. 1 I, . , 11 [ .

I I I j I I
Reading
Comprehension
for Older
Readers
SHARON VAUGHN
AND MEAGHAN EDMONDS
J
ohn, Lucas, and Sabrina are students with reading
disabilities in Mrs. Sanchezs fifth-grade class. These
students fluency rates indicate that they are accu-
rate readers (making few mistakes in word identi-
fication); however, they are slow readers, reading
60 to 80 words correct per minute. Additionally, these stu-
dents have difficulties reading to learn. Lucas often says,
There is too much information. I dont know whats im-
portant. Sabrina gets frustrated when she encounters
unfamiliar words and quickly loses interest in the book.
John likes to read, but he is unable to summarize what he
has read. Although he knows several strategies by name, he
struggles to apply them while reading. All three students
have difficulty understanding what they read.
To successfully read to learn, students must be able
to read with comprehension; that is, they must get mean-
ing from written text (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pressley,
2000). Reading to learn is a struggle for many students,
especially students with learning disabilities (LD; Bryant,
Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Ugel, & Hamff, 2000; Ger-
sten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Teachers who un-
derstand that reading comprehension is a complex goal
are on the path to successfully teaching students to un-
derstand and enjoy text. Knowing why and how compre-
This article provides an overview of a multicom-
ponent comprehension strategy and graphic orga-
nizers designed for older readers to gain meaning
from text. Practices designed to capitalize on the
best research-based elements associated with
improved outcomes in reading comprehension, par-
ticularly for expository texts, are described. The
graphic organizers provide visual representations
and organizational schema, which are useful for
assisting students in organizing key concepts, vo-
cabulary, and information from text.
I
hension breaks down can help teachers plan instruction
that meets students needs.
Barriers to Understanding
Reading Material
Comprehension can break down when students have prob-
lems with one or more of the following:
decoding words, including structural analysis;
reading text with adequate speed and accuracy
(fluency);
understanding the meanings of words;
relating content to prior knowledge;
applying comprehension strategies; and
monitoring understanding
(Carlisle & Rice, 2002; National Institute for
Literacy, 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000).
For older readers, the pathway to reading compre-
hension begins with determining whether students can
read the words accurately (i.e., they have adequate decod-
ing and word reading skills). The pathway proceeds to
determining students understanding of words they will
encounter in text and their existing content knowledge.
For John, Lucas, and Sabrina, barriers to reading compre-
hension were not related to word reading or word mean-
ing. They had two difficulties: reading slowly and
understanding text. According to Hasbrouck, Tindal, and
Jones (2005), students in Grades 5 to 8 should be expected
to read between 140 and 150 words correctly per minute.
How Teachers Can Help Students
Understand What They Read
Comprehension strategies are conscious plans or proce-
dures that readers apply to make sense of text. Strategy in-
struction associated with improved comprehension (NRP,
2000; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002) consists of
teaching students to monitor their comprehension
and make adjustments when understanding breaks
down,
providing graphic and semantic organizers that assist
students in writing or drawing relationships from
text,
providing support for questioning strategies,
teaching students to write important ideas about what
they have read and to summarize these ideas after
reading longer passages, and
combining multiple strategies for students to apply.
The following provides an overview of two compre-
hension strategiesCollaborative Strategic Reading and
using graphic organizersthat older students can use to
enhance their understanding of text, especially content-
area expository text.
Collaborative Strategic Reading
Many approaches designed to improve the reading com-
prehension of students with disabilities can be considered
multicomponent interventions because they include
more than one strategy related to reading comprehen-
sion (e.g., main idea and previewing). Collaborative Stra-
tegic Reading (CSR) is an example of a multicomponent
intervention that integrates several reading comprehen-
sion strategies so that students can organize how they
read and understand text without juggling multiple strat-
egies.
Overview of Research. Influenced significantly by recip-
rocal teaching (Palincsar, 1986; Palincsar & Brown 1984;
Palincsar, Brown, & Martin, 1987), CSR was designed to
employ research-based practices associated with improved
outcomes in reading comprehension, particularly for ex-
pository texts. Research studies that reviewed CSR (Kling-
ner, Vaughn, Dimino, Schumm, & Bryant, 2001; Vaughn,
Klingner, & Bryant, 2001) have indicated that with com-
parison group studies, the effect size for reading compre-
hension is .44 (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996) and the pre- to
posteffect sizes vary from .46 to .98 for reading compre-
hension (see for review, Klingner et al., 2001). Using CSR
has resulted in beneficial outcomes for students with LD,
as well as students who are low- and average-achieving
and English language learners. CSR has been used with
students in Grades 4 through middle school.
How Do Students Learn to Use CSR? Initially, the teacher
presents the strategies to the whole class using modeling,
role playing, and teacher think-alouds, and students learn
why, when, and how to apply the strategies. After devel-
oping proficiency, students are divided into heteroge-
neous groups. Each student performs a defined role to
collaboratively implement the strategies while learning
from expository text.
