen
had
a

hard
time
pronouncing
the
word,
“industry.”
She
pronounced
it,
“in‐dur‐dustry”
or
“in‐du‐
dustry,”
throughout
reading
the
passage
and
throughout
the
reread.
She
also
struggled

with
the
words,
“agriculture”
and
“sewage,”
but
was
able
to
pronounce
both
correctly
by

the
end
of
the
passage.


Ironically,
both
Sara
and
Colleen
struggled
with
both
comprehension
measures

despite
their
different
approaches
to
rereading.
Sara
scored
a
seven
out
of
ten
on
the

multiple‐choice
questions
while
Colleen
scored
a
six
out
of
ten
on
the
multiple‐choice

questions.
Both
readers
missed
the
questions
about
water
pollution
problems
being
more

complex
in
the
future
which
was
a
main
idea
of
the
passage
as
a
whole.
They
both
also

missed
the
question
about
the
number
of
primary
pollution
sources,
again
a
main
idea
of

the
passage
overall.
Both
students
indicated
that
there
were
two
main
sources
of
water

pollution,
however,
the
passage
devotes
a
paragraph
to
introducing
the
three
main
sources,

and
there
is
an
individual
paragraph
about
each
source.



88






On
the
written
retell,
Sara
was
able
to
retell
four
details
and
no
main
ideas,
while

Colleen
retold
three
details
and
no
main
ideas.
In
Sara’s
retell,
she
focused
on
details
versus

main
ideas
and
got
some
details
wrong
or
mixed
up.
For
instance,
she
wrote,
“some
waste

reduction
methods
are
more
complex
than
others,
involving
more
advanced
procedures.”

In
the
passage,
she
reread
the
following
section,
“rapidly
expanding
industries
that
involve

more
and
more
complex
chemical
processes
will
produce
larger
volumes
of
liquid
wastes.”

The
passage
never
talked
about
waste
reduction
methods
or
advanced
procedures;
waste

reduction
was
never
mentioned.

On
the
other
hand,
Colleen’s
retelling
was
very
broad
and

then
also
mentioned
some
minor
details.
Colleen
started
her
retell
by
listing
that
the

passage
was,
“about
pollution.”
The
passage
was
specifically
about
water
pollution
and
the

three
sources,
however,
she
never
mentions
the
water
or
three
sources.
Colleen
also
states

that,
“things
they
are
doing
so
they
can
fix
the
problem
of
pollution.”
Similar
to
Sara,

however,
the
passage
never
talked
about
solutions
to
the
pollution
problem.


Sara
and
Colleen
both
had
an
overall
score
of
3.3
(on
a
1
through
5
likert
scale)
on

the
Metacognitive
Awareness
of
Reading
Strategies
Inventory
(MARSI).
This
would
indicate

that
they
had
an
overall
perception
of
medium
reading
strategy
use.
Interestingly,
they

both
(Sara
–
4,
and
Colleen
–
5)
rated
themselves
as
using
paraphrasing
frequently
when

reading
expository
text,
however,
they
did
not
demonstrate
that
strategy.
Additionally,

both
indicated
that
they
frequently
(Sara
–
4,
and
Colleen
–
5)
use
tables
and
figures
to
aid

in
understanding,
but
neither
of
them
demonstrated
that
strategy
either.
They
both
rated

themselves
as
frequently
(Sara
and
Colleen
–
5)
using
rereading
to
help
them
understand

the
text,
which
was
clearly
evident.
Overall,
the
students
in
the
above
average
group
rated

themselves
as
using
reading
strategies
in
general
more
frequently
than
the
students
in
the

89






learning
disabled
group,
so
it
is
interesting
to
note
that
these
two
students
rated

themselves
very
similarly.


Sara
and
Colleen
both
used
re‐reading
as
a
main
strategy
for
reading
and

understanding
text.
However,
Sara
tended
to
go
back
and
forth
more,
reading
smaller

portions
of
text
and
circling
back
to
reread
partial
sentences
of
the
text.
Colleen
had
a
more

chunky
style
of
rereading
as
she
would
read
large
sections
of
the
text
and
go
back
and

reread
multiple
sentences
of
the
text.
While
their
styles
were
different,
their
outcomes

were
somewhat
similar
in
that
they
were
not
very
efficient
at
recalling
main
ideas
or

details
on
the
written
retell
and
their
scores
on
the
multiple‐choice
comprehension

assessment
were
relatively
poor.
Additionally,
both
readers
seemed
to
be
somewhat
aware

of
their
preference
for
rereading
on
the
MARSI,
but
also
rated
themselves
as
frequently

using
strategies
that
were
not
demonstrated.


Patterned
Knowledge
Construction
Use

Some
students
relied
on
a
patterned
approach
by
rereading
and
then
paraphrasing

to
construct
knowledge
of
the
passage.
Two
students
who
demonstrated
this
approach

were
Jack,
a
student
with
a
learning
disability
and
Kurt,
an
above
average
reader.

Jack
and

Kurt
were
chosen
because
they
both
demonstrated
this
approach
and
additionally,
they

both
demonstrated
roughly
the
same
amount
of
turns
based
on
rereading
and

paraphrasing,
making
them
a
good
qualitative
match.
Jack
read
the
seventh‐grade
passage

and
made
twenty
rereading
comments
and
ten
paraphrasing
comments.
Kurt
read
the

twelfth‐grade
passage
and
made
eleven
rereading
comments
and
twelve
paraphrasing

comments.
On
the
comprehension
measures,
Kurt
scored
ten
out
of
ten
correct
on
the

multiple‐choice
questions
while
Jack
scored
nine
out
of
ten
correct.
On
the
written
retell,

90






Kurt
recalled
slightly
more
information
than
Jack.
Their
self‐perceptions
of
reading

strategy
use
were
vastly
different.


Even
though
both
Kurt
and
Jack
used
a
pattern
of
rereading
and
paraphrasing
to

construct
knowledge
of
the
passage,
their
individual
approaches
were
quite
different
on
a

length
and
depth
level.
Kurt
generally
read
at
least
three
sentences
before
he
would
pause

and
go
back
to
reread
or
paraphrase.
Indeed,
on
average,
Kurt
read
39.9
words
before

pausing
to
reread
or
paraphrase,
and
then
spoke
on
average
26.1
words
before
returning
to

the
passage.
In
contrast,
Jack
read
on
average
30.9
words
before
rereading
or
paraphrasing

and
then
spoke
only
15.6
words
on
average.
For
example
upon
reading
about
how
water

flows
from
a
river
into
a
lake
or
ocean
and
that
reflects
everything
that
happens
on
the

land,
Kurt
said,
“so,
water
that
flows
from
a
river
into
a
lake
or
ocean
reflects
what
happens

on
land,”
while
Jack
said,
“rivers
into
lakes
or
oceans.”
The
shorter,
less
in
depth
snippets
of

rereading
were
more
indicative
of
Jack.

The
passages
end
by
stating
that
water
pollution

problems
will
become
worse
and
more
complex
in
the
future.
Kurt
paraphrases
the

following,
“So
there
will
be
a
lot
of
water
problems
in
the
future
because
population
is

increasing
and
there’s
going
to
be
more
sewage
and
a
lot
of
demand
for
wat…,
the
demand

for
water
will
rise.”
Jack
states,
“Pollution
will
get
larger
from
human
waste.”
Kurt
is
able
to

explain
a
relationship
between
higher
population,
more
sewage
and
more
demand
for

water,
while
Jack’s
paraphrase
is
more
one‐dimensional
stating
that
human
waste
will

increase,
but
not
explaining
why.


Both
Kurt’s
and
Jack’s
reading
of
the
passages
was
quite
fluent.
Kurt
made
no
errors

of
misspoken
words,
unknown
words,
omitted
or
added
words.
On
the
other
hand,
Jack
did

make
a
few
mistakes
while
reading,
but
was
still
relatively
fluent.
For
instance,
Jack
would

91






change
the
tenses
for
words,
like
saying,
“comes,”
for
come
or
“waste,”
for
wastes.

Occasionally,
he
would
add
a
word
like,
“the,”
or
skip
a
word
like,
“more.”
Overall,
he
was

able
to
read
the
passage
with
little
trouble.


Both
Kurt
and
Jack
demonstrated
good
comprehension
on
the
multiple‐choice

questions.
Kurt
got
all
ten
questions
correct,
while
Jack
got
one
question
wrong.
Jack
felt

that
the
passage
was
“argumentative,”
versus
an
“explanation.”
Jack
did
get
all
the
detail

questions
correct.
On
the
written
retell,
Kurt
identified
four
of
six
main
ideas
while
Jack

identified
three
of
six
main
ideas.
In
his
written
retell,
Kurt
was
more
tuned
in
to
the

introductory
paragraph,
which
outlined
the
rest
of
the
passage.
The
main
idea
from
that

paragraph
was
that
there
are
three
main
sources
of
water
pollution
on
land,
agriculture,

humans
and
industry.
Kurt
retold
the
main
idea
and
eight
of
the
ten
details
in
that

paragraph.
In
contrast,
Jack
retold
that
water
pollution
came
from
agriculture,
humans
and

industry,
but
never
put
them
altogether
as
the
three
main
sources
of
water
pollution.
This

may
indicate
that
Kurt
was
more
in
tune
to
the
structure
of
the
passage
than
Jack.


Both
Jack
and
Kurt
retold
information
in
the
passage
in
sequence
or
chunks.

Jack

retold
that
industries
use
water
to
cool
equipment,
equipment
made
the
water
hot,
the
hot

water
was
discharged
into
streams
and
rivers.
Kurt
retold
the
rest
of
the
paragraph,
that

thermal
pollution
occurs
when
hot
water
is
discharged
into
streams
and
lakes,
and
that

plants
and
animals
are
harmed
because
of
this
action.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
high

school
where
this
research
was
done
is
located
close
to
a
major
industry
that
uses
water
to

cool
equipment.
While
neither
of
these
students
commented
on
this
industry,
two
other

students
directly
commented
on
this
fact,
so
the
chunked
information
may
be
due
to
prior

knowledge,
however,
neither
Jack
nor
Kurt
commented
on
this
directly.
In
the
verbal

92






protocol,
Jack
reread
the
section
on
thermal
pollution
while
Kurt
paraphrased
the
section;

focusing
mostly
on
how
thermal
pollution
killed
the
plants
and
animals,
so
it
was
not
a

surprise
to
see
this
on
his
written
retell.
Again,
Kurt
seems
more
focused
on
the
conclusion

as
demonstrated
by
his
mention
of
how
hot
water
pollutes.
Jack
stops
short
of
this
and

states
only
that
hot
water
is
introduced
into
the
lakes,
not
why
that
is
bad.


Kurt
and
Jack
have
very
different
self‐perceptions
of
the
reading
strategies
they
use

while
reading
expository
text.
Overall,
Kurt
rates
himself
as
using
reading
strategies
at
a

medium
rate
(3.2),
while
Jack
rates
himself
as
using
reading
strategies
at
a
low
rate
(1.97).

Indeed,
Kurt
rates
himself
higher
in
every
category,
especially
in
problem
solving
strategies

(4).
Jack
also
rates
himself
as
using
problem
solving
strategies
more
than
any
other
sub‐
group
of
strategies
(2.6),
but
he
still
rates
the
frequency
of
use
a
below
what
Kurt
rates

himself
(4).
Likewise,
Kurt
rates
that
he
uses
rereading
to
help
him
understand
material
as

a
four
and
Jack
rates
that
he
uses
rereading
as
a
three.
They
both
used
rereading
as
a

primary
source
for
constructing
knowledge,
however,
Jack
indicates
that
he
does
it

“sometimes,”
while
Kurt
indicates
that
he
“usually,”
rereads.
Ironically,
they
both
indicated

that
they
“never
or
almost
never,”
paraphrase
to
help
them
understand
material
while
both

demonstrated
paraphrasing
as
an
often‐used
strategy.
It
is
unclear
why
students
are

sometimes
off
target
with
what
they
do
and
what
they
say
they
do
with
regard
to
reading

strategies.
Perhaps
the
students
are
not
fully
aware
of
the
strategies
they
utilize
because

they
are
not
purposefully
and
consciously
using
the
strategies.


Kurt
and
Jack
are
two
students
who
demonstrated
a
similar
pattern
of
strategy
use

moving
back
and
forth
between
rereading
and
paraphrasing.
However,
Kurt
demonstrated

a
more
in‐depth
use
of
the
strategies
along
with
a
more
in‐depth
ability
to
recall
the

93






information
that
was
read.
Finally,
Kurt
rated
himself
as
using
reading
strategies
more

frequently
than
Jack
although,
their
self‐ratings
were
parallel
with
Jack
rating
himself
as

using
the
strategies
less
across
the
board.


Multiple
Strategy
Use

Four
students
used
multiple
strategies
from
both
knowledge
construction
and

monitoring
when
reading
the
passages.
Anna
and
Mary
were
profiled
because
Anna

demonstrated
a
diverse
use
of
strategies,
and
Mary
was
chosen
because
she
also

demonstrated
a
wide
range
of
strategy
use
and
the
other
student
in
the
LD
group
who
used

a
variety
of
strategies
relied
on
visualization,
which
was
not
demonstrated
by
any
other

student.

Anna
is
a
twelfth‐grade
student
in
the
above
average
readers
group
who
read
the

twelfth‐grade
passage,
while
Mary
is
an
eleventh‐grade
student
with
a
learning
disability

who
read
an
eighth‐grade
passage.
Both
students
used
rereading
the
most,
followed
by

paraphrasing,
use
of
prior
knowledge
and
speculating
beyond
the
text.
Anna
also
made

comments
integrating
the
pictures
into
the
text
meaning.
Both
students
used
the
most

monitoring
comments
in
their
respective
groups.
Both
made
comments
about
the
content

in
regards
to
understanding
the
content,
being
confused
by
the
content
or
asking
a
direct

question
about
the
content
of
the
text.
Additionally,
Mary
made
comments
about

understanding
the
meanings
of
individual
words
while
Anna
made
no
such
comments.

Thus
in
terms
of
amount
of
strategies
demonstrated
along
with
the
relative
rate
of

strategies,
their
verbal
protocols
are
similar.
On
their
multiple‐choice
comprehension

assessment,
both
students
demonstrated
that
they
understood
the
passage
by
answering

all
ten
questions
correctly.
However,
on
the
written
retell,
Anna
was
able
to
retell
many


94






more
details
and
main
ideas
than
Mary.
Likewise,
their
self‐perceptions
of
reading
strategy

use
are
vastly
different.


The
main
difference
between
Mary
and
Anna’s
style
is
purposefulness.
Mary
begins

reading
the
first
paragraph,
skipping
the
title,
getting
caught
up
on
a
word
and
one
of
her

first
comments
is,
“I
don’t
get
that,”
which
forces
her
to
begin
again
with
18
lines
of

rereading
and
monitoring
to
attempt
to
understand
the
first
paragraph
of
the
passage.

Mary
ends
the
18
lines
with,
“I
semi‐get
that
you
know
it’s
just
not
clicking,”
and
moves
on

to
continue
reading.
The
article
talks
a
lot
about
sewage
being
related
to
water
pollution,

and
Mary
makes
the
connection
between
sewage
and
“poop.”
Mary
finds
this
“gross,”
and

comments
on
it
a
lot.
For
instance,
after
reading,
“Most
water
pollution
from
large
farms

comes
from
animal
wastes,”
Mary
comments,
“animal
poop,
not
wastes
that’s
gross.”
She

seems
so
fixated
on
the
poop
and
how
gross
it
is
that
she
never
really
makes
all
the

connections
in
the
article.
This
is
not
new,
and
studies
have
shown
the
young
children
and

students
with
LD
may
struggle
to
recognize
intrusive
information
when
reading
expository

text
(Englert
&
Hiebert,
1984;
Englert
&
Thomas,
1987).

