Journal of Learning Disabilities

Reading Comprehension Strategy 44(1) 1832

Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2011
Reprints and permission:
Instruction and Attribution Retraining sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022219410371677

for Secondary Students With Learning http://journaloflearningdisabilities

.sagepub.com

and Other Mild Disabilities

Sheri Berkeley1, Margo A. Mastropieri2, and Thomas E. Scruggs3

Abstract
A pre-post experimental design with 6-week delayed posttest was implemented to investigate the effects of reading
comprehension strategy (RCS) instruction with and without attribution retraining (AR) on reading outcomes for seventh,
eighth, and ninth graders with learning and other mild disabilities. Students were randomly assigned to one of three treat-
ments: RCS+AR, RCS, or a Read Naturally (Ihnot, 1992) comparison condition. Results indicated that compared to the
comparison group, both strategy instruction groups performed better on a summarization measure of comprehension after
treatment producing large effect sizes. Both groups also performed better after a 6-week delay; however, only the RCS+AR
group maintained a large effect size. In addition, RCS+AR students displayed higher attributions for reading success at
post- and delayed posttesting. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Keywords
reading comprehension, strategy instruction, attributions, learning disabilities

The ultimate goal of the reading process is to extract meaning
from text (Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007). As students
transition from elementary school to middle school, they are
increasingly instructed in general education content area
classes such as social studies and science, where they are
expected to read and understand increasingly difficult exposi-
tory text. Research indicates that for most students, expository
reading is more challenging than narrative reading and that
students with learning disabilities (LD) have more difficulty
with expository reading than their peers (e.g., Saenz & Fuchs,
2002). Expository texts are materials written to communicate
information that helps readers learn something new (Weaver
& Kintsch, 1991). By fourth grade, reading expository mate-
rial to obtain content information is expected, and by high
school, the majority of students instructional time is spent
reading expository text (Barton, 1997). However, teachers
often operate under the false assumption that the reading
skills students have previously learned will transfer to exposi-
tory reading (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1996).
According to the Center for the Improvement of Early
Reading Achievement (2001), Research over 30 years has
shown that instruction in comprehension can help students
understand what they read, remember what they read, and
communicate with others about what they read (p. 48).
Reviews of the special education literature (e.g., Gersten,
Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Mastropieri, Scruggs, &
Graetz, 2003; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000) show that
this is also true for students with LD. Effect sizes reported
in meta-analyses of research in the area of reading compre-
hension instruction for this population have been consistently
large (e.g., Berkeley, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, in press;
Edmonds et al., 2009; Gajria et al., 2007; Swanson, 1999).
In particular, results for cognitive strategy instruction (includ-
ing self-monitoring and self-questioning) have been particu-
larly promising. Taken together, these analyses of the research
have provided numerous insights into what constitutes effec-
tive instruction for students with LD.
Strategy Instruction
Students with LD have the cognitive tools needed to process
information, but do so very inefficiently. Descriptive research
has consistently shown that many children with LD experience
1
George Mason University
2
George Mason University
3
George Mason University
Corresponding Author:
Sheri Berkeley, 110A Krug Hall MSN 1F2, Fairfax, VA 22030
Email: sberkele@gmu.edu
Berkeley et al. 19
poor comprehension due to a failure to read strategically and
to spontaneously monitor their understanding of what is being
read, which indicates some sort of breakdown in processing
(e.g., Gersten et al., 2001). Cognitive learning strategies are
methods and procedures that enable a student to learn to solve
problems and complete tasks independently (Lenz, Ellis, &
Scanlon, 1996). The basic premise underlying cognitive strat-
egy instruction is that students can be taught more effective
and efficient strategies than the ones they learn and apply on
their own (Johnson, Graham, & Harris, 1997).
When reading expository text, instruction in the use of
multiple strategies is required to produce significant results
in reading comprehension and improved transfer effects
(Gersten et al., 2001; Vaughn et al., 2000). Through meta-
analysis of the research literature, Swanson (1999) determined
that a combination of strategy and direct instruction is most
beneficial for reading comprehension instruction. Examples
of effective components of reading comprehension strategy
(RCS) instruction included modeling by the teacher of strategy
steps (e.g., overt demonstration through think-aloud models
of strategy steps and procedures) and the use of strategy cues
(e.g., explanation of benefits of the strategy, reminders to use
the strategies). In 2003, Mastropieri et al. incorporated these
components in their recommended instructional framework
for RCS instruction:
clearly state objectives;
follow a specific sequence for teaching (i.e., state
the purpose of the lesson and provide explicit
instruction with modeling, guided practice, correc-
tive feedback, independent practice, and generaliza-
tion practice);
inform the students of the purpose of the strategy;
monitor student progress;
encourage the students to think about the text and
strategies;
encourage appropriate attributions; and
teach for generalized use of the strategies. (p. 106)
Although research has shown that such overt instruction of
strategies is an effective way to improve the reading com-
prehension of students with mild disabilities, strategy instruc-
tion does not automatically create strategic learners who
consistently approach tasks planfully and strategically (Wong,
Harris, Graham, & Butler, 2003).
Metacomprehension/strategy awareness. An aspect of strat-
egy instruction sometimes overlooked is metacomprehension
and strategy awareness. Metacognition involves knowledge
of ones thinking, using strategies to achieve goals, and evalu-
ating ones own progress (LaJoie, 2008). The application of
this construct to reading comprehension, metacomprehension
strategy awareness, refers to a persons knowledge about
specific task demands, including how to determine whether
a strategy would be appropriate in addition to how to use the
strategy itself (Pressley & Ghatala, 1990). Although it has
been demonstrated that students can successfully be taught
a reading comprehension strategy, it is also important to
explicitly teach students how to determine when a particular
strategy might be effective. This is particularly important for