What Is Collaboration? The C in CSR stands for col-
laboration, which reflects the group dynamics. Students
work cooperatively in groups of 3 to 5, read text, and use
comprehension strategies to better understand and learn
from expository texts. Working cooperatively ensures ac-
tive engagement with the text and responsibility of all
group members for overall learning. When teachers or-
ganize the groups, we suggest that they divide students
into three groupsgood readers, average readers, and
poor readersand put a star next to the names of students
who are group leaders. Teachers may also want to place a
dot next to the names of students who have particular at-
tention or behavior problems. Based on this information,
teachers should be sure that each group of students in-
. 1 I, . , 11 I
I 1
Graphic Organizers
Graphic organizers are instructional tools that provide a
meaningful framework for readers to form relationships
between what they know and text information (Wittrock,
1992). They are visual representations and organizational
diagrams or outlines that assist students in organizing
prior knowledge, reflecting on key concepts and vocabu-
lary, and organizing what they learned from reading text.
As a result of using the organizers, students can display
connections between ideas and concepts, thus improving
text comprehension. Graphic organizers include such prac-
tices as semantic mapping, semantic feature analysis, cog-
nitive maps, story maps, advanced organizers, visual and
spatial displays, and Venn diagrams.
Adolescent learners with reading difficulties and dis-
abilities struggle to process the unfamiliar technical vocab-
ulary and often poorly organized expository text required
in content learning (Lapp, Flood, & Ranck-Buhr, 1995).
Accumulating evidence has revealed that students with
LD can benefit from graphic organizers used to facilitate
comprehension of expository text (Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek,
Name (group or individual) ____________________________ Date ___________________
Topic or text read _____________________________________________________________
Before Reading: Preview
What do I already know about the topic?
What do I think I will learn?
During Reading: Clunks and Gist
1st Section of the Passage
What are my clunks?
What is my gist?
2nd Section of the Passage
What are my clunks?
What is my gist?
After Reading: Wrap-Up
What is an easy question and answer?
What is a harder question and answer?
What is the hardest question and answer?
Figure 2. Collaborative strategic reading learning log.
. 1 I, . , 11 I
& Wei, 2004). Following is a brief summary of the re-
search on graphic organizers and students with LD.
Overview of Research. Kim et al. (2004) conducted a re-
view of relevant research related to graphic organizers
that has appeared in the past 40 years. This synthesis of
21 group-design intervention studies yielded several find-
ings:
Graphic organizer studies used a variety of ap-
proaches, including semantic organizers, cognitive
maps with and without a mnemonic, and framed
outlines.
All graphic organizer types were associated with
improved reading comprehension for students with
LD.
Most studies used researcher-developed comprehen-
sion measures, which yielded higher effect sizes than
standardized reading measures.
Effects of graphic organizers were not transferred to
new learning tasks.
What Graphic Organizer Should You Use? Because the
research has suggested that using many types of graphic
organizers results in improved reading comprehension for
older students with LD, teachers should use or develop
graphic organizers that relate to the instructional text or
unit that they are teaching. Two commonly used graphic
organizers are semantic maps and concept diagrams.
A semantic map provides an overview of key vocab-
ulary and concepts related to what students will learn and
read. The semantic map can be revised as students read
and learn more. A concept diagram (Bulgren, Schumaker,
& Deshler, 1988) can be used to extend understanding of
key ideas by determining how they are defined and their
characteristics and by using examples that refine use of the
concept.
How Does the Teacher Use a Semantic Map? The teacher
should provide several cues to stimulate students back-
ground knowledge or awareness of the instructional unit
and text to be read. For example, the teacher can show
pictures, ask students to read headlines, or identify one
or two key words related to what they will be reading and
learning. Then the teacher can brainstorm key words and
ideas related to the unit with students. For example, one
teacher informed students that they would be learning
about Egypt. She showed them a brief video about Egypt
to stimulate their background knowledge and make asso-
ciations between what students already knew and what
they would be learning. The teacher then asked students
to generate key words and engaged them in organizing
the key words into a semantic map (see Figure 3 for sample
Figure 3. Semantic map.
Reprinted from Second Grade Teacher Reading Academy (Vocabulary Handout 4, p. 5), by The University of Texas Center for Reading and Language
Arts, 2002, Austin, TX: UT System, Texas Education Agency. Copyright 2002 by Texas Education Agency. Reprinted with permission.
I
semantic map). After students read the text and discussed
it with the teacher, they expanded the semantic map to
include additional ideas and key words.
How Does the Teacher Use a Concept Diagram? Concept
diagrams provide a way to select an important concept
and extend instruction to ensure that the concept is well
understood (see Figure 4 for an example). Because a con-
cept diagram is time consuming to complete, carefully
select the concepts to be used. Vaughn, Bos, and Schumm
(2003) recognized the following steps when using a con-
cept diagram:
1. Identify the major concepts to teach.
2. Introduce the concept diagram to students by pro-
viding a large version that all students can see and a
smaller paper version on which students can take
notes.