After
her
initial
lengthy
attempt
to
really
make
sense
of
what
she
is
reading,
it

appears
that
she
mostly
gives
up
and
comments
on
parts
of
the
article
that
pertain
to
poop

or
that
she
really
does
not
understand.
For
example,
she
reads,
“Finally,
humans
contribute

to
water
pollution
through
sewage.
Sewage
includes
human
wastes,
garbage,
and
water….”

She
stops
part
way
through
this
sentence
and
says,
“ewwww
poop
again
and
its
human

poop,
ewww.
Okay
where
was
I
at?
Okay.”
She
essentially
loses
her
place
and
train
of

thought
and
has
to
regroup
and
continue
on.
It
seems
like
Mary
is
reading
the
words
and

sentences
as
discreet
separate
facts.
She
does
not
make
an
attempt
to
integrate
any

95






information,
nor
does
she
make
connections
between
the
paragraphs.
Her
written
retell

demonstrates
this.
The
entire
written
retell
is,
“I
remember
it
talking
about
the
poop
going

into
the
lakes
and
rivers.
I
also
remember
stuff
about
the
septic
tanks.”
While
Mary
on
the

surface,
demonstrates
the
use
of
many
strategies,
she
does
not
use
them
effectively
to
make

connections
within
the
reading.


Anna’s
reading
is
highly
purposeful.
She
is
immediately
looking
for
connections
and

structure.
The
title
of
the
article
is,
“Water
Pollution
Problems.”
There
was
also
an
“F”
on

the
title
line
to
indicate
to
the
researcher
that
this
was
passage
F
or
the
twelfth‐grade

passage.
Anna
read
the
title
and
the
first
sentence
and
then
comments,
“flows,
I
don’t
know,

maybe
that
has
something
to
do
with
F,
into
a
lake
or
ocean.”
Not
a
single
student
in
the

study
other
than
Anna
ever
commented
on
the
F,
let
alone
tried
to
find
meaning
with
it.
She

quickly
abandons
the
idea
that
F
is
in
anyway
significant,
but
she
is
clearly
aware
of
the
text

and
looking
for
ways
to
construct
meaning.


All
of
the
passages
had
three
pictures
connected
to
the
reading.
Anna
was
one
of

only
two
students
who
commented
or
appeared
to
even
look
at
the
pictures.
None
of
the

students
in
the
group
with
learning
disabilities
looked
at
or
commented
on
the
pictures.

Anna
read
the
first
three
lines
of
the
article
and
immediately
looked
at
the
picture
to

attempt
to
integrate
it
into
the
reading.
She
comments,
“looking
down
at
the
picture,
I
don’t

know.”
She
then
continues
reading
and
goes
to
the
picture
again
saying,
“Um,
I
should
look

at
the
picture.”
She
then
sums
up
the
reading
and
integrates
it
with
the
picture
by
saying,

“You
have
soil,
manure,
fertilizers
all
running
into
the
pond
or
lake
or
river.
I
don’t
know

what
it
is
let
me
look
up.”

She
then
looks
back
at
the
article
and
rereads,

“The
water
that

flows
from
a
river
into
a
lake
or
ocean.”

She
then
comments
on
the
picture
again,
“Okay,
so

96






that’s
a
lake
or
ocean.”
She
is
very
purposeful
in
understanding
the
reading
along
with
the

picture.
Anna
does
this
with
each
of
the
three
pictures,
purposefully,
reads,
rereads,

paraphrases,
and
makes
monitoring
comments
indicating
if
she
understands
or
does
not

understand
how
the
reading
and
the
picture
are
connected.


Anna’s
use
of
rereading
is
also
purposeful.
She
comments,
“Nitrogen
and

phosphorus,
were
those
mentioned
earlier?”
She
then
pages
back
into
the
article
intent
on

finding
the
answer
to
her
question.
She
rereads
seven
lines
and
at
one
point
comments
that

what
she
is
looking
for
is
further
back.
She
then
finds
what
she
is
looking
for
and
says,

“Nitrogen
and
phosphates,
phosphorous,
different
things.”
She
thought
she
had
read
about

phosphorous
and
she
had
read
about
phosphates
and
concludes
that
they
are
not
the
same.

This
is
a
fairly
small
detail,
but
her
searching
was
purposeful
and
directed,
not
because
she

lost
her
place
or
train
of
thought.


There
was
one
sentence
in
the
article
that
was
incongruous
to
the
article
and
did
not

belong.
This
sentence
tripped
up
a
couple
of
students,
but
the
majority
of
students
accepted

it
and
moved
on.
The
sentence
was
in
the
paragraph
on
lagoons
used
to
store
toxic
animal

wastes.
It
reads,
“Fish
for
human
consumption
are
raised
in
large
livestock
farms.”
Mary

and
Anna
both
dealt
with
this
sentence
in
different
ways.
Mary,
read
it
and
initially

indicates
that
she
does
not
understand
the
line,
so
she
reads
it
again,
and
says,
“I
don’t
get

that.”
Mary
then
reads
it
for
a
third
time
and
then
says,
“I
don’t
get
that
word.
Like
what
it

means,
that’s
my
only
problem.”
Mary
then
asks
the
researcher
what
consumption
means

and
is
told
eating.
She
says,
“Ohhh,
kinda
get
it
now,”
and
reads
the
line
for
the
fourth
time.

Finally,
she
says,
“okay,
alright.”
She
accepts
the
sentence
even
though
she
is
clearly
still
a

little
unsure
about
its
meaning.


97






Anna
on
the
other
hand
is
a
little
put
off
by
the
line.
She
reads
it
and
immediately

says,
“What?”
and
rereads
the
line.
She
is
clearly
agitated
and
after
reading
the
line
a

second
time
says,
“I
don’t
know
what
that
means,
I
don’t
what
that
is,
I
don’t
know
what

that
means
in
this
paragraph.”
She
dismisses
the
line
and
does
not
spend
any
more
time
on

it
as
she
has
come
to
the
conclusion
that,
“I
don’t
know
what
that
means
in
this
paragraph,”

which
is
vastly
different
than
not
understanding
the
meaning
in
general.
Anna
is
clearly

monitoring
the
structure
of
the
paragraph
and
does
not
see
how
that
statement
is
relevant

because
it
is
not
relevant
in
the
paragraph
at
all.


As
noted,
Mary’s
written
retell
is
short,
unfocused
and
lacking
in
detail.
In
contrast

Anna’s
written
retell
takes
up
almost
one
full
page
of
writing
and
includes
a
sketch
of
a

septic
tank
similar
to
the
one
in
the
passage.
Her
written
retell
captures
three
main
ideas

and
14
details
in
the
reading.
Additionally,
Anna
chunks
(two
consecutive
idea
from
a

category)
eight
times;
clearly
making
connections
between
pertinent
details
in
the
passage.

On
the
multiple
choice
comprehension
measure,
both
students
were
able
to
answer
all
ten

questions
correctly,
which
demonstrates
that
Mary
understood
basically
what
she
had

read.


On
the
Metacognitive
Awareness
of
Reading
Strategies
Inventory
(MARSI),
Anna

rated
herself
overall
as
using
strategies
at
a
high
level
(4.4
out
of
5),
while
Mary
rated

herself
as
lower
(1.96
out
of
5).

Clearly,
Anna
feels
that
she
uses
reading
strategies
more

frequently.
The
MARSI
is
broken
into
three
categories,
Global
Strategies,
Problem‐Solving

Strategies,
and
Support
Reading
Strategies.
Anna
rated
herself
as
using
the
strategies
in

each
category
on
average
between
“usually”
and
“almost
always.”

Mary
rated
herself
as

using
the
strategies
in
each
category
on
average
between
“never
to
almost
never”
to

98






“occasionally.”
There
was
not
a
single
category
that
was
rated
a
lot
higher
than
any
other

category
for
either
one
of
them
and
neither
of
them
showed
a
preference
for
a
specific

category
within
the
verbal
protocol.


While
on
the
surface,
there
seemed
to
be
similar
approaches
between
some
students

with
learning
disabilities
and
some
students
who
are
above
average
readers,
there
are

qualitative
differences
upon
closer
inspection.
The
students
using
the
single
strategy

preference
had
the
most
similarities
in
both
their
approach
and
MARSI
score.
As
the

strategy
approach
became
more
varied,
the
underlying
differences
between
the
two
groups

became
more
visible.
In
the
multiple
strategy
use
profile,
the
difference
in
purpose
and

planning
is
clearly
visible
in
the
profile
of
the
above
average
reader.

The
profile
of
the

student
with
a
learning
disability
showed
multiple
strategy
use,
but
not
in
an
effective,

planned
manner.
Additionally,
the
student
with
the
learning
disability
was
not
able
to

effectively
capture
the
reading
in
a
written
retell,
and
rated
herself
as
using
most
strategies

at
a
low
frequency.
















99






Chapter
Six

Discussion

This
study
focused
on
what
high
school
students
do
when
reading
expository
text.

By
the
time
a
student
reaches
the
upper
grades
of
high
school,
they
have
received
almost

twelve
years
of
formal
schooling
in
literacy,
and
expectations
from
society
that
those

students
can
use
that
training
to
become
productive
members
of
their
communities
is
high.

However,
little
research
has
been
done
to
examine
how
high
school
students
translate

those
twelve
years
of
instruction
into
making
sense
of
expository
text.
Hence
the
purpose

of
this
study
was
to
take
a
snap
shot
of
high
school
readers
while
they
were
reading

expository
text
to
determine
what
they
did
while
reading.
Additionally,
this
study
aimed
to

examine
how
effective
those
students
were
and
how
self‐aware
those
students
were
of

their
use
of
reading
strategies.
Finally,
this
study
focused
on
above
average
students
as
well

as
students
with
learning
disabilities.

Hence
the
overarching
question
for
this
study
was,

what
do
above
average
and
learning
disabled
eleventh
and
twelfth
grade
readers
do
while

engaged
in
reading
expository
text?
Additionally,
there
were
seven
specific
subcategories

of
research
questions.
In
order
to
provide
a
comprehensive
snapshot
of
those
questions,
a

data
summary
table
is
provided
below.

Table
20.
Data
summary


Research

Question

a.
What

knowledge

construction

processes?


Findings
AA


Findings
LD


Paraphrase

Paraphrase

(55%)

(57%)

Reread
(41%)
 Reread

(34%)




100




Interpretation

Both
groups
quantitatively

used
the
same
two
strategies

the
most.




Table
20
(Contd)

b.
What

monitoring

processes?


Content
–

understanding

(58%)

Word

meaning


(0%)


Content
–

understanding

(28%)

Word

meaning

(34%)


Students
in
the
LD
group
had

a
much
higher
rate
of

comments
related
to

unknown
word
meanings

despite
reading
at
their

reading
levels.
It
appears
that

students
in
the
LD
group

struggled
more
with
content

at
the
word
level
than
at
the

content
level.

c.
What

Total

Total

Small
amount
of
overall

evaluating

comments

comments

evaluative
comments.

processes

(2%)

(8%)

Majority
(67%)
of
evaluative

comments
in
LD
group
came

from
one
student.

d.
How
are
AA

Targeted

Caught
up
on
 While
both
groups
used

and
LD
readers

rereading
and
 words

similar
strategies,
the
AA

qualitatively

paraphrasing;
 meanings,
less
 readers
tended
to
use

different?

longer

targeted

strategies
to
a
greater
depth

passages
read,
 rereading
and
 and
in
a
more
purposeful

longer

paraphrasing
 manner.
Additionally,
AA

responses;


students
did
not
struggle

purposeful
in

with
word
level
meanings.


strategy
use

e.
What
are
the

Overall

Overall

In
each
category
and
overall,

self‐perceptions
 strategy
use:
 strategy
use:
 AA
students
self‐perception

of
reading

3.69/5.0

2.74/5.0

of
strategy
use
is
higher
than

strategy
use?





LD
students.
Additionally,

Subcategory

Subcategory

both
groups
ranked
the

ranking
in

ranking
in

importance
of
the
subgroups

importance:

importance:

the
same
with
Problem

1. Problem

1.
Problem

Solving
strategies
being
the

Solving

Solving

most
important.


2.
Global

2.
Global

3.
Support

3.
Support

f.
How
are
the

Self‐
Self‐
The
main
difference
in
self‐
self‐perceptions
 perceptions
of
 perception
of
 perception
of
strategy
use
is

of
AA
and
LD

strategy
use

strategy
use

in
degrees.
Both
groups
rank

readers

higher

lower

similar
strategies
as

qualitatively
and

important,
however,
AA

similar/different?

readers
report
using
them

with
more
frequency.



101






Table
20
(Contd)

g.
What
patterns

or
themes

emerged?


Single

Strategy
Use

(50%)

Pattern
Use


(33%)

Multiple
Use

(17%)




Single

Strategy
Use

(46%)

Pattern
Use

(38%)

Multiple
Use

(15)


While
both
groups

demonstrated
similar

frequencies
of
strategy
use

patterns,
at
a
qualitative

level,
the
AA
group

demonstrated
a
more

targeted
and
conscious
use
of

strategies.




For
a
more
in
depth
discussion,
the
above
sub‐questions
can
be
pooled
into
three

sub‐topics:

1.

How
do
students
use
knowledge
construction,
monitoring,
and
evaluating
to

understand
expository
text?


2.

What
are
the
students’
self­perceptions
of
their
strategy
use?


3.

What
reading
profiles
emerged
from
the
verbal
protocols?


Knowledge
construction,
Monitoring,
and
Evaluating

Reading
is
a
vastly
complex
endeavor
that
is
not
easily
captured
in
it
entirety.
In

order
to
capture
as
much
of
the
reading
profile
as
possible,
the
framework
outlined
in

Pressley
and
Afflerbach’s
book,
Verbal
Protocols
of
Reading:
The
Nature
of
Constructively

Responsive
Reading
was
utilized.
This
framework
consists
of
three
distinct
reading

processes
that
are
intertwined,
but
deconstructed
to
allow
for
analysis.
The
first
and

foremost
process
was
knowledge
construction.
In
this
study,
knowledge
construction

processes
were
by
far
used
the
most
by
the
participants
followed
by
monitoring
and
then

evaluation.
This
was
perhaps
due
to
the
nature
of
the
task,
which
was
to
read
a
passage
on

water
pollution
for
understanding.


102






By
far
paraphrasing
and
rereading
were
the
strategies
within
knowledge

construction
that
students
used
the
most
and
often
used
together.
Students
did
not
appear

particularly
flexible
with
the
strategies
that
they
used
and
often
their
strategy
use
had
a

pattern
or
cadence
to
the
way
it
was
used.
Most
students
read
the
passage
and
then

employed
either
paraphrasing
or
rereading.
Again,
this
could
have
been
the
nature
of
the

reading
task,
to
read
the
500
plus
passage
for
understanding.
Contrary
to
other
studies
that

found
that
good
readers
are
highly
flexible,
most
of
the
students
observed,
were
not

particularly
flexible.
This
was
true
of
both
above
average
readers
and
students
with

learning
disabilities.
The
studies
that
found
that
good
readers
were
highly
flexible
were

often
done
with
experts
in
their
respective
fields,
such
as
Lundberg’s
(1987)
study
of

lawyers
and
Wineburg’s
(1991)
study
of
historians.
In
this
study,
none
of
the
students
were

experts
in
water
pollution;
however,
the
passage
was
similar
to
a
typical
high
school

reading
assignment.
The
students
seemed
to
approach
this
passage
as
they
would
any

reading
assignment
that
they
had
no
real
interest
in
or
passion
for,
which
is
probably
more

representative
of
general
reading
requirements
in
high
school.