students with LD who have difficulty with successful selec-
tion, application, and monitoring of multiple strategies
(Wixson & Lipson, 1991).
Attribution Retraining
Students self-beliefs regarding achievement include the
related factors: self-concept, self-efficacy, and causal attribu-
tions (Chapman & Tunmer, 2003). Because these variables
are important to motivational cognition, metacognition, and
learning, these motivational beliefs have been included in
numerous cognitive models of learning, including social cog-
nitive theory (e.g., Bandura, 1986). One of the constructs of
social cognitive theory, self-efficacy, is regarded as the most
essential process for motivating a persons behavior (Ford,
1992). Self-efficacy (students beliefs about their own capa-
bilities) is particularly important when placed in the context
of strategy instruction. Students can be taught any number of
strategies to facilitate the learning process, but strategies in
themselves are only beneficial when students are motivated
to maintain their use after instruction. This becomes critical
for populations of students who characteristically do not main-
tain and generalize what they learn, such as students with
disabilities. According to Ford (1992), there are four sources
of self-efficacy information: (a) mastery experiences, (b) mod-
eling, (c) social persuasion, and (d) affective body state infor-
mation. In addition, attributional and social comparison
processes are thought to influence self-efficacy judgments
(Ford, 1992). More specifically, research has shown that feed-
back that helps students to make connections between effort
and success enhances motivation, self-efficacy, and skills,
while feedback that helps students make connections between
insufficient effort and failure promotes effort attributions and
persistence (Schunk & Cox, 1986). This is especially impor-
tant for students who struggle with reading because student
beliefs about academic success and failure are thought to play
a major role in determining motivation to learn and to use
cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Shell, Colvin, &
Bruning, 1995). This is also important for older students
because they often do not persist in the use of strategies after
instruction (Gersten et al., 2001; Vaughn et al., 2000).
Unlike elementary school students who attribute both effort
and achievement to success in school, older students tend to
believe that if they only need to put in a little effort, they must
have high ability, and conversely that if they need to put in a
lot of effort that they must have low ability (Stipek, 1993).
These beliefs decrease the likelihood that these students will
20 Journal of Learning Disabilities 44(1)
put forth the required effort to use cognitive and metacognitive
strategies. This is particularly the case for older students with
LD because they often have a history of academic failure and
as a result, are likely to believe that they have little control over
their academic achievement (Nelson & Manset-Williamson,
2006). Compounding this problem, early research (e.g., Stipek,
1993; Stipek & Weiz, 1981) has indicated that older students
with LD often make inappropriate attributions (explanations)
for why they succeed or fail in school. Compared with typi-
cally developing students, students with LD are more likely
to attribute successes to external causes (e.g., luck) and failures
to internal causes (e.g., ability; Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr,
1988; Tabassam & Grainger, 2002). This is problematic
because some researchers have suggested that the role of task
persistence may be at least as important as knowledge of
strategies in making sense out of complex expository text
(Gersten et al., 2001).
There is some beginning evidence that positive attributions
regarding effort can motivate children to acquire and persist
in using strategies. In 2000, Robertson reviewed empirical
research that investigated attribution retraining in achievement
contexts for school-aged students with learning difficulties
and found that attribution retraining (AR) was beneficial over-
all. The 20 studies reviewed included studies that investigated
strategy instruction combined with AR in the areas of reading
comprehension, spelling, math, and mnemonics. Half of the
studies included participants with LD. Mixed findings across
some of the studies enabled the authors to draw conclusions
about characteristics of AR that have proven to be effective
and ineffective. First, attributions for effort should be given
only when a student has sufficient skills needed to be suc-
cessful with a task, otherwise low ability attributions may be
inadvertently reinforced. One way to do this is to teach strate-
gies that enable students to complete the task, although com-
bining attribution and strategy training may be most effective
for students who do not generally make connections between
strategy use and success. Another way to accomplish this is
to encourage attributions to strategy use, in this way students
attribute success or failure to the effectiveness (or ineffective-
ness) of the strategy instead of factors they cannot control
(e.g., ability). Finally, direct approaches to AR seem to have
advantages over indirect ones, and large group training is
problematic because of the peer reference that can occur.
Although half of the studies reviewed by Robertson (2000)
involved reading in general, only four looked specifically at
instruction that used a combination of reading comprehension
strategies combined with AR (e.g., Borkowski et al., 1988;
Carr & Borkowski, 1989; Chan, 1996; Miranda, Villaescusa,
& Vidal-Abarca, 1997). Findings from these studies have
generally showed benefits for adding AR to strategy instruc-
tion (e.g., Borkowski et al., 1988; Carr & Borkowski, 1989;
Chan, 1996); however, only two investigated effects for
students with LD. The first study (Borkowski et al., 1988)
investigated the effects of AR and RCS instruction for students
of a variety of ages (range: 1014 years old). Students were
taught three reading comprehension strategies (main ideas
and details, topic sentences, and summarization) over six
sessions. AR consisted of: (a) teacher modeling of making
attributions to controllable factors; (b) discussing with stu-
dents the relationship between effortful strategy use and suc-
cess using the following statements to illustrate: I tried hard,
used the strategy, and did well; and (c) guided practice in
the application of effort and strategy attributions while read-
ing. Findings showed that RCS+AR and RCS+Complex AR
groups scored significantly higher than both the RCS control
and AR control groups on a paragraph summarization measure
and maintained differences with the two control conditions
after a 2-week delay. There were no differences found for the
attributions themselves either before or after treatment.
The second study (Miranda et al., 1997) showed that sig-
nificant improvements occurred for strategy instruction both
with and without additional AR. In this study, elementary school
students with LD were the participants and multiple reading
comprehension strategies were used during instruction in a