3. Explain to students the various parts of the concept
diagram.
4. Think aloud about the critical features of the con-
cept and whether they are always, sometimes, or
never present.
5. Ask students to identify examples and nonexamples
of the concept.
6. Elicit key words and ideas that relate to the concept.
7. Ask students to write or state in their own words the
most important ideas related to the concept.
Conclusion
As Mastropieri and Scruggs (1997) reported, students with
LD can improve their reading comprehension if teachers
teach strategies that have been documented as effec-
tive in promoting reading comprehension;
Figure 4. Concept diagram.
Adapted from Concept of Definition: A Key to Improving Students Vocabulary, by R. M. Schwartz & T. E. Raphael, 1985, The Reading
Teacher, 39(2), p. 201; Texas Fourth Grade Teacher Reading Academy (Vocabulary Handout 6, p. 7), by The University of Texas Center for
Reading and Language Arts, 2003, Austin, UT System, Texas Education Agency.
. 1 I, . , 11 I
design instruction considering principles of effective,
explicit strategy instruction;
provide modeling, support, guided instruction, attri-
butional feedback, and opportunities to practice
across text types; and
monitor students progress and make adjustments
accordingly.
Several instructional practices for improving reading
comprehension serve as guidelines for classroom teachers,
reading specialists, and special education teachers. When
skillfully enacted, these practices can enhance compre-
hension for students who, like John, Lucas, and Sabrina,
have difficulty understanding what they read.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Sharon Vaughn, PhD, is the H. E. Hartfelder/Southland Cor-
poration Regents Chair at the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading
and Language Arts at The University of Texas. Her scholarly
interests include research on effective interventions for students
with reading and learning disabilities. Meaghan Edmonds,
MA, is a research associate at the Vaughn Gross Center for
Reading and Language Arts at The University of Texas, Austin.
Her scholarly interests include research on comprehension
strategies for older struggling readers and program evaluation.
Address: Meaghan Edmonds, Vaughn Gross Center for Read-
ing and Language Arts, University of Texas at Austin, College
of Education, 1912 Speedway, SZB 228, Austin, TX 78712;
msedmonds@mail.utexas.edu
REFERENCES
Bryant, D. P., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., & Hamff, A.
(2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without learning
disabilities in general education middle school content area classes.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(3), 2438.
Bulgren, J., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1988). Effectiveness of
a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD
students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 11, 317.
Carlisle, J. F., & Rice, M. S. (2002). Improving reading comprehension:
Research-based principles and practice. Baltimore: York Press.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for devel-
oping reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. Samuels (Eds.),
What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205242).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching
reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabil-
ities: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2),
279320.
Hasbrouck, J., Tindal, J., & Jones, C. (2005). Oral reading fluency: 90
years of assessment (BRT Technical Report No. 33). Eugene, OR:
Behavioral Research & Teaching.
Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers
and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with
LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2),
105118.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading
comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who
use English as a second language. Elementary School Journal, 96(3),
275293.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Dimino, J., Schumm, J. S., & Bryant, D.
(2001). From clunk to click: Collaborative strategic reading. Longmont,
CO: Sopris West.
Lapp, D., Flood, J., & Ranck-Buhr, W. (1995). Using multiple text for-
mats to explore scientific phenomena in middle school classrooms.
Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 11,
173186.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promot-
ing comprehension in students with learning disabilities: 1976 to
1996. Remedial and Special Education, 18(4), 197214.
National Institute for Literacy. (2001). Put reading first: The research
building blocks for teaching children to read. Jessup, MD: Author.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel:
Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific re-
search literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction:
Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washing-
ton, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment.
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded in-
struction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 7398.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of com-
prehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cog-
nition and Instruction, 2, 117175.
Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L., & Martin, S. M. (1987). Peer interaction
in reading comprehension instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22,
231253.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the in-
struction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545562). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward
an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Schwartz, R. M., & Raphael, T. E. (1985). Concept of definition: A key
to improving students vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 39(2), 198
205.
University of Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts. (2002). Sec-
ond grade teacher reading academy. Austin: UT System, Texas Educa-
tion Agency.
University of Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts. (2003).
Texas fourth grade teacher reading academy. Austin: UT System, Texas
Education Agency.
Vaughn, S., Bos, C., & Schumm, J. S. (2003). Teaching exceptional, di-
verse, and at-risk students in the general education classroom. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., & Bryant, D. P. (2001). Collaborative stra-
tegic reading as a means to enhance peer-mediated instruction for
reading comprehension and content area learning. Remedial and
Special Education, 22(2), 6674.
Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and comprehension. In
M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp. 699
705). New York: Macmillan.