The
students
with
learning
disabilities
made
far
more
word
level
errors
while

reading
aloud
than
the
above
average
students,
which
was
not
surprising.
This
made
their

oral
reading
seem
choppier
with
constant
stops
and
starts
in
spite
of
the
fact
that
the

students
were
reading
at
their
own
reading
level.
Despite
this,
the
two
groups
were

surprisingly
similar
in
their
knowledge
construction
profiles
in
terms
of
how
many
times

the
students
chose
to
paraphrase
or
reread.
However,
closer
inspection
revealed
that
the

students
with
in
the
learning
disabilities
(LD)
group
paraphrased
incorrectly
more
often

(13%)
than
the
above
average
readers
(AA)
group
(5%).
This
suggests
that
the
AA
readers

103






are
more
proficient
at
paraphrasing.
Additionally,
when
the
paraphrasing
comments
were

compared
to
the
written
retell
comprehension
task,
the
AA
students
had
37.9%
of
their

paraphrasing
comments
in
their
written
retells
while
the
LD
students
had
27.3%
of
their

paraphrasing
comments
in
the
written
retell.
Interestingly,
the
LD
group
had
only
4.5%
of

their
rereading
comments
in
their
written
retells,
and
the
AA
group
had
only
18.3%
of
their

rereading
comments
in
the
written
retells.
This
suggests
that
perhaps
the
LD
students

would
possibly
benefit
from
instruction
or
additional
practice
in
a
particular
strategy,
such

as
paraphrasing
if
that
is
a
strategy
that
they
show
a
proclivity
towards
utilizing
and
if
it

was
a
particularly
effective
strategy
in
terms
of
recall.


Students
in
both
groups
made
less
monitoring
and
evaluative
statements
overall.

Even
though
all
students
were
reading
at
their
reading
level,
students
in
the
LD
group

struggled
with
word
meanings
far
more
often
then
their
counterparts
in
the
AA
reader

group.
A
statement
was
only
counted
as
a
monitoring
statement
if
the
students
made
a

direct
comment
about
not
understanding
the
word.
If
a
student
merely
struggled
with
a

word,
by
attempting
to
sound
it
out,
it
was
counted
as
an
“unknown”
word.
If
the
student

could
sound
out
the
word
correctly,
it
was
counted
as
“resolved
correctly,”
and
if
the

student
was
not
able
to
pronounce
the
word,
it
was
counted
as
“resolved
incorrectly.”

Students
in
the
AA
group
did
not
have
any
problems
pronouncing
any
of
the
words
in
the

passages
they
read.
However,
like
the
monitoring
comments
about
word
meaning,
students

in
the
LD
group
struggled
with
unknown
words.
Students
in
the
LD
group
were
only
able
to

resolve
their
unknown
words
correctly
33%
of
the
time,
which
means
that
67%
of
the
time,

the
students
gave
up
or
came
to
incorrect
conclusions.
On
the
simple
comprehension

assessment
of
multiple‐choice
questions,
the
students
in
the
LD
group
averaged
77%

104






correct
(compared
to
95%
correct
for
the
AA
group).
This
suggests
that
the
word
level

mistakes
and
misunderstandings
were
not
great
enough
for
the
students
in
the
LD
group
to

completely
miss
the
meaning
of
the
passages.
However,
it
also
brings
up
the
question
as
to

how
conscious
were
the
decisions
of
the
students
in
the
LD
group
when
it
came
to
giving

up
on
an
unknown
word
and
moving
on.
Did
the
students
in
this
group
lack
the
skills
to

figure
out
the
unknown
words,
or
did
they
decide
that
some
of
the
words
just
were
not
that

important
in
terms
of
time
effort
to
impact
understanding?

There
were
relatively
few
evaluative
statements
made
overall
by
students
in
both

groups.
This
is
not
surprising
given
the
task
and
topic
of
the
passage.
Again,
the
expert

readers
in
their
own
fields
made
far
more
evaluative
statements,
but
they
were
also

experts
who
had
a
lot
of
background
knowledge
and
opinions
about
the
topics
that
they

were
reading.
The
students
in
this
study
tended
to
accept
the
information
with
little
to
no

questioning
of
the
information.


Indeed
there
was
a
line
in
each
passage
that
really
did
not
have
anything
to
do
with

the
passage.
The
sentence
in
the
passage
was,
“Fish
for
human
consumption
are
raised
on

large
livestock
farms.”
Overwhelmingly
the
students
accepted
the
odd
statement
and

moved
on.
Occasionally,
the
students
would
reread
the
sentence;
possibly
to
make
sure

they
read
it
correctly.
One
student
in
the
LD
group
attempted
to
integrate
the
sentence
into

the
passage
by
saying,
“Um,
wait
animal
waste
goes
in
the
water
and
fish
eat
it
and
we
eat
it

and
we
can
get
sick.”
There
was
nothing
in
the
passage
about
fish
eating
anything
or

humans
getting
sick.
Only
one
student
commented
that
the
sentence
did
not
belong
in
the

paragraph
and
she
wondered
why
it
was
there.
This
was
a
student
in
the
AA
readers
group.

However,
across
both
groups,
the
students
accepted
what
they
read
as
fact
and
did
not

105






generally
question
or
make
evaluative
comments.
This
suggests
that
the
students
were

generally
not
critical
readers,
which
would
certainly
be
a
trait
of
a
good
reader.


Self­perceptions
of
Strategy
Use

Both
sets
of
students
completed
the
Metacognitive
Awareness
of
Reading
Strategy

Inventory
(MARSI)
as
a
measure
of
their
self‐perceptions
of
strategy
use.
On
one
hand
the

students
in
the
AA
reader
group
rated
themselves
as
using
more
strategies
more
often

when
compared
to
the
students
in
the
LD
group.
However,
when
examining
the
groups,

there
are
many
similarities.
Both
groups
of
students
rated
themselves
as
using
the

strategies
in
the
sub‐type
Problem
Solving
Strategies
the
most.
This
included
guessing

meanings
of
words,
rereading,
and
backtracking.
Furthermore
within
the
sub‐types
the
top

strategy
use
from
both
groups
was
similar
albeit
the
LD
students
still
used
them
less

compared
to
the
students
in
the
AA
group.


Essentially,
the
difference
between
the
two
groups
on
the
MARSI
was
one
of

degrees.
This
suggests
that
the
students
in
both
groups
find
similar
strategies
useful
to
the

degree
that
the
students
in
that
particular
group
use
strategies.
Additionally,
the
rank
order

of
the
importance
of
the
strategies
between
the
groups
is
similar
suggesting
that
students

in
both
groups
employ
similar
strategies
to
different
degrees
with
the
students
in
the
AA

group
using
the
strategies
more
frequently
than
the
students
in
the
LD
group.
Perhaps

students
in
the
LD
group
would
benefit
from
being
more
metacognitive
of
their
strategy

use,
thus
employing
strategies
more
frequently.

Reading
Profiles

Across
the
two
groups,
students
generally
had
a
pattern
or
system
to
reading
the

expository
text.
Most
students
stuck
to
between
one
and
three
general
knowledge

106






construction
strategies
when
reading.
Additionally,
most
of
the
students
used
rereading

and
paraphrasing.
Three
different
profiles
within
the
two
groups
emerged
beginning
with

the
most
simplistic
of
using
one
primary
strategy
and
moving
to
the
more
complex
usage
of

multiple
strategies.
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
as
the
strategy
use
became
more
diverse,

the
differences
between
the
two
groups
(Above
Average
readers
and
students
with

Learning
Disabilities)
became
larger.
When
examining
the
students
who
used
primarily
one

strategy,
both
the
AA
and
the
LD
students
struggled
with
comprehension
measures
and

they
both
had
the
same
overall
score
on
the
Metacognitive
Awareness
of
Reading
Strategies

Inventory
(MARSI).
This
may
suggest
that
single
strategy
use
is
a
more
simplistic
and

ineffective
plan
for
reading.


However,
when
examining
the
two
students
who
used
the
most
strategies
in
each

group,
there
were
large
differences
in
their
comprehension
measures
and
MARSI
scores.

Additionally,
the
AA
reader
who
used
multiple
strategies
appeared
more
purposeful
in
the

strategies
she
employed.
She
continually
looks
for
patterns
and
connections
in
the
reading,

and
she
readily
drops
lines
of
inquiry
that
appear
to
be
unimportant
while
pursuing
what

she
deems
relevant
in
the
passage.
On
the
other
hand,
the
student
with
the
LD
seems

focused
on
one
main
theme
that
is
not
an
overall
relevant
theme
in
the
passage.
She
returns

again
and
again
to
the
idea
of
human
and
animal
wastes
and
at
the
end
of
the
passage
is

only
able
to
recall
that
one
detail
versus
the
multiple
main
ideas
and
details
that
her
AA

peer
could
recall.

Additionally,
the
student
with
LD,
becomes
hung
up
on
parts
of
the

passage
that
she
does
not
understand
or
a
word
that
she
does
not
understand
and
may

reread
multiple
times
and
then
give
up
or
abruptly
say,
“okay,”
without
any
real
indication

that
she
understood
the
passage.
The
student
with
LD
rates
herself
quite
low
on
strategy

107






use
on
the
MARSI
indicating
that
she
does
not
believe
that
she
uses
reading
strategies

frequently
while
the
AA
reader
rates
herself
quite
high
on
the
MARSI.





It
is
clear
that
the
AA
reader
who
uses
multiple
strategies
does
so
intentionally
and


deliberately
while
her
peer
with
LD
does
not
seem
to
have
a
plan
of
attack
and
is
not

purposeful
in
her
reading.
This
difference
is
evident
in
the
students’
ability
to
retell

important
information
with
the
LD
student
able
to
retell
two
details
and
the
AA
reader
able

to
retell
three
main
ideas
and
fourteen
details
from
the
passage.
It
is
clear
that
the
LD

student
is
aware
of
various
strategies,
however
she
does
not
use
them
in
an
effective

manner.


Implications




It
is
encouraging
to
note
some
similarities
between
AA
readers
and
readers
with
LD


at
the
high
school
level.
Additionally,
the
differences
between
the
two
groups
have

implications
for
instruction
at
both
the
high
school
level
and
potentially
at
the
elementary

and
middle
school
levels.
Students
in
both
groups
seem
aware
of
the
various
reading

strategies
and
are
able
to
use
them
effectively
on
passages
written
at
their
instructional

level
to
construct
knowledge
of
expository
text.
Both
groups
were
able
to
answer
sufficient

multiple‐choice
questions
to
indicate
basic
comprehension
of
the
passages.
However,

students
in
the
AA
reader
group
were
able
to
retell
more
details
and
main
ideas
from
the

passages
than
the
students
in
the
LD
group,
and
students
in
the
AA
group
demonstrated

higher
levels
of
metacognition
related
to
their
use
of
reading
strategies.
Finally,
some

students
in
the
AA
group
demonstrated
more
planning
and
purposefulness
related
to
their

use
of
strategies
when
reading
expository
text.



108









Once
students
get
to
high
school,
they
are
expected
to
know
how
to
read
expository


text
for
information,
and
most
secondary
content
teachers
do
not
see
themselves
as

reading
teachers
as
that
is
a
skill
they
expect
the
students
to
have.
Clearly,
not
all
students

are
able
to
read
expository
text
equally
well,
and
some
students
may
need
a
more
direct

plan
of
scaffolded
reading
instruction
to
help
them
develop
a
purposefulness
and

metacognition
related
to
their
reading
of
expository
text.
Reading
is
a
highly
complex

endeavor,
and
it
is
clearly
not
enough
for
students
to
have
a
big
toolbox
of
reading

strategies.
Students
must
know
when
and
how
to
employ
that
strategies.
Explicit

instruction
on
how
and
when
to
use
reading
strategies
may
be
warranted
in
the
earlier

grades.
Thus
teachers
need
to
have
knowledge
on
how
to
instruct
and
scaffold
strategy
use

across
grade
levels.





Additionally,
students
in
both
groups
ranked
similar
strategies
as
important,


however,
the
LD
students
were
not
as
metacognitive
in
terms
of
reading
strategies
when

compared
to
AA
readers.
The
findings
of
this
study
suggest
that
LD
students
would
benefit

from
becoming
more
purposeful
and
metacognitive
when
they
are
reading.

The
challenge

for
teachers
is
how
to
increase
students’
metacognitive
awareness
of
strategy
use
while

reading
expository
text.
This
may
take
the
form
of
more
directed
practice,
rehearsal
and

modeling
for
students
as
they
read
expository
text
in
all
grades.








Another
implication
is
the
students’
lack
of
critique
of
the
information
that
they


read.
The
students
in
this
study
accepted
and
did
not
question
the
information
presented
in

the
passages.
The
students
were
told
to
read
the
passages
for
understanding
as
they
would

in
class
and
to
understand
it
enough
to
take
a
test
and
write
notes
on
the
passage
when

they
were
done
reading.
Most
of
the
students
did
not
make
any
evaluative
comments
about

109






the
article;
they
accepted
the
information
being
presented
as
fact.
However,
good
readers

evaluate
what
they
read,
they
interact
with
the
text
and
make
judgments
about
the

information
presented
in
the
text
(Pressley
&
Afflerbach,
1995).

Neither
the
AA
nor
the
LD

readers
did
this
while
reading,
which
may
indicate
that
students
are
not
asked
to
be
critical

of
expository
text
often
enough
to
develop
this
skill.


Limitations




This
study
of
high
school
readers
is
limited
by
several
factors.
First,
there
were


twenty‐five
students
who
participated
in
the
study,
which
is
a
relatively
small
sample
size.

The
students
read
a
500
word
expository
passage,
which
was
not
a
socially
valid
task,
such

as
an
assignment
or
project
for
school,
thus
making
the
task
artificial.
While
the
parameters

of
the
reading
task
were
intended
to
duplicate
a
classroom
assignment,
such
as
reading
an

article
or
textbook
and
answering
questions,
the
nature
of
a
think
aloud
itself
is
foreign
and

unnatural
for
most
students.





Expert
readers
as
studied
by
Lundeberg
(1987)
and
Wineburg
(1991)
were
all


intimately
knowledgeable
of
their
field
and
were
naturally
inclined
to
monitor
and
evaluate

passages
in
rich
and
deep
ways.
The
students
in
the
study
were
not
experts
in
pollution
and

the
task
at
hand
had
the
students
reading
the
text
in
order
to
answer
questions
about
the

passage
and
write
about
the
passage
after
reading.
It
may
be
that
the
students
did
not

monitor
or
evaluate
extensively
because
of
the
task.
Hence,
knowledge
construction

emerged
as
the
most
evident
type
of
reading;
perhaps
more
due
to
the
task
than
the

students’
abilities.


Future
Research
Directions


110









There
are
not
many
studies
that
examine
how
high
school
students
read
expository


text
and
the
strategies
that
they
use.
Based
on
the
high
expectations
placed
on
youth
today

to
be
able
to
read
and
understand
expository
text
for
higher
learning,
employment,
and

increase
technology
use
(Beaufort,
2009;
A.
S.
Erickson,
et
al.,
2007;
Schmar‐Dobler,
2003;

C.
B.
Swanson,
2008;
Umpstead,
2008;
Vernon,
et
al.,
2003),
it
is
important
to
understand

what
students
do
when
reading.
This
study
examined
what
above
average
high
school

readers
do
while
reading
expository
text
versus
students
with
learning
disabilities,
in

hopes
that
it
will
begin
to
shed
light
on
not
only
the
differences
between
the
two
groups,

but
the
similarities
as
well.





LD
students
reported
that
they
use
reading
strategies
with
less
frequency,
but
they


rank
the
strategies
in
relative
importance
similar
to
the
AA
readers.
While
the
LD
students

are
aware
of
the
strategies
to
use,
they
do
not
use
them
with
the
frequency
or
purpose
that

the
AA
readers
use
the
strategies.
This
raises
the
question
of
how
to
scaffold
LD
students
to

use
reading
strategies
more
often
and
in
a
more
purposeful
manner
that
will
allow
them
to

understand
the
text
on
a
deeper
level.

Beyond
how
to
teach
students
to
be
more

purposeful,
where
to
fit
that
instruction
into
a
packed
secondary
curriculum
is
another

issue.
It
is
often
assumed
that
students
come
into
the
high
school
with
these
skills,
and

there
is
little
room
in
the
content
area
classroom
for
instruction
on
strategy
use.
Therefore,

studies
on
how
to
incorporate
strategy
use
instruction
into
content
area
curriculum
for

students
with
disabilities
are
needed.