large group setting with one of the conditions receiving AR. Stu-
dents were taught a self-instruction (self-monitoring) procedure
for six reading comprehension strategies (identify text structure,
activate previous knowledge, preview of text, self-question,
clarify, map ideas) over 13 sessions followed by practice in
all of the learned strategies for an additional 7 sessions. In this
study, AR consisted of: (a) student practice in the identification
of positive attributions (for success grounded in effort and fail-
ure based on lack of effort or knowledge) and negative attribu-
tions (for success grounded in luck, help, and ease of task and
failure based on lack of effort or bad luck), (b) modeling of
appropriate positive attributions when using strategies, and
(c) prompts for students to make attributions for success or
failure after reading activities followed by teacher feedback.
Results showed that after treatment, both experimental groups
(RCS and RCS+AR) scored at the same level on measures of
comprehension as a normal achieving control group, but
significant differences remained with students in the LD control
group. Researchers concluded that effects from RCS instruction
produced such strong results that additional AR may have been
unnecessary. Considering the positive effects from the earlier
Borkowski et al. (1988) study of 10- to 14-year-olds, an alternate
explanation might be that AR was unnecessary for elementary
school students who generally attribute success in school to
both effort and achievement (e.g., Stipek, 1993). Because stu-
dent beliefs about academic success and failure (attributions)
are thought to influence strategy use (Shell et al., 1995), it is
important for more research to be conducted that investigates
potential benefits of adding AR to RCS instruction for older
students with LD who tend to have faulty attributions (e.g.,
Stipek, 1993) and who often do not persist with strategy use
after instruction (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2000).
Berkeley et al. 21
The Current Investigation
The current study extends the body of research that investi-
gates the benefits of adding an AR component to RCS instruc-
tion. A similar design to previous studies with multiple
comparison groups was employed; however, unlike previous
studies, older students with disabilities were the target sample
and instructional time among comparison groups was carefully
balanced so that students in the RCS group did not receive a
greater amount of strategy practice than students who received
AR in addition to RCS instruction. Students assigned to strat-
egy instruction (RCS and RCS+AR) conditions were taught
multiple reading comprehension strategies using an instruc-
tional framework grounded in the research literature. For each
strategy taught, the purpose of the lesson was stated, and
explicit instruction with modeling, guided practice with cor-
rective feedback, and independent practice was provided.
Generalization practice was included through strategy moni-
toring lessons that gave students systematic practice with
identifying and applying appropriate strategies for individual
passages. This type of practice in flexible strategy selection
and use was not included in previous studies. In conjunction
with RCS instruction, students assigned to the additional AR
condition were explicitly taught how to identify faulty attribu-
tions for success and failure (e.g., luck) and instead make
positive attributions for reading comprehension outcomes
(i.e., strategy use). To promote the appeal to older students,
AR concepts were initially introduced through sport examples
of appropriate attributions (e.g., a basketball players positive
vs. negative thinking when a crowd jeers during a free throw
and the resulting outcome). The sport examples were intended
to illustrate the AR concepts, help students make connections
between known personal experiences and the AR concepts,
and increase student motivation to learn the RCS strategies.
In addition, specific teacher feedback was provided that rein-
forced student attributions for strategy use.
The purpose of the current intervention study was to inves-
tigate the treatment outcomes of RCS and RCS+AR compared
to the repeated reading program currently used by the coop-
erating schools, Read Naturally (RN), and to investigate
whether any outcome differences that resulted from treatment
would be maintained after instruction ended. Specifically, the
following research questions were evaluated: (a) What are the
effects of RCS and RCS+AR compared to RN on the reading
comprehension of seventh-, eighth-, and ninth-grade students
with LD and other mild disabilities? (b) What are the effects
of these interventions on the strategy awareness knowledge
of these students? and (c) What are the effects of these inter-
ventions on the attributions for success and failure held by
these students? Based on findings from the previous literature
in this area, it was anticipated that students who received RCS
instruction would outperform students who did not. In addi-
tion, it was anticipated that students who received AR in
Table 1. Random Assignment of Students and Teachers to
RCS+AR, RCS, and RN Groups
Instructor RCS+AR RCS RN
Middle school (n = 2)
Seventh-grade special 0 1 0
education teacher (1)
Seventh-grade special 0 0 1
education teacher (2)
Eighth-grade special 0 0 1
education teacher (1)
Eighth-grade special 0 1 0
education teacher (2)
Researcher 2 0 0
High school (n = 5)
Ninth-grade special 2 2 1
education teacher
Reading specialist 0 2 3
Researcher 3 1 1
Note: RCS = reading comprehension strategy; AR = attribution
retraining; RN = Read Naturally.
addition to RCS would persist in strategy use and outperform
students in the RN group at delayed posttesting.
Method
A pre-post experimental design with a 6-week delayed posttest
was used. Students with disabilities within each of seven exist-
ing self-contained English or accelerated reading classes were
stratified by class and randomly assigned to one of three condi-
tions: RCS+AR, RCS, or RN. This resulted in 21 total instruc-
tional groups (7 RCS+AR, 7 RCS, and 7 RN) of not more than
seven students. In addition, for each of the 7 classes, an online
random numbers generator program was used to determine
which instructors would teach each of the three instructional
groups for the duration of the intervention (see Table 1).
Participants
Students. Participants were selected from a middle and
high school located in a metropolitan school district on the
East coast. The middle school (comprised of sixth-, seventh-,
and eighth-grade students) had an enrollment of 1,136 stu-
dents whose ethnicities were African American (50%),
Hispanic (26%), Caucasian (15%), and Asian Pacific
Islander (10%). The high school (comprised of only ninth-
grade students) had an enrollment of 686 students and had
a similar ethnic breakdown: 41% African American, 28%
Hispanic, 24% Caucasian, 6% Asian Pacific Islander, and
1% Native American. Although both schools were fully
accredited, neither made annual yearly progress (AYP) on
state high-stakes exams and as a result had been sanc-
tioned for needed school improvement with focus areas
22 Journal of Learning Disabilities 44(1)