Indeed,
Conley
(2008)
asserts
that
there
is
not
suffiecient
research
on
how
to


effectively
teach
cognitive
strategies
such
as
paraphrasing,
rereading,
and
using
prior


111






knowledge
at
the
middle
and
high
school
levels.
Furthermore,
the
research
that
does
exist

is
often
focused
on
younger
children
performing
relatively
easier
tasks
(2008).


While
it
appears
that
students
may
have
some
preferences
with
regard
to
the

methods
they
use
when
constructing
knowledge,
this
study
raises
questions
related
to

those
preferences,
such
as
how
malleable
are
those
preferences
to
instruction?
If
there
are

preferences,
when
in
the
development
of
reading
do
students
begin
to
form
those

preferences?
Do
students
with
LD
who
struggle
with
word
level
reading,
gravitate
toward

certain
strategies
(i.e…rereading
versus
paraphrasing)
based
on
word
level
versus
content

level
problems?
Understanding
how
cognitive
strategies
develop
over
time
is
an
important

endeavor
when
attempting
to
understand
how
to
teach
cognitive
strategies
(Conley,
2008).

Conclusion

Given
passages
to
read
at
their
own
reading
level,
high
school
students
with
learning

disabilities
and
above
average
readers
demonstrate
both
similarities
and
differences
when

reading
expository
text.
Both
students
with
learning
disabilities
and
above
average
readers

demonstrate
preferences
and
patterns
in
how
they
construct
knowledge
when
reading

expository
text,
and
both
sets
of
students
ranked
similar
strategies
as
used
relatively
more

often
than
others.
However,
the
above
average
readers
self‐reported
significantly
more

strategy
use
and
demonstrated
a
more
proficient
and
purposeful
use
of
reading
strategies

while
reading
fluently.


In
order
to
bridge
the
gap
between
the
students
with
learning
disabilities
and
the

above
average
readers,
reading
instruction
to
meet
individual
student
needs
must
continue

at
the
high
school
level.
This
instruction
may
need
to
be
at
a
word
level
to
increase
fluency

for
some
students.
Additionally,
students
need
to
learn
and
practice
using
reading

112






strategies
such
as
rereading
and
paraphrasing
in
a
purposeful
manner
to
understand
the

expository
text
on
a
more
meaningful
level.
Short
think
alouds
performed
by
students
may

be
useful
formative
assessments
at
the
secondary
level
to
allow
teachers
to
uncover
hidden

reading
preferences
and
potential
fluency
problems.

The
good
news
is
that
students
with

learning
disabilities
at
the
secondary
level
in
this
study
demonstrated
a
knowledge
of
and

use
of
reading
strategies
to
construct
knowledge.
The
challenge
is
to
teach
students
to
use

the
strategies
more
often
and
more
effectively.



























113






















APPENDICES


















114






Appendix
A

High School Readers Study
Parent Consent Form
A research project, the High School Think-Aloud Study, is investigating the strategies
that high school students use when they read informational text. High school students will be
taught how to think aloud while they read and process informational text. This study is being
conducted to better understand the strategies that students use when they read informational text.
Gaining insights into students’ thinking provides valuable information that leads to the design of
reading interventions. By teaching reading strategies that students underutilize, teachers can
more effectively equip their high school readers with the tools that lead to successful
performance. Simultaneously, students who are aware of their reading strategies are better able
to direct and monitor their performance. Although I cannot promise that the participation of your
student will lead to a successful result, this information will be used to formulate some
guidelines that might improve the reading instruction and performance of high school readers.
As part of this study, your student would participate in one, ninety-minute session. First,
your student’s reading level will be assessed using the Gray Silent Reading Test, which will take
between 10 and 20 minutes. The purpose of this assessment is to assure that each student will be
given passages to read at their own reading level. Second, your student, individually and
privately, will be introduced to and provided instruction in simultaneously reading and thinking
aloud. Third, your student individually and privately will practice reading and thinking aloud.
Learning and practicing the think aloud process will take between 10 and 20 minutes. Then, your
student individually and privately will read a short passage aloud while talking about what he/she
is thinking during reading. This five to ten minute read aloud will be audiotaped. Your student
115






will be asked to answer five, multiple choice, comprehension questions related to the passage to
ensure the passage was read for comprehension. Finally, your student will be asked to fill out the
Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory to assess the reading strategies that
your student reports using when reading academic text. This survey will take between 10 and 20
minutes to complete.
To ensure anonymity, no student names will be used and your student (and all students)
will be given pseudonyms. There are no other known risks associated with your student’s
participation in this project. In reporting the results of this study, your student’s names will not
be used, only their pseudonyms. The privacy of your student (and all the students) will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. If you are interested in the results of this
study, we will be happy to provide you with that information.
If parents or guardians do not grant permission, it will not affect your student in any way.
If parents or guardians do give permission, they or their student may decide to withdraw their
participation in the study at any time without penalty. This study is not related to schoolwork;
therefore, your student’s participation or nonparticipation will not affect his or her grades. If your
student withdraws or is withdrawn from the study, all data, transcripts, audiotapes, interview
data, and comprehension data will be destroyed. For students who choose to withdraw from the
study, no individual data will be included in any analysis.
We hope that you will give us permission to include your son or daughter in the study. If
you would like further information, please contact Dr. Troy Mariage via email
(mariaget@msu.edu) or by phone (517.432.1981) or Catherine Wigent via email
(wigentca@msu.edu) or by phone (269.789.2613). If you have any questions regarding your
child’s rights as research subjects, please contact Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Ph. D., Director of Human

116






Research Protections, (517)355.2180, fax (517)432.4503, email irb@msu.edu, mail 202 Olds
Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047. We look forward to working
with your student.
Catherine Wigent

Dr. Troy Mariage

16871 Abby Circle

Faculty, MSU College of Education

Northville, MI 48168

339 Erickson Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824-1034

Ph.D. Candidate

Consent form for Student Participation

I voluntarily give my consent for my student to participate in the High School Think-Aloud Study,
which includes audiotaping. This consent and my student’s participation can be withdrawn at any time
without penalty.
Student’s Name:_____________________
Parent or Guardian Signature:___________________

117






Appendix B
High
School
Readers
Study

Student
Assent
Form



The purpose of the study is to examine the strategies high school readers use when they
read informational text. During the study, you will be asked to read a short passage and talk
about what you are thinking while they read. Students who are aware of their reading strategies
are able to direct and monitor their reading. I cannot promise that your participation will lead to a
successful result. However, this information will be used to improve the reading instruction and
performance of high school readers.
As part of this project, you will be asked to participate in one, ninety-minute session. You
will be asked to complete a reading assessment. The reading assessment is called the Gray Silent
Reading Test. The reading assessment will take 10 to 20 minutes. The assessment will help the
researcher to pick reading passages at your individual reading level. You will be taught how to
read and think aloud. You will be asked to practice reading and thinking aloud. It will take
approximately 10 to 20 minutes to learn and practice thinking aloud while you read. You will be
asked to read aloud and think aloud about a short passage. It will take about five minutes to read
aloud and think about the final passage. The final passage is the only passage that will be
audiotaped. You will also be asked to answer five, multiple-choice comprehension questions
related to the passage you read. This will show the research how well you comprehended while
reading and thinking aloud. Finally, you will be asked to fill out the Metacognive Awareness of
Reading Stratgies Inventory which is a survey used to determine the strategies you use while
reading school text. The survey will take 10 to 20 minutes to fill out.

118






In
reporting
the
results
of
the
study,
your
real
name
will
never
be
used.
Your
privacy
(and

the
privacy
of
all
students)
will
be
protected
to
the
maximum
extent.
In
addition,
there
is
no

penalty
if
you
do
not
choose
to
participate
in
this
study.
Your
grades
are
not
affected
in
any

way.
You
can
choose
to
withdraw
from
the
study
at
any
time.
If
you
choose
to
withdraw

from
the
study,
no
individual
data
will
be
kept
or
used
in
the
study.


We hope that you will give us permission to be included in the study. If you would like
further information, please contact Dr. Troy Mariage via email (mariaget@msu.edu) or by phone
(517.432.1981) or Catherine Wigent via email (wigentca@msu.edu) or by phone
(734.956.6016). If you have any questions regarding your child’s rights as research subjects,
please contact Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Ph. D., Director of Human Research Protections,
(517)355.2180, fax (517) 432.4503, email irb@msu.edu, mail 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047. We look forward to working with you.
Catherine
Wigent














Dr.
Troy
Mariage


16871
Abby
Circle
 











Faculty,
MSU
College
of
Education


Northville,
MI
48168












339
Erickson
Hall


Michigan
State
University
 








East
Lansing,
MI
48824‐1034


Ph.D.
Candidate















119








Assent
Form
for
Student
Participation



I voluntarily give my assent to participate in the High School Think-Aloud Study, which includes
audiotaping. This assent and my participation can be withdrawn at any time without penalty.


Student’s
Printed
Name:
________________________________________



Student’s
Signature:____________________________________________




























120






Appendix
C


Sample
Passages


Seventh
Grade
Passage

Water
Pollution
Problems
­
A

Water
flows
from
rivers
into
lakes
or
oceans.
This
water
reflects
everything
that

happens
on
the
land.
The
land
area
surrounding
the
river
is
a
drainage
basin
or
watershed.


Correction
of
a
pollution
problem
in
a
river
must
include
the
land.
All
sources
of
pollution

within
the
river
basin
or
land
area
should
be
addressed.


Water
pollution
problems
come
from
three
sources
on
land.
The
first
source
is
from

agriculture.
Agriculture
includes
animal
wastes
and
fertilizer
runoff.
The
second
source
is

from
industry.
Industries
release
chemicals
into
the
water
and
cause
thermal
pollution.

Finally,
human
sewage
causes
water
pollution.
Sewage
includes
human
wastes,
garbage,

and
water
that
has
been
used
for
laundering
or
bathing.




121









Figure
3.
Runoff

Water
pollution
from
agriculture
will
vary.
Water
pollution
will
depend
on
two

factors.
One
factor
is
the
type
of
agriculture.
The
other
factor
is
the
amount
of
agriculture

within
the
river
basin.
Most
water
pollution
from
large
farms
comes
from
animal
wastes.

Large
farms
must
store
and
dispose
of
animal
wastes.
Livestock
farms
store
farm
wastes
in

large
tanks
known
as
lagoons.
Lagoons
can
hold
millions
of
gallons
of
manure
and
urine.

Animal
wastes
pollute
the
water
when
lagoons
overflow
or
leak.
These
animal
wastes

contain
bacteria
and
antibiotics.
Fish
for
human
food
are
raised
in
large
livestock
farms.

Runoff
can
also
cause
water
pollution.
Fertilizers
used
in
fields
can
leak
into
rivers
and

streams.
Fertilizer
runoff
puts
nitrogen
and
phosphates
into
the
water
system.



122






Water
pollution
from
industry
depends
on
the
type
of
industry
located
in
the
river

basin.
Many
industries
use
large
amounts
of
freshwater
to
dilute
wastes.
 The
waste‐
bearing
water
is
called
effluent.
Industries
pump this wastewater into streams and rivers. This
will break up the pollution. Some
industries
pollute
water
in
a
different
way.
They
use
a
lot

of
water
to
cool
equipment.
The
heat
from
the
equipment
makes
the
water
hot.
The

industries
put
the
hot
water
back
into
rivers
and
lakes.
The
hot
water
heats
the
river
or

lake.
Thermal
pollution
occurs
when
this
heating
harms
plants
or
animals.


The
amount
of
people
who
live
in
an
area
affects
how
much
pollution
there
is
in
that

area.
Human
pollution
comes
mostly
from
sewage.
The
type
of
sewage
treatment
used
also

affects
pollution.
In
countries
like
the
United
States
and
Canada
most
of
the
sewage
goes
to

treatment
plants.
Treatment
plants
remove
solids
and
dissolved
nutrients
such
as
nitrogen

and
phosphorus.
About
25
percent
of
the
households
of
the
United
States
use
septic
tank

systems.
Septic
tanks
pass
the
sewage
through
tanks.
Then
the
sewage
is
filtered
through

leaching
fields
and
into
the
land.
Some
sewage
in
the
United
States
still
goes
directly
into

waterways
without
being
treated.


Water
problems
in
the
future
will
become
harder
to
fix.
A
larger
population
will

cause
more
human
waste.
This
larger
population
will
need
more
clean
water.
Less
water

will
be
available
for
diluting
wastes.
There
will
be
more
industries
and
more
complex

chemical
processes.
Industries
will
produce
larger
amounts
of
liquid
wastes.
Many
of
these

will
contain
chemicals
that
are
either
toxic
or
noxious.
Agriculture
will
have
to
be
increased

to
feed
the
larger
population.
There
will
be
more
fertilizers
used
and
more
animal
waste.
It

is
apparent
that
drastic
steps
must
be
taken
to
correct
the
pollution
problem.



123






Eighth
Grade
Passage

Water
Pollution
Problems
–
B

The
water
that
flows
from
a
river
into
a
lake
or
ocean
reflects
everything
that

happens
on
the
land.
The
land
area
surrounding
the
river
is
a
drainage
basin
or
watershed.


Correction
of
a
pollution
problem
in
a
river
must
include
the
river
basin.
All
sources
of

pollution
within
the
river
basin
or
land
area
should
be
addressed.


Water
pollution
problems
arise
from
three
sources
on
land.
The
first
source
is
from

agriculture.
Agriculture
includes
animal
wastes
and
fertilizer
runoff.
The
second
source
is

from
industry.
Industries
release
noxious
byproducts
and
excess
chemicals
into
the
water

system.
Industries
also
cause
thermal
pollution.
Finally,
humans
contribute
to
water

pollution
through
sewage.
Sewage
includes
human
wastes,
garbage,
and
water
that
has

been
used
for
laundering
or
bathing.




124









Figure
4.
Runoff

Water
pollution
from
agriculture
will
vary.
Water
pollution
will
depend
on
two

factors.
One
factor
is
the
type
of
agriculture
within
the
river
basin.
The
other
is
the
amount

of
agriculture
within
the
river
basin.
Most
water
pollution
from
large
farms
comes
from

animal
wastes.
Large
farms
must
store
and
dispose
of
animal
wastes.
Livestock
farms
store

manure
and
other
farm
wastes
in
large
tanks
known
as
lagoons.
Lagoons
can
hold
millions

of
gallons
of
manure
and
urine.
Untreated
animal
wastes
pollute
the
water
system
when

these
lagoons
overflow
or
leak.
These
animal
wastes
contain
bacteria
and
antibiotics.
Fish

for
human
consumption
are
raised
in
large
livestock
farms.
Water
pollution
can
also
occur

in
the
form
of
runoff.
Fertilizers
used
in
fields
leach
into
rivers
and
streams.
This
runoff

puts
nitrogen
and
phosphates
into
the
water
system.


125






The
type
of
industry
located
in
the
river
basin
will
determine
the
type
of
water

pollution.
Many
industries
use
huge
quantities
of
freshwater
to
carry
away
wastes
of
many

kinds.
 The
waste‐bearing
water,
or
effluent, is discharged into streams and rivers. This will
break
up
the
pollution.
Some
industries
pollute
water
in
a
different
way.
They
use
large

quantities
of
water
to
cool
equipment.
The
heat
from
the
equipment
makes
the
water
hot.

The
industries
then
discharge
the
hot
water
into
rivers
and
lakes,
heating
those
bodies
of

water.

Such
heating
that
harms
plants
or
animals
is
known
as
thermal
pollution.


Human
pollution
will
vary
with
population
distribution.
Human
pollution
is
mostly

from
sewage.
The
type
of
sewage
treatment
used
will
also
affect
the
amount
of
pollution.