Table 2. Student Demographic Data by Condition

Condition and n

Student Variable RCS+AR (n = 20) RCS (n = 19) RN (n = 20) 2 p

Gender 1.37 .50

Boys 15 11 14
Girls 5 8 6
Disability 4.91 .09
Learning disabilities 16 17 12
Other health impairment 4 2 8
Ethnicity 5.17 .27
African American 9 10 10
Hispanic 6 8 9
White 5 1 1
Language spoken in home 3.12 .54
English 14 11 11
Spanish 6 7 9
Other 0 1 0
English for Speakers of Other 5 5 6 2.21 .70
Languages (ESOL; monitor only)
Remedial reading class 10 11 8 1.26 .53
IQ 2.00 .92
High average (110119) 1 1 2
Average (90109) 11 11 9
Low average (8089) 7 6 8
Borderline (7079) 0 1 1
Note: RCS = reading comprehension strategy; AR = attribution retraining; RN = Read Naturally.

including: general education, limited English proficiency,
and special education.
A total of 63 students were targeted for the intervention
because of school identified weaknesses in the area of reading.
There was an attrition of 18 potential participants due to:
refused consent by parent or student (n = 3), student moves in
or out of the school district during the study (n = 4), excessive
absences caused by suspensions (n = 3), other behavior-related
issues such as schedule changes based on student behavior
(n = 5), or student disabilities that did not meet the study
criteria: intellectual disability, autism, and traumatic brain
injury (n = 3). In addition, one student moved after completing
the study, but prior to delayed posttesting. The final sample
consisted of 59 students with mild disabilities who received
special education services through the school LD program.
All students were identified for special education services
based on district identified criteria. Students with LD demon-
strated a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement.
Students with Other Health Impairment (OHI) were found
eligible for special education services because of attention-
deficit disorder/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADD/ADHD; n = 10) or other medical diagnoses (n = 4).
Most students (84.8%) received special education services for
a large portion of the school day (60% of the school day or
more). Because the majority of students qualified for special
education services based on deficits in reading (79.7%) or
writing (76.3%), the majority of students were enrolled in
English classes (where reading and writing services are primar-
ily delivered) within self-contained settings (72.9%) or team-
taught settings (22%). Only 3 students (5.1%) were enrolled
in general education English classes. In addition, 32 students
(59.2%) were enrolled in a reading class offered by the school.
The sample included 29 ninth-grade, 15 eighth-grade, and
15 seventh-grade students with a mean age of 176.85 months
(SD = 13.40). Table 2 displays student demographic informa-
tion for students by condition. All students had IQs within
the normal range, and all students demonstrated reading skills
far below grade level on the Stanford Diagnostic Reading
Test (SDRT) administered by the school at the beginning of
the academic year (RCS+AR = 4.22 years below grade level,
RCS = 4.14 years below grade level, RN = 3.73 years below
grade level). See also Table 3.
Teachers. A special education reading teacher (n = 5), a
reading specialist (n = 1), and a trained researcher (n = 1)
were instructors in the study. All instructors were Caucasian
(male = 2, female = 5). Six held masters degrees; one was
enrolled in a masters program. Instructors all held teaching
licenses (LD = 2; LD/ED = 1; LD/ED/MR = 3; reading spe-
cialist = 1) and averaged 12.29 years of teaching experience
(range = 135 years).
Berkeley et al. 23

Table 3. Student Achievement on SDRT by Condition Prior to Intervention

Condition

RCS+AR (n = 20) RCS (n = 19) RN (n = 20)

Variable M SD M SD M SD F p

Vocabulary 5.00 1.88 5.03 1.45 4.90 1.80 0.03 .97

Comprehension 3.72 1.34 3.84 1.11 4.08 1.82 0.31 .74
Scanning 4.63 1.29 4.64 0.77 5.26 2.06 1.18 .31
Total reading 4.08 1.48 4.17 0.94 4.37 1.72 0.22 .81
Note: Data represents grade equivalents for the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT), which was administered by the school at the beginning of the
academic year. RCS = reading comprehension strategy; AR = attribution retraining; RN = Read Naturally.

Materials Challenge worksheets were included for use during indepen-

RCS materials. Six reading comprehension strategies were
taught in the RCS lessons: (a) setting a purpose, (b) preview-
ing, (c) activating background knowledge, (d) self-questioning,
(e) summarizing, and (f) strategy monitoring (see Figure 1).
For each lesson, students were given one of four Strategy
Sheets, short reading selections with accompanying compre-
hension questions, and a self-monitoring worksheet. Strategy
Sheets accompanied each strategy and contained prompts to
help students remember how to execute the lessons strategy.
For example, one of the activating background knowledge
prompts was think about what you already know about the
topic. A final strategy sheet included only a reminder to use
the previously learned strategies. Reading selections were
short articles chosen from Junior Scholastic, a student maga-
zine targeted for students in fifth through eighth grades. Junior
Scholastic contains high-interest, nonfiction content in the
areas of history, geography, government, and world cultures.
Each lesson utilized a selection with a comparable text format
to the adopted social studies texts used in the general curricu-
lum. Self-monitoring worksheets were designed both to remind
students to use the strategy and to provide a monitoring tool
for teachers. Worksheets purposefully required little writing.
For example, for the previewing strategy, students were asked
to identify text formats that could help them understand the
article by circling from a list text formats that they had pre-
viewed on each page of text (e.g., headings and subheadings,
maps, bolded vocabulary). During instruction, the teacher was
then able to monitor and prompt students if needed.
RCS+AR materials. RCS+AR student materials included
RCS instruction materials identical to those for students in
the RCS condition, but also included specific AR content (see
Figure 1). The Strategy Sheets for students in the RCS+AR
contained identical strategy prompts as the RCS strategy
sheets, but also included the following reminders about attri-
bution concepts taught in their lessons: (a) I know lots of good
strategies, (b) I will try hard to use the best ones, and (c) I
will only have positive thoughts. Additionally, Attribution
dent practice lessons to confirm understanding of concepts.
For example, one Attribution Challenge contained scenarios
about a hypothetical students attributional thinking, and stu-
dents were required to identify whether the hypothetical stu-
dents thinking was positive or negative. Another Attribution
Challenge contained complex scenarios such as: A classmate
tells everyone that you are very smart so you dont need to
study for the test. What positive thought could you think to
yourself? To succeed, students needed to recognize negative
statements and construct alternate positive self-talk.
Read Naturally materials. RN was the program currently
adopted by the participating schools to help poor readers
improve fluency and reading comprehension through explicit
repeated reading practice. Because an intended outcome of
this program was improved student comprehension and
because students were required to read passages and answer
questions without explicit teaching of reading comprehension
strategies, this program was selected for the comparison group.
Student materials included all materials specified in the pro-
gram (Ihnot, 1992), which consist of: (a) high-interest narra-
tive and expository passages ranging from 200 to 300 words,
(b) tape recorders and audio tapes that served as a reading
model, (c) timers that were used to determine the correct
number of words students could read in 1 minute, (d) multiple
choice and short answer questions about specific content
information that were used to monitor student comprehension,
and (e) graphing sheets that students used to record their flu-
ency progress. High school students used the computerized
version of the materials described previously and were also
provided with headphones for use with a school computer.
Instructional Procedures
Students in all three conditions received instruction over a
4-week period for a total of 360 minutes of instruction.
Instructional time across interventions was carefully balanced
so that each group received 20 minutes of primary instruction
(RCS or RN) and 10 minutes of supplemental instruction
24 Journal of Learning Disabilities 44(1)