Most
of
the
sewage
in
countries
like
the
United
States
and
Canada
go
through
treatment

plants.
This
process
removes
solids
and
dissolved
nutrients
such
as
nitrogen
and

phosphorus.
About
25
percent
of
the
households
of
the
United
States
use
septic
tank

systems.
Septic
tanks
pass
the
sewage
through
tanks
and
filter
it
through
leaching
fields

into
the
land.
Some
sewage
in
the
United
States
still
goes
directly
into
waterways
without

being
treated.


Water
problems
in
the
future
will
become
worse
and
more
complex.
Our
growing

population
will
increase
human
wastes
such
as
sewage.
On
the
other
hand,
increasing

demands
for
water
will
reduce
the
amount
of
water
available
for
diluting
wastes.
Industries

will
expand
and
use
more
complex
chemical
processes.
Industries
will
also
produce
larger

amounts
of
liquid
wastes.
Many
of
these
will
contain
chemicals
that
are
either
toxic
or

noxious.
Agriculture
will
have
to
be
increased
to
feed
our
rapidly
expanding
population.

This
will
increase
the
agricultural
chemicals
and
animal
wastes
such
as
manure.
From
this,


126






it
is
apparent
that
drastic
steps
must
be
taken
to
develop
corrective
measures
for
the

pollution
problem.


Ninth
Grade
Passage

Water
Pollution
Problems
–
C

The
water
that
flows
from
a
river
into
a
lake
or
ocean
reflects
everything
that

happens
on
the
land.
The
land
area
surrounding
the
river
is
a
drainage
basin
or
watershed.


Correction
of
a
pollution
problem
in
a
river
must
consist
of
an
integrated
approach.
This

approach
should
include
measures
to
correct
all
sources
of
pollution
within
the
river
basin

or
land
area.


Water
pollution
problems
arise
from
three
sources
on
land.
The
first
source
is
from

agriculture.
Agriculture
includes
animal
wastes
and
fertilizer
runoff.
The
second
source
is

from
industries.
Industries
release
noxious
byproducts
and
excess
chemicals
into
the
water

system.
Industries
also
cause
thermal
pollution.
Finally,
humans
contribute
to
water

pollution
through
sewage.
Sewage
consists
of
human
wastes,
garbage,
and
water
that
has

been
used
for
laundering
or
bathing.




127









Figure
5.
Runoff

Water
pollution
from
agriculture
will
vary
depending
on
the
type
of
agriculture
and

the
amount
of
agriculture
located
within
a
river
basin.
Most
water
pollution
from
large

farms
comes
from
the
storage
and
disposal
of
animal
wastes.
Large
livestock
farms
store

manure
and
other
farm
wastes
in
gigantic
tanks
known
as
lagoons.
Lagoons
can
hold

millions
of
gallons
of
manure
and
urine.
When
these
lagoons
overflow
or
leak,
toxic
animal

wastes
containing
bacteria
and
antibiotics
pollute
the
water
system.
Fish
for
human

consumption
are
raised
in
large
livestock
farms.
Water
pollution
can
also
occur
in
the
form

of
runoff
from
fields
where
fertilizers
are
used.
This
runoff
puts
nitrogen
and
phosphates

into
the
water
system.


Contamination
of
waters
by
industry
will
also
depend
upon
the
types
of
industry

located
within
the
basin.
Many
manufacturing
facilities
use
huge
quantities
of
freshwater
to

128






carry
away
wastes
of
many
kinds.
 The
waste‐bearing
water,
or
effluent, is discharged into
streams and rivers. This will break up the pollution. Some
industries
pollute
water
in
a

different
way.
They
use
large
quantities
of
water
to
cool
certain
equipment.
The
heat
from

the
equipment
makes
the
water
hot.
The
industries
then
discharge
the
hot
water
into
rivers

and
lakes,
heating
those
bodies
of
water.
Such
heating
that
harms
plants
or
animals
is

known
as
thermal
pollution.


Human
pollution,
mostly
from
sewage
disposal,
will
vary
with
population

distribution
and
the
degree
and
type
of
sewage
treatment
used.
Most
of
the
sewage
in

countries
like
the
United
States
and
Canada
go
through
treatment
plants.
This
process

removes
solids
and
dissolved
nutrients
such
as
nitrogen
and
phosphorus.
About
25
percent

of
the
households
of
the
United
States
use
septic
tank
systems.
Septic
tanks
pass
the

sewage
through
tanks
and
filter
it
through
leaching
fields
into
the
land.
Some
sewage
in
the

United
States
still
goes
untreated
directly
into
waterways.


Water
problems
in
the
future
will
become
worse
and
more
complex.
Our
growing

population
will
increase
human
wastes
such
as
sewage.
On
the
other
hand,
increasing

demands
for
water
will
reduce
the
amount
of
water
available
for
diluting
wastes.
Industries

will
expand
and
use
more
complex
chemical
processes.
Industries
will
also
produce
larger

amounts
of
liquid
wastes.
Many
of
these
will
contain
chemicals
that
are
either
toxic
or

noxious.
Agriculture
will
have
to
be
increased
to
feed
our
rapidly
expanding
population.

This
will
increase
the
agricultural
chemicals
and
animal
wastes
such
as
manure.
From
this,

it
is
apparent
that
drastic
steps
must
be
taken
to
develop
corrective
measures
for
the

pollution
problem.



129






Tenth
Grade
Passage

Water
Pollution
Problems
–
D

The
water
that
flows
from
a
river
into
a
lake
or
ocean
reflects
everything
that

happens
on
the
land.
The
land
area
surrounding
the
river
is
a
drainage
basin
or
watershed.


Correction
of
a
pollution
problem
in
a
river
must
consist
of
an
integrated
approach.
This

approach
should
include
measures
to
correct
all
sources
of
pollution
within
the
river
basin

or
land
area.


Water
pollution
problems
arise
from
three
sources
on
land.
The
first
source
is
from

agriculture,
which
includes
animal
wastes
and
fertilizer
runoff.
The
second
source
is
from

industries,
which
release
noxious
byproducts,
excess
chemicals
and
thermal
pollution.

Finally,
humans
contribute
to
water
pollution
through
sewage,
which
consists
of
human

wastes,
garbage
and
water
that
has
been
used
for
laundering
or
bathing.




130









Figure
6.
Runoff

Water
pollution
from
agriculture
will
vary
depending
on
the
type
of
agriculture
and

the
amount
of
agriculture
located
within
a
river
basin.
Most
water
pollution
from
large

farms
comes
from
the
storage
and
disposal
of
animal
wastes.
Large
livestock
farms
store

manure
and
other
farm
wastes
in
gigantic
tanks
known
as
lagoons.
Lagoons
can
hold

millions
of
gallons
of
manure
and
urine.
When
these
lagoons
overflow
or
leak,
toxic
animal

wastes
containing
bacteria
and
antibiotics
pollute
the
water
system.
Fish
for
human

consumption
are
raised
in
large
livestock
farms.
Water
pollution
can
also
occur
in
the
form

of
runoff
from
fields
where
fertilizers
are
used.
This
runoff
puts
nitrogen
and
phosphates

into
the
water
system.



131






Contamination
of
waters
by
industry
will
also
depend
upon
the
types
of
industry

located
within
the
basin.
Many
manufacturing
facilities
use
huge
quantities
of
freshwater
to

carry
away
wastes
of
many
kinds.
 The waste-bearing water, or effluent, is discharged into
streams and rivers, which in turn disperse the polluting substances. Some
industries
pollute

water
in
a
different
way.
They
use
large
quantities
of
water
to
cool
certain
equipment;

therefore
the
heat
from
the
equipment
makes
the
water
hot.
The
industries
then
discharge

the
hot
water
into
rivers
and
lakes,
heating
those
bodies
of
water.
Such
heating
that
harms

plants
or
animals
is
known
as
thermal
pollution.


Human
pollution,
mostly
from
sewage
disposal,
will
vary
with
population

distribution
and
concentration
and
the
degree
of
effective
sewage
treatment.
Most
of
the

sewage
in
countries
like
the
United
States
and
Canada
go
through
treatment
plants.
This

process
removes
solids
and
dissolved
nutrients
such
as
nitrogen
and
phosphorus.
About
25

percent
of
the
households
of
the
United
States
use
septic
tank
systems,
which
pass
the

sewage
through
tanks
and
filter
it
through
leaching
fields
into
the
land.
Some
sewage
in
the

United
States
still
goes
untreated
directly
into
waterways.


Water
problems
in
the
future
will
become
more
intense
and
more
complex.
Our

growing
population
will
increase
human
wastes
such
as
sewage.
On
the
other
hand,

increasing
demands
for
water
will
reduce
the
amount
of
water
available
for
diluting

wastes.
Rapidly
expanding
industries
that
involve
more
and
more
complex
chemical

processes
will
produce
larger
volumes
of
liquid
wastes.
Many
of
these
will
contain

chemicals
that
are
either
toxic
or
noxious.
To
feed
our
rapidly
expanding
population,

agriculture
will
have
to
be
increased.
This
will
create
increasing
quantities
of
agricultural


132






chemicals
and
animal
wastes
such
as
manure.
From
this,
it
is
apparent
that
drastic
steps

must
be
taken
to
develop
corrective
measures
for
the
pollution
problem.


Eleventh
Grade
Passage

Water
Pollution
Problems
–
E

The
water
that
flows
from
a
river
into
a
lake
or
ocean
reflects
everything
that

happens
on
the
land.
The
land
area
surrounding
the
river
is
a
drainage
basin
or
watershed.


Correction
of
a
pollution
problem
in
a
river
must
consist
of
an
integrated
approach,
and

should
include
measures
to
correct
all
sources
of
pollution
within
the
river
basin
or
land

area.


Water
pollution
problems
arise
from
three
sources
on
land.
The
first
source
is
from

agriculture,
which
includes
animal
wastes
and
fertilizer
runoff.
The
second
source
is
from

industries,
which
release
noxious
byproducts,
excess
chemicals
and
thermal
pollution.

Finally,
humans
contribute
to
water
pollution
through
sewage,
which
consists
of
human

wastes,
garbage
and
water
that
has
been
used
for
laundering
or
bathing.




133









Figure
7.
Runoff

Water
pollution
from
agriculture
will
vary
depending
on
the
type
of
agriculture
and

the
amount
of
agriculture
located
within
a
river
basin.
Most
water
pollution
from
large

farms
comes
from
the
storage
and
disposal
of
animal
wastes.
Large
livestock
farms
store

manure
and
other
farm
wastes
in
gigantic
tanks
known
as
lagoons,
which
can
hold
millions

of
gallons
of
manure
and
urine.
When
these
lagoons
overflow
or
leak,
toxic
animal
wastes

containing
bacteria
and
antibiotics
pollute
the
water
system.
Fish
for
human
consumption

are
raised
in
large
livestock
farms.
Water
pollution
can
also
occur
in
the
form
of
runoff

from
fields
where
fertilizers
are
used,
and
this
runoff
leaches
nitrogen
and
phosphates
into

the
water
system.



134






Contamination
of
waters
by
industry
will
also
depend
upon
the
types
of
industry

located
within
the
basin.
Many
manufacturing
facilities
use
huge
quantities
of
freshwater
to

carry
away
wastes
of
many
kinds.
 The waste-bearing water, or effluent, is discharged into
streams and rivers, which in turn disperse the polluting substances. Some
industries
pollute

water
in
a
different
way
by
using
large
quantities
of
water
to
cool
certain
equipment;

therefore
the
heat
from
the
equipment
makes
the
water
hot.
The
industries
then
discharge

the
hot
water
into
rivers
and
lakes,
heating
those
bodies
of
water.
Such
heating
that
harms

plants
or
animals
is
known
as
thermal
pollution.


Human
pollution,
mostly
from
sewage
disposal,
will
vary
with
population

distribution
and
concentration
and
the
degree
of
effective
sewage
treatment.
Most
of
the

sewage
in
countries
like
the
United
States
and
Canada
go
through
treatment
plants
that

remove
solids
and
dissolved
nutrients
such
as
nitrogen
and
phosphorus.
About
25
percent

of
the
households
in
the
United
States
use
septic
tank
systems,
which
pass
the
sewage

through
tanks
and
filter
it
through
leaching
fields
into
the
land.
Some
sewage
in
the
United

States
still
goes
untreated
directly
into
waterways.


Water
problems
in
the
future
will
become
more
intense
and
more
complex,
and
our

growing
population
will
increase
human
wastes
such
as
sewage.
On
the
other
hand,

increasing
demands
for
water
will
reduce
the
amount
of
water
available
for
diluting

wastes.
Rapidly
expanding
industries
that
involve
more
and
more
complex
chemical

processes
will
produce
larger
volumes
of
liquid
wastes.
Many
of
these
will
contain

chemicals
that
are
either
toxic
or
noxious.
To
feed
our
rapidly
expanding
population,

agriculture
will
have
to
be
increased.
This
will
create
increasing
quantities
of
agricultural


135






chemicals
and
animal
wastes
such
as
manure.
From
this,
it
is
apparent
that
drastic
steps

must
be
taken
to
develop
corrective
measures
for
the
pollution
problem.


Twelfth
Grade
Passage

Water
Pollution
Problems
–
F

The
water
that
flows
from
a
river
into
a
lake
or
ocean
reflects
everything
that

happens
on
the
land.
The
land
area
surrounding
the
river
is
a
drainage
basin
or
watershed.


Correction
of
a
pollution
problem
in
a
river
must
consist
of
an
integrated
approach,
and

should
include
measures
to
correct
all
sources
of
pollution
within
the
river
basin
or
land

area.


Water
pollution
problems
arise
from
three
sources
on
land.
The
first
source
is
from

agriculture,
which
includes
animal
wastes
and
fertilizer
runoff.
The
second
source
is
from

industries,
which
release
noxious
byproducts,
excess
chemicals
and
thermal
pollution.

Finally,
humans
contribute
to
water
pollution
through
sewage,
which
consists
of
human

wastes,
garbage
and
water
that
has
been
used
for
laundering
or
bathing.




136









Figure
8.
Runoff

Water
pollution
from
agriculture
will
vary
depending
on
the
type
of
agriculture
and

the
amount
of
agriculture
located
within
a
river
basin.
Most
water
pollution
from
large

farms
comes
from
the
storage
and
disposal
of
animal
wastes.
Large
livestock
farms
store

manure
and
other
farm
wastes
in
gigantic
tanks
known
as
lagoons,
which
can
hold
millions

of
gallons
of
manure
and
urine.
When
these
lagoons
overflow
or
leak,
toxic
animal
wastes

containing
bacteria
and
antibiotics
pollute
the
water
system.
Fish
for
human
consumption

are
raised
in
large
livestock
farms.
Water
pollution
can
also
occur
in
the
form
of
runoff

from
fields
where
fertilizers
are
used,
and
this
runoff
leaches
nitrogen
and
phosphates
into

the
water
system.



137






Contamination
of
waters
by
industry
will
also
depend
upon
the
types
of
industry

located
within
the
basin.
Many
manufacturing
facilities
use
huge
quantities
of
freshwater
to

carry
away
wastes
of
many
kinds,
and
this waste-bearing water, or effluent, is discharged into
streams and rivers, which in turn disperse the polluting substances. Some
industries
pollute

water
in
a
different
way
by
using
large
quantities
of
water
to
cool
certain
equipment;

therefore
the
heat
from
the
equipment
makes
the
water
hot.
The
industries
then
discharge

the
hot
water
into
rivers
and
lakes,
heating
those
bodies
of
water
causing
thermal

pollution,
which
harms
plants
and
animals
by
heating
their
ecosystem.


Human
pollution,
mostly
from
sewage
disposal,
will
vary
with
population

distribution
and
concentration
and
the
degree
of
effective
sewage
treatment.
Most
of
the

sewage
in
countries
like
the
United
States
and
Canada
go
through
treatment
plants
that

remove
solids
and
dissolved
nutrients
such
as
nitrogen
and
phosphorus.
About
25
percent

of
the
households
in
the
United
States
use
septic
tank
systems,
which
pass
the
sewage

through
tanks
and
filter
it
through
leaching
fields
into
the
land;
however,
some
sewage
in

the
United
States
still
goes
untreated
directly
into
waterways.