Lesson Lesson Content

Reading Comprehension Strategies
Lessons 1. Setting a Purpose: Students were explicitly taught how to create reading objectives by reading questions
1-3 at the end of the passage to focus their reading.
2. Previewing: Students were taught how to preview the format of the chapter (title, headings, subheadings,
bolded vocabulary, maps, time-lines, charts, pictures).
Lessons 3. Activating Background Knowledge: Students were explicitly taught how to brainstorm information related
4-6 to a passage using w questions (who, what, where, when, and why) to help themselves remember things
they already know about the topic.
4. Self-Questioning: Students were trained to turn headings and subheadings into questions and to answer
those questions after they read each section
Lessons 5. Summarizing: Students were taught to summarize using four steps: (1) Who (or what) is this section of
7-9 the article about? (2) What are we supposed to learn from this section? (3) List most important words from
this section (goal: not more than 10!), and (4) Write the summary of the text (goal: not more than 2
sentences!).
Lessons 6. Strategy Monitoring: Students were taught how to integrate all of the strategies that they had learned in
10-12 the preceding lessons in order to promote applying strategies in a flexible manner.
Attribution Retraining Concepts & Strategies
Lessons 1. Positive vs. Negative Thoughts: Students were taught how to recognize that positive thoughts can be self-
1-3 promoting and how negative thoughts can be self-defeating.
Lessons 2. Using Self-talk (Simple Scenarios): Students were taught to develop self-talk statements that reinforced
4-6 strategy use when presented with simple positive and negative scenarios.
Lessons 3. Using Self-talk (Complex Scenarios): Students were taught to develop self-talk statements that reinforced
7-9 strategy use when presented with complex positive and negative scenarios.
Lessons 4. Using Self-talk (Promoting Persistence and Flexible Strategy Use):
10-12 Students were prompted to use self-talk during lessons where they needed to monitor their own reading
comprehension strategy use.
Lessons 5. Attribution Feedback: After students answered comprehension questions about a passage, teachers
1-12 provided attribution feedback designed to help students make direct connections between the use of
strategies and academic outcomes.

Figure 1. Reading comprehension and attribution retraining concepts and strategies taught.

(AR or read aloud), for a total of 30 minutes for each of
12 session. A description of each type of instruction follows
(see also Figure 1).
RCS instruction. Students in both RCS and RCS+AR condi-
tions received 20 minutes of instruction in how and when to
use the reading comprehension strategies. Instructional les-
sons were structured using the following sequence: (a) teacher
modeling, (b) guided practice, and (c) independent practice.
Modeling lessons were designed to provide students with an
understanding about why and when they should use the strate-
gies. During these lessons, teachers led all discussions, read
aloud the articles, and modeled aloud strategy use. Guided
practice lessons were designed to provide maximum amount
of support while students practiced using strategies. These
lessons also provided hands-on experience about why and
when students should use the strategies. In these lessons,
teachers led discussions, but students were asked to actively
participate. The articles were also read aloud by teachers,
but strategy use was determined collaboratively among teach-
ers and students in the group. Independent practice lessons
allowed students to use strategies with a minimum amount
of support. However, teachers closely monitored student
responses on the student strategy worksheets and engaged
in reteaching when necessary. These lessons gave teachers
an opportunity to provide additional assistance to any students
who required further instruction. During these lessons, stu-
dents were the main participants during strategy review and
teacher-led discussion was minimal.
AR instruction. Prior to instruction in reading comprehen-
sion strategies, students in the RCS+AR condition received
10 minutes of AR to help them understand and develop effec-
tive beliefs about reading success and failure, including being
Berkeley et al. 25
taught to use positive self-talk. Like the structure of the strat-
egy lessons, each concept was modeled by teachers in the
first session, practiced with teacher guidance in the second
session, and practiced independently by students in the last
session. To make the AR age appropriate and engaging, con-
crete sport examples were used initially to help students
understand the concepts. For example, in the first lesson, stu-
dents were told that they would be taught some of the strategies
that sport psychologists teach professional athletes about how
to focus their thinking and then practice using those strategies
to help themselves become better readers (see Figure 1 for a
description of each attribution concept). RCS instruction
immediately followed, and students were provided specific
scripted AR feedback as they completed comprehension ques-
tions that accompanied reading selections. For correct
responses, students were prompted to attribute success to the
strategy: You got that one right. You did a good job using
strategies and you tried hard! Keep it up. For incorrect
responses, students were prompted to attribute failure to an
ineffective strategy or ineffective strategy use: You made a
mistake on that one. Think of a different strategy that would
help you. What is it? Now try it! Remember, positive thinking
helps. In the event that students had difficulty remembering
a strategy step, they would be directed to the strategy sheet
and/or the strategy would be retaught.
RN instruction. The RN program required students to:
(a) make predictions about the story, (b) practice reading the
story using a repeated reading technique, (c) answer implicit
and explicit comprehension questions about specific factual
content in the story, and (d) graph their fluency progress. For
each passage, students read with a teacher during a cold
timing and their correct words per minute (CWPM) were
recorded. Students then set a goal to improve the cold timing
score and followed the steps previously described. Finally,
students read with the teacher during a hot timing and their
CWPM were again recorded. The student used their cold
timing and hot timing scores to graph reading fluency growth.
Read aloud. For 10 minutes at the end of the lesson, students
in both the RCS and RN conditions listened to the teacher
read aloud short stories selected by students from high-interest
short story collections. The read aloud activity was selected
because it aligned with the schools sustained silent reading
initiative by promoting reading for pleasure.
Teacher Training Procedures
In addition to specific training described in the following, the
researcher consulted with teachers on a daily basis to provide
feedback to teachers and answer implementation questions.
All teachers agreed to use teaching techniques and/or feedback
that were part of the intervention only during the scheduled
intervention time until after delayed posttest data had been
collected.
RCS and RCS+AR training. The researcher conducted a sepa-
rate training session for teachers in the RCS and RCS+AR
conditions during a 90-minute planning period. During initial
training, all materials were distributed. RCS teacher materials
included a lesson manual with all needed teaching materials:
scripted RCS lessons, student materials, answer keys, and
writing supplies. High-interest short story collections were
also provided for the read aloud portion of the lessons.
RCS+AR teacher materials included a lesson manual with
identical reading comprehension strategy lessons as the RCS
manual. The manual also contained scripted AR lessons that
introduced the attribution concepts, scenarios for out loud
guided practice in applying the concepts learned, independent
practice Attribution Challenge worksheets, and answer keys
with AR feedback prompts that teachers provided as students
answered comprehension questions about the passages read.
The researcher also demonstrated how to use the instructional
materials within the RCS or RCS+AR manual. This demon-
stration included: modeling how to use the scripted lessons,
explaining the purpose of each of the strategies, and explain-
ing how to monitor student learning and application of the
strategy. For teachers in the RCS+AR training group, specific
directions and modeling of the scripted AR feedback was also
provided. Finally, both groups of teachers were asked to prac-
tice each of the scripted lessons prior to implementation and
to ask the researcher any questions prior to implementing.
RN training. Because RN was currently used in each school,
the reading specialist in each building conducted a refresher
training with RN teachers during their 90-minute planning
period. Teacher materials included all specified program mate-
rials, and computerized version materials included the online
technical guide to assist with programming student reading
levels and troubleshooting. A duplicate set of the same high-
interest short story collections provided to the RCS condition
were also provided for the read aloud portion of the RN condi-
tion. Each teacher continued to use previously established
classroom organizational procedures.
Measures
Comprehension summarization test. This criterion-refer-
enced comprehension summarization test included the fol-
lowing generic summary questions about a passage (adapted
from Mastropieri et al., 2001): (a) Who or what is the text
about, (b) tell the most important thing about the who or what
from number 1, (c) list the most important words from the
passage, and (d) write the summary of the text in two sen-
tences. This measure was an indicator of student ability to
identify the most important information read and to synthesize
that information accurately and succinctly.
Passage-specific content test. A passage-specific content test
was developed by the researcher for the purpose of this study
and consisted of production items (10 open-ended questions)
26 Journal of Learning Disabilities 44(1)
and identification items (identical 10 questions in a multiple
choice format) related to the same passage as for the sum-
marization measure. Questions consisted of both explicit
and implicit comprehension questions based on the text and/
or the text formats. This measure was an indicator of student
ability to recall specific factual content information.
Different passages independent from instructional lessons
were used with comprehension measures at pretest, posttest,