Water
problems
in
the
future
will
become
more
intense
and
more
complex,
and
our

growing
population
will
increase
human
wastes
such
as
sewage;
however,
increasing

demands
for
water
will
reduce
the
amount
of
water
available
for
diluting
wastes.
Rapidly

expanding
industries
that
involve
more
and
more
complex
chemical
processes
will
produce

larger
volumes
of
liquid
wastes,
and
many
of
these
will
contain
chemicals
that
are
either

toxic
or
noxious.
To
feed
our
rapidly
expanding
population,
agriculture
will
have
to
be

increased.
This
will
create
increasing
quantities
of
agricultural
chemicals
and
animal


138






wastes
such
as
manure.
From
this,
it
is
apparent
that
drastic
steps
must
be
taken
to
develop

corrective
measures
for
the
pollution
problem.















































139






Appendix
D


Written Retelling Scoring Protocol: Water Pollution


Student
ID
________________________









SCORING
SUMMARY

Comprehension




Trait
or
Quality


Score

Total
 Percentage

Possible


1.

Total
Recall
(Details
+
Main
Ideas)





58





2.

#
Main
Ideas





6





3.

#
Chunks
(2
consecutive
Ideas

from
category)











1. Water from a river reflects everything that happens on land.
a. A watershed is the land area surrounding a river.
b. Correction of a pollution problem in a river must include the land.
c. Must correct all sources of pollution within the river basin or land area.

M

2. Water pollution problems come from three sources on land.
a. Agriculture is one source.
b. Agriculture includes animal wastes.
c. Agriculture includes fertilizer runoff.
d. Industries are another source.
e. Industries release noxious byproducts or chemicals.
f. Thermal pollution comes from industries.
g. Humans are another source.
h. Sewage can be from human waste.
i. Sewage can be from garbage.
j. Sewage can be from water that was used for laundering or bathing.

M

3. Water pollution comes from agriculture.
a. Pollution will vary depending on the type of agriculture.
b. Pollution will vary depending on the amount of agriculture.
c. Most pollution from large farms comes from animal wastes.

M

140






d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.

Large farms store manure or farm wastes in lagoons.
Lagoons are gigantic tanks that hold millions of gallons of waste
Lagoons can overflow or leak.
Toxic animal wastes pollute water with bacteria and antibiotics.
Fish for human consumption are raised in large livestock farms.
Water pollution can come from runoff from fields.
Runoff from fertilizers contains nitrogen and phosphates.

4. Industry causes water pollution.
a. Water pollution will vary depending on the type of industry.
b. Industries use huge quantities of water to carry away wastes.
c. Effluent is waste-bearing water.
d. Effluents are discharged into streams and rivers to disperse waste.
e. Industries use water to cool equipment.
f. Heat from the equipment makes the water hot.
g. Hot water is discharged into streams and lakes.
h. Thermal pollution occurs when hot water is discharged into streams and lakes.
i. Plants and animals are harmed because their ecosystem is heated.

M

5. Humans cause water pollution.
a. Human pollution will vary depending on the population or amount of people in
an area.
b. Human pollution is mostly from sewage.
c. They type of sewage treatment effects pollution.
d. Most sewage in US and Canada goes through treatment plants.
e. Treatment plants remove dissolved solids and nutrients.
f. Nutrients are nitrogen and phosphates.
g. 25% of households in US use septic tanks.
h. Septic tanks pass the sewage through tanks.
i. The sewage is then filtered into leaching fields.
j. Some sewage still goes untreated into waterways.

M

6. Water problems in the future more intense and complex or harder to fix.
a. Growing population increase human wastes.
b. More people will need more water.
c. Less water for diluting wastes.
d. Industries will have more complex chemical processes.
e. Industries will produce more liquid wastes.
f. Industrial waste will contain chemicals that are toxic or noxious.
g. Agriculture will be increased to feed expanding population.
h. Agriculture will create more chemicals or fertilizers.
i. Agriculture will create more animal wastes like manure.
j. Drastic steps must be taken to correct pollution problem.

M

141







Scoring
Notes:




1.




Circle
all
main
ideas
on
score
sheet.





2.




Draw
an
arc
connecting
ideas
recalled
as
a
chunk
from
within
*
a
category.





3.


If
student
recalls
an
**idea
related
to
a
detail,
but
in
a
slightly
different
form,
assign

credit,
ie.,
“The
hummingbird
flies”
should
be
given
credit
as
a
detail
even
though
it





does
not
match
text
verbatim;
give
credit
for
slight
errors
in
recall,
ie.,
3/4
rather

than

1/4
mile.

Give
no
credit
for
gross
errors,
I.e.,
Hummingbird
is
a
very
large

bird.


4.




Transfer
number
of
main
ideas,
total
recalled,
chunks
to
front
page.





























142






Appendix
E

High School Readers Study
File Review Consent
In order to further determine what variables might impact a student’s ability to think
aloud while they are reading, a file review will be conducted. This review would include only
information related to special education status (does the child have a disability, the type of
disability, the date of the last educational evaluation certifying disability). No identifying
information or non-academic information will be reviewed or collected. No identifying
information will be reported, only group information will be reported.
If you would like further information, please contact Dr. Troy Mariage via email
(mariaget@msu.edu) or by phone (517.432.1981) or Catherine Wigent via email
(wigentca@msu.edu) or by phone (269.789.2613). If you have any questions regarding your
child’s rights as research subjects, please contact Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Ph. D., Director of Human
Research Protections, (517)355.2180, fax (517)432.4503, email irb@msu.edu, mail 202 Olds
Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047. We look forward to working
with you.
Catherine
Wigent














Dr.
Troy
Mariage


16871
Abby
Circle
 











Faculty,
MSU
College
of
Education


Northville,
MI
48168












339
Erickson
Hall


Michigan
State
University
 








East
Lansing,
MI
48824‐1034


Ph.D.
Candidate


143






__________________________________________________________________
I give Catherine Wigent permission to conduct a file review of my student’s academic
records to include a review of special education status to include type of disability and date of
last educational evaluation certifying disability.

Parent’s name_________________________________________
Student’s name________________________________________





























144






Appendix
F

Comprehension
Questions
–
circle
the
correct
answer



Most
river
basins
contain
large
areas
of
land
that
are

agricultural

commercial

residential


2.
a.
b.
c.

Water
problems
in

the
future
will
be


less
severe

eliminated

more
complex


3.
a.
b.
c.

Liquid
wastes
are
being
used
in
some
areas
as

inexpensive
fuel

animal
feed

for
irrigation


4.
a.
b.
c.

A
primary
source
of
urban
pollution
is


garbage

detergents

sewage


5.
a.
b.
c.

How
many
solutions
to
the
water
pollution
problem
are
offered?

two

three

four


6.
a.
b.
c.

The
purpose
of
this
selection
is
to


tell
the
reader
about
water
pollution
problems

alert
the
reader
to
the
dwindling
water
supply

explain
industrial
uses
of
water


7.
a.
b.
c.




1.
a.
b.
c.

The
author
implies
that
correcting
a
pollution
problem
in
a
river

can
be
a
dangerous
job

involves
a
survey
of
the
land
area
or
basin

requires
a
careful
study
of
underwater
plant
growth




















145










8.
a.
b.
c.

The
selection
could
be
labeled

argumentation

explanation

narration


9.
a.
b.
c.




The
author
gives
substance
to
the
selection
through
the
use
of


interviews
with
authorities
in
the
field
of
water
controls

definitions
that
clarify
important
terms

opinions
and
personal
observations



10. the
reader
can
conclude
that


a. some
industries
are
now
making
economic
uses
of
wastes

b. countries
of
the
world
will
work
together
on
pollution
progress

c. science
is
making
great
progress
on
increasing
water
supplies
























146






Appendix
G

Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory
Demographic Information:
Date of Birth______________________
GRADE__________________________
Directions: Listed below are statements about what people do when they read academic or
school-related materials such as textbooks or library books.
Five numbers follow each statement (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and each number means the following:
• 1 means “I never or almost never do this.”
• 2 means “I do this only occasionally.”
• 3 means “I sometimes do this” (about 50% of the time).
• 4 means “I usually do this.”
• 5 means “I always or almost always do this.”
After reading each statement, circle the number (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) that applies to you using the
scale provided. Please note that there are no right or wrong
answers to the statements in this inventory.
1. I have a purpose in mind when I read.
1
2
3
4
5
2. I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read.
1 2
3
4
5
3. I think about what I know to help me understand what I read.
1
2
3
4
5
4. I preview the text to see what it’s about before reading it.
1
2
3
4
5
5. When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read.
1
2
3
4
5
6. I summarize what I read to reflect on important information in the text.
1
2
3
4
5
7. I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose.
1
2
3
4
5
8. I read slowly but carefully to be sure I understand what I’m reading.
1
2
3
4
5
147







9. I discuss what I read with others to check my understanding.
1
2
3
4
5
10. I skim the text first by noting characteristics like length and organization.
1
2
3
4
5
11. I try to get back on track when I lose concentration.
1
2
3
4
5
12. I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it.
1
2
3
4
5
13. I adjust my reading speed according to what I’m reading.
1
2
3
4
5
14. I decide what to read closely and what to ignore.
1
2
3
4
5
15. I use reference materials such as dictionaries to help me understand what I read.
1
2
3
4
5
16. When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I’m reading.
1
2
3
4
5
17. I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding.
1
2
3
4
5
18. I stop from time to time and think about what I’m reading.
1
2
3
4
5
19. I use context clues to help me better understand what I’m reading.
1
2
3
4
5
20. I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read.
1
2
3
4
5
21. I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read.
1
2
3
4
5
22. I use typographical aids like boldface and italics to identify key information.
1
2
3
4
5
23. I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text.
1
2
3
4
5
24. I go back and forth in the text to find relationships among ideas in it.
148






1

2

3

4

5

25. I check my understanding when I come across conflicting information.
1
2
3
4
5
26. I try to guess what the material is about when I read.
1
2
3
4
5
27. When text becomes difficult, I reread to increase my understanding.
1
2
3
4
5
28. I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text.
1
2
3
4
5
29. I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong.
1
2
3
4
5
30. I try to guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases
1

2

3

4

5

Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.










149






Appendix H
Sample Transcription
1. The water flows
2. The water that flows from a river into
a lake or ocean reflects everything that
happens on the land.
3. The land area surrounding the river is
a drainage basin or watershed.
4. ….(correction) of a ...pollution
problem in a river must include the river
basin.

4. Con, Connection…polluted
5. That the surrounding river is drainage
basin or watersheld

6. All sources of pollution within the
river basin or land area should be
addressed.
7. Water pollution problems arise from
three sources on land.
8…the first source is from avriculture
(mispronouces agriculture)

8. Is..that the first source is from
avriculture (mispronouces agriculture)

9. Avriculture (mispronouces
agriculture) includes animal wastes and
fertilizer runoff.
10. The second source is from industry.
11. (Industries release noxious)
byproducts and (excess) chemicals
in(to) the water system.

11. Industry releases (pause) nox-is…
excesses…
12. That the second source is from
chemicals and runoff from avriculture.

13. Industy (ies) also causes (cause)
thermal pollution.
14. Finally, humans
contribute...(to)water pollution through
sewage.

the..

15. Sewage includes human wastes,
garbage, and water that has been used

150






for laundy (laundering) or bathing

16. That its ah..as industry from
thermal pollution and humans that gives
off sewage and pollute.
17. Water pollution from avriculture
(misprononces agriculture) will vary.
18. (Water)…. pollution will depend on
two factors.

18. What…

19. One factor is the type of
agriculture... within the river basin.

19. …in…
20. Pollution will depend on two factors
and one is avriculture (mispronouces
agriculture)within the river basin

21.The other is the amount of agriculure
within the river basin.
22. Most water pollution from large
farms comes from animal wastes.
23. Large farms must store and dispose
of animal wastes.
24.That farms dispose of animal wastes
and that pollutes the water.
25. Livestock farms store manure and
other farm wastes in large tanks known
as lagoons.
26. Lagoons can hold millions of gallons
of manure and urine.
27. Untreated animal wastes….(pollute)
the water system…when these lagoons
overflow or leak.

27….pollution… when…
28. That they store animal wastes in
lagoons and they can hold millions of
gallons.

29. These animal wastes contain
bacteria and antibiotics.
30.Fish (for)…human consumption
(are)…raised in large livestock farms.

30….from…and

151






31. Water pollution can also occur in the
form of runoff.
32. Like uh can be con is a form of
runoff and as antibiotics and bacteria in
there (choppy)
33. Fertilizers used in fields leach
into…river(s) and streams.

33. …the

34. This runoff puts nitrogen and
phosphate (s) into the water system.
35. The type of industry located in the
river basin will…(determine) the type of
water pollution.

35….be determined
36. That the industry can puts runoff
into water and fertilizers and fields leak
into the river and stream.

37. Many industries use huge quantities
of freshwater to carry away wastes of
many kinds.
38. The waste-bearing water,
or…(effluent) is discharged
into…streams and rivers.

38. …eh…affiliated, err..

39. This will break up…(the) pollution.

39. …into

40. Some (industries pollute water in a
different way).

40….industy pollution water in different
ways.
41. The one word why I don't really
know and ah that's the project .

42. ...They use large quantities of water
to cool equipment.

42. They ah…

43. The heat from the equipment makes
the water hot.
44. The industries then discharge the
hot water into rivers and lakes, heating
those bodies of... water.

44. river, I mean of

45. Such heating that harms plants or
animals is (known as) thermal pollution.
45. Thermal pollution and ah it uses
when also ah places use cooling
equipment to cool the water. Will cool
stuff and also makes the water hotter.

152






46. (Human) pollution will vary with
population distribution.

46…Humans

47. Human pollution is mostly from
sewage.
48. The type of sewage treatment used
will also affect the amount of pollution.
49.Most of the sewage in countries like
the United States and Canada go
through treatment plants.
50. This process removes solids and
dissolved nutients such as nitrogen
and...phosphorous.

50. …phosphate
51. That we use um water treatment
plants and ah pollution will vary with
population distribution.

52. About 25 percent of the households
of the United States use septic tank
systems.
53. Septic tanks (pass)... the sewage
through tanks and (filter)... it through
leaching fields into the land.

53….passes…filters

54. Some sewage in the United States
still goes directly... into waterways
without being treated.

54. to
55. That most houses have ah septic
tanks and some still goes ah to the
waterways and about 25% have the
septic tanks.

56. Water problems in the future will
become worse and more complex.
57. Our growing population will increase
human wastes such as sewage.
58. On the other hand, increasing
demands for water will reduce the
amount of water available for (diluting
wastes)…

58. durilating waters.
59. That it is going to become worse
and more complex as we grow in
population.

60. Industries will expand and use more

60. …chemicals

153






complex (chemical) ….processes.
61. Industries will also produce(lager)...
amounts of liquid (wastes)…

61….large….waste.

62. Many of these will contain
chemicals... that are either toxic or
(noxious)....

62….uhhh…non-toxic.
63. That ahh has a complex chemical
process and industries give off large
amounts of liquid wastes and the toxins
are either non-toxic or toxic.

64. (Agriculture) will have to be
increased to feed our rapidly...
expanding population.

64. Avriculture (mispronounces
agriculture)…growing

65. This will increase the (agricultural
chemicals)... and animal wastes such as
manure.

65. avriculture (mispronounces
agriculture) chemical…

66. (From).. this, it... (is) apparent that
drastic steps must be taken to
develop... (corrective) measures for
(the) pollution... (problem).

66.
For…appears…connectivity…problems.
67. That’s gonna increase the amount of
chemicals that we need and (pause) and
that's it.

154






















REFERENCES


















155






References

Afflerbach,
P.
(1990).
The
influence
of
prior
knowledge
on
expert
readers'
main
idea

construction
strategies.
Reading
Research
Quarterly,
25,
31‐46.



Afflerbach,
P.
(2002).
Verbal
reports
and
protocol
analysis.
In
M.
L.
Kamil,
P.
B.
Mosenthal,

P.
D.
Pearson
&
R.
Barr
(Eds.),
Methods
of
Literacy
Research:
The
Methodology

Chapters
from
the
Handbook
of
Reading
Research
(Vol.
3,
pp.
87‐102).
Mahwah,
NJ:

Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates.



Alexander,
P.
A.,
&
Fox,
E.
(2004).
A
historical
perspective
on
reading
research
and
practice.

In
R.
B.
Ruddell
&
N.
J.
Unrau
(Eds.),
Theoretical
Models
and
Processes
of
Reading

(Fifth
ed.,
pp.
33‐68).
Newark,
DE:
International
Reading
Association.



Allington,
R.
L.
(2005).
Ideology
is
still
trumping
evidence.
Phi
Delta
Kappan,
86(6),
462‐
468.



Anderson,
R.
C.
(2004).
Role
of
readers's
schema
in
comprehension,
learning,
and
memory.

In
R.
B.
Ruddell
&
N.
J.
Unrau
(Eds.),
Theoretical
Models
and
Processes
of
Reading

(Fifth
ed.,
pp.
594‐606).
Newark,
DE:
International
Reading
Association.



Archer,
A.
L.,
Gleason,
M.
M.,
&
Vachon,
V.
L.
(2003).
Decoding
and
fluency:
Foundation

skilles
for
struggling
older
readers.
Learning
Disability
Quarterly,
26(2),
89‐101.



Armbruster,
B.
B.,
Anderson,
T.
H.,
&
Ostertag,
J.
(1987).
Does
text
structure/summarization

instruction
facilitate
learning
from
expository
text?
Reading
Research
Quarterly,
22,

331‐346.



Baker,
L.
(1989).
Metacognition,
comprehension
monitoring,
and
the
adult
reader.

Educational
Psychology
Review,
1(1),
3‐38.



Bakken,
J.
P.,
Mastropieri,
M.
A.,
&
Scruggs,
T.
E.
(1997).
Reading
comprehension
of

expository
science
material
and
studetns
with
learning
disabilities:
A
comparison
of

strategies.
The
journal
of
Special
Education,
31,
300‐324.



Bean,
T.
W.
(1990).
Preservice
teachers'
selection
and
use
of
content
area
literacy

strategies.
The
Journal
of
Educational
Research,
90,
154‐163.



Beaufort,
A.
(2009).
Preparing
adolescents
for
the
literacy
demands
of
the
21st‐century

workplace.
In
L.
Christenbury,
R.
Bomer
&
P.
Smagorinsky
(Eds.),
Handbook
of

Adolescent
Literacy
Research
(pp.
239‐255).
New
York:
Guilford
Press.



Biancarosa,
C.,
&
Snow,
C.
E.
(2006).
Reading
next
­
A
vision
for
action
and
research
in
middle

and
high
school
literacy:
A
report
to
Carnegie
Corporation
of
New
York.
Washington,

D.
C.:
Alliance
for
Excellent
Education.

156






Bloome,
D.
(1994).
You
can't
get
there
from
here:
An
anthropologial
perspective
on

assessing
children's
reading
and
writing.
In
K.
Holland,
D.
Bloome
&
J.
Solsken
(Eds.),

Alternative
Perspectives
for
Assessing
Children's
Reading
and
Writing
(pp.
123‐180).

Norwood,
NJ:
Ablex.



Brown,
A.,
Campione,
J.,
&
Day,
J.
(1981).
Learning
to
learn:
On
training
students
to
learn

from
texts.
Educational
Researcher,
10,
14‐21.



Bruck,
M.
(1990).
Word‐recognition
skills
of
adults
with
childhood
diagnoses
of
dyslexia.

Developmental
Psychology,
26(3),
439‐454.



Caldwell,
J.,
&
Leslie,
L.
(2003).
Does
proficiency
in
middle
school
reading
assure

proficiency
in
high
school
reading?
.
Journal
of
Adolescent
and
Adult
Literacy,
47,

324‐336.



Cavanagh,
S.
(2007).
State
test,
NAEP
often
a
mismatch.
Education
Week,
26,
22‐23.



Chi,
M.,
Feltovich,
P.,
&
Glaser,
R.
(1981).
Categorization
and
representation
of
physics

provlems
by
experts
and
novices.
Cognitive
Science,
5,
121‐152.



Christenbury,
L.,
Bomer,
R.,
&
Smagorinsky,
P.
(2009).
Literacy
in
School.
In
L.
Christenbury,

R.
Bomer
&
P.
Smagorinsky
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Adolescent
Literacy
Research
(pp.

47‐48).
New
York:
Guilford
Press.



Ciardiello,
A.
V.
(2002).
Helping
adolescents
understand
cause/effect
text
structure
in

social
studies.
The
Social
Studies,
93(1),
31‐36.



Coiro,
J.,
&
Dobler,
E.
(2007).
Exploring
the
online
reading
comprehension
strategies
used

by
sixth‐grade
skilled
readers
to
search
for
and
locate
information
on
the
Internet.

Reading
Research
Quarterly,
42(2),
214‐257.



Cole,
M.
(1996).
Cultural
psychology:
A
once
and
future
discipline.
Cambridge,
MA:

Belknap/Harvard
University
Press.



Conley,
M.
W.
(2008).
Cognitive
strategy
instruction
for
adolescents:
What
we
know
about

the
promise,
what
we
don't
know
about
the
potential.
Harvard
Edcuational
Review,

78(1),
84‐108.



Contexts
of
Elementary
and
Seconday
Education
(2006).
The
Condition
of
Education


Retrieved
February
14,
2009,
from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2007/section4/table.asp?tableID=717



Cook,
L.
K.,
&
Mayer,
R.
E.
(1988).
Teaching
readers
about
the
structure
of
scientific
text.

Journal
of
Educational
Psychology,
80(4),
448‐456.



157






Cote,
N.,
&
Goldman,
S.
R.
(2004).
Building
representations
of
informational
text:
Evidence

from
children's
think‐aloud
protocols.
In
R.
B.
Ruddell
&
N.
J.
Unrau
(Eds.),

Theoretical
Models
and
Processes
of
Reading
(Fifth
ed.,
pp.
660‐719).
Newark:

International
Reading
Association.



Crain‐Thoreson,
C.,
Lippman,
M.
Z.,
&
McClendon‐Magnuson,
D.
(1997).
Windows
on

comprehension:
Reading
comprehension
processes
as
revealed
by
two
think‐aloud

procedures.
Journal
of
Educational
Psychology,
89,
579‐587.



Davenport,
D.,
&
Jones,
J.
M.
(2005).
The
politics
of
literacy.
Policy
Review,
130,
45‐57.



Duke,
N.
K.,
Pressley,
M.,
&
Hilden,
K.
(2004).
Difficulties
with
reading
comprehension.
In
C.

A.
Stone,
E.
R.
Silliman,
B.
J.
Ehren
&
K.
Apel
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Language
and

Literacy
(pp.
501‐520).
New
York:
Guilford
Press.



Durkin,
D.
(1978/1979).
What
classroom
observations
reveal
about
reading

comprehension
instruction.
Reading
Research
Quarterly,
14,
481‐533.



Ehri,
L.
C.,
&
Snowling,
M.
J.
(2004).
Developmental
variation
in
word
recognition.
In
C.
A.

Stone,
E.
R.
Silliman,
B.
J.
Ehren
&
K.
Apel
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Language
and
Literacy

(pp.
433‐460).
New
York:
Guilford
Press.



Ehri,
L.
C.,
&
Wilce,
L.
S.
(1985).
Movement
into
reading:
Is
the
first
stage
of
printed
word

learning
visual
or
phonetic?
Reading
Research
Quarterly,
20(2),
163‐179.



Englert,
C.
S.,
&
Hiebert,
E.
H.
(1984).
Children's
developing
awareness
of
text
structures
in

expository
materials.
Journal
of
Educational
Psychology,
76(1),
65‐74.



Englert,
C.
S.,
&
Thomas,
C.
C.
(1987).
Sensitivity
to
text
structure
in
reading
and
writing:
A

comparison
between
learning
disabled
and
non‐learning
disabled
students.

Learning
Disability
Quarterly,
10,
93‐105.



Erickson,
A.
S.,
Kleinhammer‐Tramill,
J.,
&
Thurlow,
M.
L.
(2007).
An
analysis
of
the

relationship
between
high
school
exit
exams
and
diploma
options
and
the
impact
on

students
with
disabilities.
Journal
of
Disability
Policy
Studies,
18(2),
117‐128.



Erickson,
F.
(1986).
Qualitative
methods
in
research
on
teaching.
In
M.
Wittrock
(Ed.),

Handbook
of
research
on
teaching
(3rd
ed.,
pp.
119‐161).
New
York:
Macmillan.



Florio‐Ruane,
S.,
&
Clark,
C.
(1983).
The
written
literacy
forum:
Combining
research
and

practice.
Teacher
Education
Quarterly,
10(3),
58‐87.



Freebody,
P.,
&
Anderson,
R.
C.
(1983).
Effects
of
Vocabulary
Difficulty,
Text
Cohesion,
and

Schema
Availability
on
Reading
Comprehension.
Reading
Research
Quarterly,
18(3),

277‐294.



158






From
No
Child
Left
Behind
to
every
child
a
graduate
(2008).
Washington,
DC:
Alliance
for

Excellent
Education.



Gambrell,
L.
B.
(2005).
Reading
literature,
reading
text,
reading
the
Internet:
the
times
they

are
a'changing.(Issues
and
Trends
in
Literacy).
The
Reading
Teacher,
58(6),
588‐591.



Garner,
R.
(1990).
When
children
and
adults
do
not
use
learning
strategies:
Toward
a

theory
of
settings.
Review
of
Educational
Research,
60,
517‐529.



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.



Goals
2000:
Reforming
Education
to
Improve
Student
Achievement
(1998).
2007,
from

www.ed.gov/pub.



Gough,
P.
B.,
&
Tunmer,
W.
E.
(1986).
Decoding,
reading,
and
reading
disability.
Remedial

and
Special
Education,
7(1),
6‐10.



Hacker,
D.
J.
(2004).
Self‐Regulated
comprehension
during
normal
reading.
In
R.
B.
Ruddell

&
N.
J.
Unrau
(Eds.),
Theoretical
Models
and
Processes
of
Reading
(pp.
755‐779).

Newark,
DE:
International
Reading
Association.



Hansen,
J.
(1981).
The
effects
of
inference
training
and
practice
on
yount
children's
reading

comprehension.
Reading
Research
Quarterly,
16,
391‐417.



Hardman,
M.
L.,
&
Dawson,
S.
(2008).
The
impact
of
federal
public
policy
on
curriculum
and

instruction
for
students
with
disabilities
in
the
general
classroom.
Preventing
School

Failure,
52(2),
5‐11.



Hartman,
D.
K.
(1995).
Eight
readers
reading:
The
intertextual
links
of
proficient
readers

reading
multiple
passages.
Reading
Research
Quarterly,
30(3),
520‐561.



Heller,
R.,
&
Greenleaf,
C.
(2007).
Literacy
instruction
in
the
content
areas:
Getting
to
the

core
of
middle
and
high
school
improvement.
Washington,
DC:
Alliance
for
Excellent

Education.



Hombo,
C.
M.
(2003).
NAEP
and
No
Child
Left
Behind:
Technical
challenges
and
practical

solutions.
Theory
Into
Practice,
42(1),
59‐65.



Jetton,
T.
L.,
&
Alexander,
P.
A.
(2004).
Domains,
teaching
and
literacy.
In
T.
L.
Jetton
&
P.
A.

Alexander
(Eds.),
Adolescent
Literacy
Research
and
Practice
(pp.
15‐39).
New
York:

Guilford
Press.







159






Kaestle,
C.
F.,
Campbell,
A.,
Finn,
J.
D.,
Johnson,
S.
T.,
&
Mickulecky,
L.
J.
(2001).
Adult
literacy

and
education
in
America.
from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001534.



Katsiyannis,
A.,
Zhang,
D.,
Ryan,
J.
B.,
&
Jones,
J.
(2007).
High‐stakes
testing
and
students

with
disabilities.
Journal
of
Disability
Policy
Studies,
18(3),
160‐167.



Kazdin,
A.
E.
(1982).
Single­Case
Research
Designs:
Methods
for
Clinical
and
Applied
Settings.

New
York:
Oxford
Press.



Kim,
H.
S.,
&
Kamil,
M.
L.
(2004).
Adolescents,
computer
technology,
and
literacy.
In
T.
L.

Jetton
&
J.
A.
Dole
(Eds.),
Adolescent
Literacy
Research
and
Practice
(pp.
351‐368).

New
York:
Guilford.



Kintsch,
W.,
&
van
Dijk,
T.
(1978).
Toward
a
model
of
text
comprehension
and
production.

Psychological
Review,
85(5),
363‐394.



Kletzien,
S.
B.
(1991).
Strategy
use
by
good
and
poor
comprehenders
reading
expository

text
of
differing
levels.
Reading
Research
Quarterly,
26,
67‐86.



Klingner,
J.
K.,
&
Vaughn,
S.
(1999).
Promoting
reading
comprehension,
content
learning,

and
English
acquision
through
collaborative
strategic
reading
(CSR).
The
Reading

Teacher,
52(7),
738‐747.



Lave,
J.,
&
Wenger,
E.
(1991).
Situated
Learning:
Legitimate
Peripheral
Participation.
New

York:
Cambridge
University
Press.



Lenhart,
A.,
Simon,
M.,
&
Graziano,
M.
(2001).
The
Internet
and
education:
Findings
of
the

Pew
Internet
and
American
Life
project
Retrieved
February
19,
2009,
from

www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Schools_Report.pdf.



Livingston,
A.
(2008).
The
Condition
of
Education
2008
in
Brief
(No.
NCES
2008­032).

Washington,
D.
C.:
National
Center
for
Education
Statistics,
Institute
of
Education

Services.



Lundeberg,
M.
A.
(1987).
Metacognitive
aspects
of
reading
comprehension:
Studying

understanding
in
legal
case
analysis.
Reading
Research
Quarterly,
22,
407‐432.



Mann,
V.
A.
(2003).
Language
processes:
Keys
to
reading
disabilities.
In
H.
L.
Swanson,
K.
R.

Harris
&
S.
Graham
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Learning
Disabilities
(pp.
213‐228).
New

York:
Guilford.



McGuinn,
P.
(2005).
The
national
schoolmarm:
No
Child
Left
Behind
and
the
new

educational
federalism.
Publius,
35(41‐68).



160






Meyers,
J.,
Lytle,
S.,
Palladino,
D.,
Devenpeck,
G.,
&
Green,
M.
(1990).
Think‐aloud
proocol

analysis:
An
investigation
of
reading
comprehension
strategies
in
fourth‐
and
fifth‐
grade
students.
Journal
of
Psychoeducational
Assessment,
8,
112‐127.



Michaels,
S.
(1981).
"Sharing
time":
Children's
narrative
styles
and
differential
access
to

literacy.
Literacy
in
Society,
10,
423‐442.



Mokhtari,
K.,
&
Reichard,
C.
A.
(2002).
Assessing
students'
metacognitive
awareness
of

reading
strategies.
Journal
of
Educational
Psychology,
94(2),
249‐259.



Moll,
L.,
Amanti,
C.,
Neff,
D.,
&
Gonzalez,
N.
(1992).
Funds
of
knowledge
for
teaching:
Using
a

qualitative
approach
to
connect
homes
and
classrooms.
Theory
Into
Practice,
31(2),

132‐141.



Montelongo,
J.,
Berber‐Jimenez,
L.,
Hernandez,
A.
C.,
&
Hosking,
D.
(2006).
Teaching

expository
text
structure.
The
Science
Teacher,
73(2),
28‐31.