and delayed posttest (three separate passages in total).
The reading passages were 242, 245, and 249 words in
length and each had a 6.9 readability level according to Flesch-
Kincaid statistics. In addition, a group of veteran special
education teachers reviewed the passages and considered
them to be equivalent based on content difficulty.
Meta-Comprehension Strategy Index (MSI). The MSI
(Schmitt, 1990) consisted of 25 multiple choice items
about reading strategies used by students before, during, and
after reading. Strategies assessed include: (a) predicting and
verifying, (b) previewing, (c) purpose setting, (d) self-ques-
tioning, (e) drawing from background knowledge, (f) sum-
marizing, and (g) applying fix-up strategies. Although the
MSI was originally developed for narrative text, a modified
version for expository texts (Esser, 2001) with a reduced
number of items (n = 15) was used in the current study. The
modified version was created by eliminating redundant items.
For example, one item states: BEFORE I begin reading, its
a good idea to: (a) see how many pages are in the chapter, (b)
look up all the big words in the dictionary, (c) make some
guesses about what I think the chapter will talk about, or (d)
think about what happened so far in the chapter. This measure
was intended to be an indicator of metacomprehension strategy
knowledge.
Reading Attribution Scale (RAS). The RAS was adapted from
Shell et al. (1995) and consisted of 14 items rated using a
5-point Likert scale (1 = never true, 2 = sometimes true, 3 =
not sure, 4 = usually true, 5 = always true). There were two
statements, one for success (e.g., When I understand what
I read, it is usually because I work hard) and one for failure
(e.g., When I dont understand what I read, it is usually
because my teacher didnt help me) for each targeted attri-
bution: ability, effort, assistance from a teacher, luck, interest,
and task difficulty. Two additional items were added for this
study to assess whether students attributed success and/or
failure to strategy use (e.g., When I understand what I read,
it is usually because I use strategies).
Testing Procedures
Each measure was administered by the researcher in the stu-
dents regular classroom over 2 days at pre-, post-, and delayed
posttesting. Although testing groups consisted of students
from all experimental conditions, testing group size did not
exceed 10 students. A classroom teacher was present during
all testing and prompted students to take the assessments
seriously and to try their best.
On the first day of testing, the MSI and RAS were admin-
istered. As neither of these measures were tests of reading,
both measures were read aloud to students. On the second
day of testing, both comprehension measures were adminis-
tered. Students were told that they could take as long as they
needed to read the passage on their own, that teachers could
assist with decoding any words, and that passages would be
removed before they would be given the test. In addition,
students were informed they could choose to write on the
passage and/or answer the questions embedded at the end of
the passage before taking the test. After reading the passage,
students first completed the comprehension summarization
test, before being given the passage-specific content test.
Scoring Procedures
Scoring rubrics for the summary test and the production por-
tion of the passage-specific content test were created by the
researcher. A certified middle school social studies teacher
with 14 years of teaching experience, a masters degree in
special education, and National Board Certification as an
Exceptional Needs Specialist was consulted as a content spe-
cialist for the study. This content specialist verified that the
scoring rubric for the summary test was reflective of expecta-
tions for grade-level performance in history and verified that
the responses deemed acceptable and unacceptable for the
production items were accurate.
Reliability checking. Two researchers scored all pretests, post-
tests, and delayed posttests using scoring guides for the MSI
and the passage-specific content test and the rubric for the
summary test. Instructional condition was not indicated on
any test protocols. When inconsistencies were found, they
returned to original protocols and reached 100% agreement.
Fidelity of Treatment
All teachers in the intervention conditions used scripted les-
sons. In addition, all lessons were audio recorded to check
for consistency of treatment implementation. A checklist was
used to monitor specific items: (a) consistency with imple-
menting the intervention for the appropriate amount of time
for condition and (b) for the intervention groups, consistency
and accuracy in implementing intervention using RCS+AR
or RCS scripted lessons. This information was used to provide
feedback to teachers throughout the study.
Fidelity criteria for implementation within the specified
time were met 100% of the time in the RCS+AR conditions,
99% of the time in the RCS condition, and 100% of the
time in the RN groups. Fidelity for using lessons as scripted
was met 100% of the time in both the RCS+AR and RCS
conditions.
Berkeley et al. 27
8
Pretest
Summary Comprehension Measure
7 Posttest
Delayed Posttest
6
5 Pretest 3.80 1.28 3.61 1.72 3.95 1.46
4 Delayed posttest 6.61 2.91* 5.47 2.72* 4.00 1.40
3 Passage test
2
RCS + AR RCS RN
Experimental Condition
Figure 2. Summary comprehension score by experimental
condition.
Note: RCS = reading comprehension strategy; AR = attribution retraining;
RN = Read Naturally.
Results
ANOVAs with instructional groups (n = 21) treated as a
nested factor within condition were conducted on pretest
scores of the three instructional groups (RCS+AR vs. RCS
vs. RN) for all measures (summary and passage-specific
reading comprehension measures, MSI, and RAS) to deter-
mine if groups displayed statistically significant differences
prior to intervention. Results indicated that the homogeneity
assumption for ANOVA was met and there was no effect for
instructional group for any of the measures. Results also
indicated that there were no statistically significant differ-
ences among the three instructional groups at pretesting for
any of the measures. Therefore, separate ANOVAs with
instructional groups (n = 21) treated as a nested factor within
condition and pretest as covariate were used to analyze dif-
ferences among the three groups on summary and passage-
specific posttest and delayed posttest scores.
Reading Comprehension
Summary test. As Figure 2 shows, results from summary
posttest data yielded a significant main effect for condition,
F(1, 39) = 11.26, p = .000, with no main effect for instruc-
tional group, F(16, 39) = .87, p = .60. A post hoc analyses
with Bonferonni adjustment for multiple comparisons
revealed that both the RCS+AR and RCS conditions scored
statistically higher than the RN condition (respectively, p = .000
and p = .005). These differences represented large effect sizes
(ES) for both RCS+AR (ES = 1.44) and RCS groups (ES = .94).
There was not a statistically significant difference between
the two strategy groups.
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and Effect Sizes for
Comprehension Measures
RCS+AR RCS RN
Measure M SD M SD M SD
Summary test
Posttest 7.50 2.18* 6.40 1.81* 4.83 1.52
Effect size 1.44 0.94
Effect size 1.21 0.71
Pretest 6.55 2.28 5.89 2.16 5.80 2.34
Posttest 8.95 3.49 7.84 3.83 8.45 3.83
Effect size 0.14 0.16
Delayed posttest 9.53 4.01 8.63 4.87 8.40 4.69
Effect size 0.26 0.05
MSI
Pretest 6.20 2.53 6.47 2.17 5.00 2.88
Posttest 9.10 2.83* 9.37 3.64* 6.15 2.54
Effect size 1.10 0.93
Delayed posttest 8.89 2.87 8.58 3.39 6.50 2.63
Effect size 0.87 0.67
Note: Effect size calculated from: MTreatment MControl / .5 (SDTreatment +
SDControl). RCS = reading comprehension strategy; AR = attribution
retraining; RN = Read Naturally; MSI = Meta-Comprehension Strategy Index.
*Indicates significant difference from RN comparison condition (p < .05).
Results of ANOVA using summary delayed posttest data
yielded a significant main effect for condition, F(2, 38) =
9.99, p = .000, with no main effect for instructional group,
F(16, 38) = .95, p = .53. Post hoc analysis with Bonferonni
adjustment for multiple comparisons revealed that both the