Nagle,
K.,
Yunker,
C.,
&
Malmgren,
K.
W.
(2006).
Students
with
disabilities
and

accountability
reform:
Challenges
identified
at
the
state
and
local
levels.
Journal
of

Disability
Policy
Studies,
17(1),
28‐39.



National
Institute
of
Child
Health
and
Human
Development
(2000).
Report
of
the
National

Reading
Panel.
Teaching
children
to
read:
An
evidence­based
assessment
of
the

scientific
researh
literature
on
reading
and
its
implications
for
reading
instruction

(No.
00‐4769,
NIH
Publication).
Washington,
DC:
U.S.
Government
Printing
Office.



National
Reading
Panel
(2000).
Teaching
children
to
read:
An
evidence­based
assessment
of

the
scientific
researh
literature
on
reading
and
its
implications
for
reading
instruction

(No.
00‐4769,
NIH
Publication).
Washington,
DC:
U.S.
Government
Printing
Office.



O'Neill,
P.
T.
(2001).
Special
education
and
high
stakes
testing
for
high
school
graduation:

An
analysis
of
current
law
and
policy.
Journal
of
Law
&
Education,
30(2),
185‐222.



Palincsar,
A.
S.,
&
Brown,
A.
L.
(1984).
Reciprocal
Teaching
of
Comprehension‐Fostering

and
Comprehension‐Monitoring
Activities.
Cognition
and
Instruction,
1(2),
117‐175.



Paris,
S.
G.,
&
Jacobs,
J.
E.
(1984).
The
benefits
of
informed
instruction
for
chilren's
reading

awareness
and
comprehension
skills.
Child
Development,
55,
2083‐2093.



Paris,
S.
G.,
&
Winograd,
P.
(1990).
How
metacognition
can
promote
academic
learning
and

instruction.
In
B.
F.
Jones
&
L.
Idol
(Eds.),
Dimensions
of
thinking
and
cognitive

instruction
(pp.
15‐51).
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Erlbaum.



Pearson,
P.
D.
(2000).
Reading
in
the
20th
century.
In
T.
Good
(Ed.),
American
Education:

Yesterday,
Today,
and
Tomorrow:
Yearbook
of
the
National
Society
for
the
Study
of

Education
(pp.
152‐208).
Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press.

161






Pichert,
J.,
&
Anderson,
R.
(1977).
Taking
different
perspectives
on
a
story.
Journal
of

Educational
Psychology,
69(4),
309‐315.



Pressley,
M.
(2004).
The
Need
for
Research
on
Secondary
Literacy
Education.
In
T.
L.
Jetton

&
J.
A.
Dole
(Eds.),
Adolescent
Literacy
Research
and
Practice
(pp.
415‐432).
New

York:
The
Guilford
Press.



Pressley,
M.
(2006).
Reading
Instruction
that
Works:
The
Case
for
Balanced
Teaching
(Third

ed.).
New
York:
The
Guilford
Press.



Pressley,
M.,
&
Afflerbach,
P.
(1995).
Verbal
Protocols
of
Reading:
The
Nature
of

Constructively
Responsive
Reading.
Hillsdale,
New
Jersey:
Lawrence
Erlbaum

Associates.



Pressley,
M.,
&
Lundeberg,
M.
(2008a).
An
invitation
to
study
professionals
reading

professional‐level
text:
A
window
on
exceptionally
complex
flexible
reading.
In
K.
B.

Cartwright
&
O.
D.
Gedeon
(Eds.),
Literacy
Processes:
Cognitive
Flexibility
in
Learning

and
Teaching
(pp.
165‐187).
New
York:
Guilford
Press.



Pressley,
M.,
&
Lundeberg,
M.
(2008b).
An
invitation
to
study
professionals
reading

professional‐level
text:
A
window
on
exceptionally
complex
flexible
reading.
In
K.
B.

Cartwright
(Ed.),
Literacy
Processes:
Cognitive
Flexibility
in
Learning
and
Teaching.

New
York:
Guilford
Press.



Pressley,
M.,
&
Wharton‐McDonald,
R.
(1997).
Skilled
comprehension
and
its
development

through
instruction.
The
School
Psychology
Review,
26,
448‐466.



Pressley,
M.,
Wharton‐McDonald,
R.,
Allington,
R.,
Block,
C.
C.,
Morrow,
L.,
Tracey,
D.,
et
al.

(2001).
A
study
of
effective
grade‐1
literacy
instruction.
Scientific
Studies
of
Reading,

5,
35‐58.



Puranik,
C.
S.,
Lombardino,
L.
J.,
&
Altmann,
L.
J.
P.
(2008).
Assessing
the
microstructure
of

written
language
using
a
retelling
paradigm.
American
Journal
of
Speech­Language

Pathology,
17,
107‐129.



Rack,
J.
P.,
Snowling,
M.
J.,
&
Olson,
R.
K.
(1992).
The
nonword
reading
deficit
in

developmental
dyslexia:
A
review.
Reading
Research
and
Instruction,
27,
28‐53.



RAND
Reading
Study
Group
(2002).
Reading
for
understanding:
Toward
an
R
&
D
program

in
reading
comprehension.
Santa
Monica,
CA:
RAND.



RAND
Reading
Study
Group
(2004).
A
research
agenda
for
improving
comprehension.
In
R.

B.
Ruddell
&
N.
J.
Unrau
(Eds.),
Theoretical
Models
and
Processes
of
Reading
(Fifth

ed.).
Newark:
International
Reading
Association.





162






Raphael,
T.,
&
Wonnacott,
C.
(1985).
Heightening
fourth‐grade
students'
sensitivity
to

sources
of
information
for
answering
comprehension
questions.
Reading
Research

Quarterly,
20,
282‐296.



Rea,
P.
J.,
McLaughlin,
V.
L.,
&
Walther‐Thomas,
C.
(2002).
Outcomes
for
students
with

learning
disabilities
in
inclusive
and
pullout
programs.
Exceptional
Children,
68(2),

203‐222.



Reading
First
(2008).

Retrieved
July
19,
2008,
from

http://www.ed.gov/print/programs/readingfirst/index.html.



Revised
Administrative
Rules
for
Special
Education
(2002).
Retrieved
November
12,
2008.

from

http://www1.cenmi.org/uploaded/2005/OCT/1059839556_0602SERules.pdf.



Rhodes,
J.
A.,
&
Robnolt,
V.
J.
(2009).
Digital
literacies
in
the
classroom.
In
L.
Christenbury,

R.
Bomer
&
P.
Smagorinsky
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Adolescent
Literacy
Research
(pp.

153‐169).
New
York:
Guilford
Press.



Rogoff,
B.
(1991).
Social
interaction
as
apprenticeship
in
thinking:
Guided
participation
in

spatial
planning.
In
L.
Resnick,
J.
Levine
&
S.
Teasley
(Eds.),
Perspectives
on
Socially

Shared
Cognition
(pp.
349‐364).
Hayttsville,
MD:
American
Psychological

Association.



Schmar‐Dobler,
E.
(2003).
Reading
on
the
Internet:
the
link
between
literacy
and

technology.(Media
Literacy).
Journal
of
Adolescent
&amp;
Adult
Literacy,
47(1),
80‐
86.



Shafrir,
U.,
&
Siegel,
L.
S.
(1994).
Subtypes
of
learning
disabilities
in
adolescents
and
adults.

Journal
of
Learning
Disabilities,
27,
123‐134.



Shanahan,
T.
(2003).
Research‐based
reading
instruction:
Myths
about
the
National

Reading
Panel
report.
The
Reading
Teacher,
56(7),
646‐655.



Shanahan,
T.,
&
Shanahan,
C.
(2008).
Teaching
disciplinary
literacy
to
adolescents:

Rethinking
content‐area
literacy.
Harvard
Edcuational
Review,
78(1),
40‐61.



Sheorey,
R.,
&
Mokhtari,
K.
(2002).
Measuring
ESL
students'
awareness
of
reading

strategies.
Journal
of
Developmental
Education,
25(3),
2‐10.



Shepard,
L.
A.
(2000).
The
role
of
assessment
in
learning
culture.
Educational
Researcher,

29(7),
4‐14.



Siegel,
L.
S.
(2003).
Basic
cognitive
processes
and
reading
disability.
In
C.
B.
Swanson,
K.
R.

Harris
&
S.
Graham
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Learning
Disabilities
(pp.
158‐181).
New

York:
Guilford
Press.

163






Spargo,
E.
(1989).
Timed
Readings
(Third
ed.).
Lincolnwood,
IL:
Jamestown.



Spear‐Swerling,
L.
(2004).
A
Road
Map
for
Understanding
Reading
Disability
and
Other

Reading
Problems:
Origins,
Prevention,
and
Intervention.
In
R.
B.
Ruddell
&
N.
J.

Unrau
(Eds.),
Theoretical
Models
and
Processes
of
Reading
(pp.
517‐573).
Newark,

DE:
International
Reading
Association,
Fifth
Edition.



Stallings,
D.
T.
(2002).
A
brief
history
of
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Education,
1979‐2002.
Phi

Delta
Kappan,
83(9),
677‐683.



Stanovich,
K.
E.
(1986).
Matthew
effects
in
reading:
Some
consequences
of
individual

differences
in
the
aquisition
of
literacy.
Reading
Research
Quarterly,
21,
360‐407.



Stanovich,
K.
E.
(1988).
Explaining
the
differences
between
the
dyslexic
and
garden
variety

poor
reader.
Journal
of
Learning
Disabilities,
21,
590‐604.



Steele,
M.
M.
(2007).
Teaching
social
studies
to
high
school
students
with
learning

problems.
The
Social
Studies,
98(2),
59‐63.



Stevens,
L.
P.
(2003).
Reading
First:
A
critical
policy
analysis.
The
Reading
Teacher,
56(7),

662‐668.



Sturtevant,
E.
G.,
&
Linek,
W.
M.
(2003).
The
instructional
beliefs
and
decisions
of
middle

and
secondary
teachers
who
successfully
blend
literacy
and
content.
Reading

Research
and
Instruction,
43(1),
74‐90.



Sunderman,
G.
L.,
Kim,
J.
S.,
&
Orfield,
G.
(2005).
NCLB
Meets
School
Realities:
Lessons
From

the
Field.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Corwin
Press.



Swanson,
C.
B.
(2008).
Cities
in
crisis:
A
special
anaylic
report
on
high
school
graduation

Retrieved
May
5,
2008,
from
http://www.americaspromise.org/APA.aspx.



Swanson,
H.
L.,
&
Saez,
L.
(2003).
Memory
difficulties
in
children
and
adults
with
learning

disabilities.
In
H.
L.
Swanson,
K.
R.
Harris
&
S.
Graham
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Learning

Disabilities
(pp.
182‐198).
New
York:
Guilford
Press.



Talbott,
E.,
Lloyd,
J.
W.,
&
Tankersley,
M.
(1994).
Effects
of
reading
comprehension

interventions
for
students
with
learning
disabilities.
Learning
Disability
Quarterly,

17,
223‐232.



Taylor,
B.,
&
Beach,
R.
(1984).
The
effects
of
text
structure
instruction
on
middle‐grade

students'
comprehension
and
production
of
expository
text.
Reading
Research

Quarterly,
19,
134‐146.




164






Taylor,
S.
J.
(2004).
Caught
in
the
continum:
A
critical
analysis
of
the
principle
of
the
least

restrictive
environment.
Research
&
Practice
for
Persons
with
Severe
Disabilities,

29(4),
218‐230.



Teitelbaum,
P.
(2003).
The
influence
of
high
school
graduation
requirement
policies
in

mathematics
and
science
on
student
course‐taking
patterns
and
achievement.

Education
Evaluation
and
Policy
Analysis,
25(1),
31‐57.



The
College
Board:
Scores
&
Review
(2010).

Retrieved
June
18,
2010,
from

http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/psat/scores.html.



Thorndyke,
P.
(1977).
Cognitive
structures
in
comprehension
and
memory
of
narrative

discourse.
Cognitive
Psychology,
9(1),
77‐110.



Time
to
act:
An
agenda
for
advancing
adolescent
literacy
for
college
and
career
success

(2009).
New
York:
Carnegie
Corporation.



Umpstead,
R.
(2008).
The
No
Child
Left
Behind
act:
Is
it
an
unfunded
mandate
or
a

promotion
of
federal
educational
ideals?
Journal
of
Law
&
Education,
37(2),
193‐229.



Vaughn,
S.,
&
Klingner,
J.
(2004).
Teaching
reading
comprehension
to
students
with

learning
disabilities.
In
C.
A.
Stone,
E.
R.
Silliman,
B.
J.
Ehren
&
K.
Apel
(Eds.),

Handbook
of
Language
and
Literacy
(pp.
541‐555).
New
York:
Guilford
Press.



Vaughn,
S.,
Klingner,
J.
K.,
&
Bryant,
D.
P.
(2001).
Collaborative
strategic
reading
as
a
means

to
enhance
peer‐mediated
instruction
for
reading
comprehension
and
content‐area

learning.
Remedial
and
Special
Education,
22(2),
60‐74.



Vernon,
L.
J.,
Baytops,
J.,
McMahon,
P.,
Padden,
D.,
&
Walther‐Thomas,
C.
(2003).
The
reality

of
increased
graduation
requirements:
A
nationwide
view
of
diploma
options.

NASSP
Bulletin,
87(635),
2‐14.



Volger,
K.
E.
(2005).
Impact
of
a
high
school
graduation
examination
on
social
studies

teachers'
instructional
practices.
Journal
of
Social
Studies
Research,
29(2),
19‐33.



Voltz,
D.
L.,
&
Fore,
C.
(2006).
Urban
special
education
in
the
context
of
standards‐based

reform.
Remedial
and
Special
Education,
27(6),
329‐336.



Wagner,
M.,
Newman,
L.,
Cameto,
R.,
Lavine,
P.,
&
Garza,
N.
(2006).
An
overview
of
findings

from
wave
2
of
the
National
Longitudinal
Transition
Study­2
(NLTS2)
(No.
NCSER

2006‐3004).
Menlo
Park,
CA:
SRI
International.



Warren,
J.
R.,
Jenkins,
K.
N.,
&
Kulick,
R.
B.
(2006).
High
school
exit
examination
and
state‐
level
completion
and
GED
rates,
1975
through
2002.
Education
Evaluation
and

Policy
Analysis,
28(2),
131‐152.



165






Wertsch,
J.
V.
(1991).
Voices
of
the
mind:
A
sociocultural
approach
to
mediated
action.

Cambridge,
MA:
Harvard
University
Press.



Westby,
C.
(2004).
A
language
perspective
on
executive
functioning,
metacognition,
and

self‐regulation
in
reading.
In
C.
A.
Stone,
E.
R.
Silliman,
B.
J.
Ehren
&
K.
Apel
(Eds.),

Handbook
of
Language
and
Literacy
(pp.
398‐427).
New
York:
Guilford
Press.



Wiederholt,
J.
L.,
&
Blalock,
G.
(2000).
Gray
Silent
Reading
Test.
Austin,
TX:
ProEd
Publishing

Co.



Williams,
J.
P.
(2003).
Teaching
text
structure
to
improve
reading
comprehension.
In
H.
L.

Swanson,
K.
R.
Harris
&
S.
Graham
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Learning
Disabilities.
New

York:
Guilford
Press.



Wineburg,
S.
S.
(1991).
On
the
reading
of
historical
texts:
Notes
on
the
breach
between

school
and
academy.
American
Educational
Research
Journal
28,
495‐519.



Ysseldyke,
J.,
Nelson,
J.
R.,
Christenson,
S.,
Johnson,
D.
R.,
Dennison,
A.,
Triezenberg,
H.,
et
al.

(2004).
What
we
know
and
need
to
know
about
the
consequence
of
high‐stakes

testing
for
students
with
disabilities.
Exceptional
Children,
71(1),
75‐95.






166