RCS+AR and RCS conditions again scored statistically
higher than the RN condition (respectively, p = .000 and
p =.02). These differences represented a large effect size for
the RCS+AR group (ES = 1.21), but only a moderate effect
size for the RCS group (ES = .71). There were not statistically
significant differences between the two strategy groups.
Passage-specific content test. Cronbachs alpha was used to
determine the internal consistency of the passage-specific
content test ( = .77). Results using passage-specific posttest
data yielded a nonsignificant main effect for condition, F(2,
39) = .12, p = .89, and instructional group, F(16, 39) = .85,
p = .63. Consistent with results from posttest scores, results
from passage-specific delayed posttest data also yielded
a nonsignificant main effect for condition, F(2, 38) = .53,
p = .59, and instructional group, F(16, 38) = .64, p = .83. See
Table 4 for means, standard deviations, and effect sizes.
Metacomprehension Strategy Awareness
Cronbachs alpha was used to determine the internal consis-
tency of the MSI ( = .85). Results from MSI posttest data
28 Journal of Learning Disabilities 44(1)
yielded a significant main effect for condition, F(2, 39) = 7.64,
p = .002, and no main effect for instructional group, F(16,
39) = 1.41, p = .19. Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni
adjustment for multiple comparisons revealed that both the
RCS+AR group and the RCS group scored statistically higher
than the RN comparison condition (respectively, p = .005
and p = .003). These differences represented large effect sizes
for both RCS+AR (ES = 1.10) and RCS groups (ES = .93).
There was not a statistically significant difference between
RCS+AR and RCS groups. MSI delayed posttest data did
not yield a significant main effect for condition, F(2, 38) = 2.99,
p = .06, or instructional group, F(16, 38) = .94, p = .54. See
Table 4 for means, standard deviations, and effect sizes.
Attributional Beliefs About Reading
Cronbachs alpha was used to determine the internal consis-
tency of the Reading Attribution Scale ( = .87). The ratings
for external items (i.e., assistance from a teacher, luck, inter-
est, and task difficulty) were reversed when calculating the
total score; therefore, high overall scores (> 21) were indica-
tive of high attributions for internal variables (effort, ability,
and strategy use) and low attributions for external variables
(assistance from a teacher, luck, interest, and task difficulty).
Low overall scores (< 21) were indicative of low attributions
for internal variables (effort, ability, and strategy use) and
high attributions for external variables (assistance from a
teacher, luck, interest, and task difficulty).
Attributions for reading success. Results from attribution
posttest data yielded a significant main effect for condition,
F(2, 39) = 10.85.04, p = .000, and no main effect for instruc-
tional group, F(16, 39) = 1.64, p = .10. Follow-up post hoc
analyses with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple compari-
sons indicated the RCS+AR condition was significantly
higher than both the RCS group (p = .001) and the RN
comparison condition (p = .001). These differences repre-
sented large effect sizes for RCS+AR compared to the RCS
group (ES = 1.01) and the control group (ES = .86). There
was not a statistically significant difference between RCS
and RN groups.
In addition, results from delayed attribution posttest data
yielded a significant main effect for condition, F(2, 38) =
3.98, p = .03. Follow-up post hoc analyses with Bonferroni
adjustment for multiple comparisons indicated the RCS+AR
condition remained significantly higher than the RN com-
parison condition (p = .02), with a moderate effect size
(ES = .54). There were not statistically significant differ-
ences between RCS+AR and RCS groups or between the
RCS and RN groups.
Attributions for reading failure. Results for Reading Failure
subscale items indicated that there was not a statistically sig-
nificant main effect for condition at either posttest, F(2, 39) =
2.08, p = .14, or delayed posttest, F(2, 38) = 1.50, p = .24. In
Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, and Effect Sizes for
Reading Attributions
RCS+AR RCS RN
Measure M SD M SD M SD
RAS: Attributions
for Success
Pretest 21.20 3.72 21.74 4.17 21.90 4.64
Posttest 25.80 3.74** 22.11 3.56 22.25 4.56
Effect size 0.86 0.03
Delayed posttest 23.74 2.84* 22.26 4.12 21.90 4.02
Effect size 0.54 0.09
RAS: Attributions
for Failure
Pretest 21.15 2.32 21.32 1.95 21.35 2.70
Posttest 22.40 2.80 20.47 2.78 21.60 3.08
Effect size 0.07 0.20
Delayed posttest 21.74 3.30 20.79 2.23 20.70 1.72
Effect size 0.41 0.05
Note: Effect size calculated from: MTreatment MControl / .5 (SDTreatment +
SDControl). RCS = reading comprehension strategy; AR = attribution
retraining; RN = Read Naturally; RAS = Reading Attribution Scale.
*Indicates significant difference from RN comparison condition (p < .05).
**Indicates significant difference from both RCS and RN comparison
conditions (p < .05).
addition, there was not a main effect for instructional group
at posttesting, F(16, 39) = 1.32, p = .24, or delayed posttest-
ing, F(16, 38) = .38, p = .98. See Table 5 for means, standard
deviations, and effect sizes.
Discussion
Students face increasingly challenging text in the upper
grades (Barton, 1997). This text, often expository in nature,
is where students are expected to gain new knowledge that
they must demonstrate on end-of-year tests. However, this
expectation is extremely challenging for students with dis-
abilities (including the students who participated in this study)
who often do not learn as much from expository reading as
their peers (Saenz & Fuchs, 2002). It is therefore extremely
important that students such as these be taught strategies to
help them understand expository texts, including when and
where the strategies might be effective and how to persist in
using strategies when text is not initially understood (Pressley
& Ghatala, 1990). Findings from the current investigation
showed that both RCS groups benefited in terms of learning
content and demonstrating higher level thinking about read-
ing. In addition, benefits for students who received AR per-
sisted more strongly after instruction ended. Taken together,
these findings provide evidence to support the practice of
teaching reading comprehension strategies in conjunction
with AR.
Berkeley et al. 29
Strategy Instruction
Results of the current study indicate that RCS instruction
(with and without AR) resulted in greater strategy awareness
for students in the strategy groups than for students in the
comparison Read Naturally condition who were not taught
reading comprehension strategies. In addition, students in
both strategy groups demonstrated improved reading com-
prehension on the reading summarization measure. Further-
more, students in both strategy groups continued to outperform
the comparison condition after a 6-week delay. Although
there wasnt a direct measure of strategy use, findings suggest
that students who received RCS instruction persisted with
strategy use on a novel passage a month and a half after the
intervention was implemented.
Summarization is a complex skill that requires students
to actively engage in the reading process. For example, in
order to summarize material, one must be able to distinguish
between main ideas and details and construct new knowledge
by integrating prior knowledge with what was read. Because
students with LD are generally inactive readers (Jitendra,
Hoppes, & Xin, 2000), this skill is particularly challenging.
However, the current study demonstrates that students with
disabilities who were explicitly taught how to summarize
main ideas were able to apply that knowledge to a similar
article in a testing situation. This is encouraging for classroom
teachers who have students that struggle with this higher
level skill, particularly in the upper grades where students
are expected to learn important content information through
independent reading. These findings are consistent with
numerous other studies that found that learners who demon-
strate metacognitive awareness are more strategic and perform
better than unaware learners (e.g., Pressley & Ghatala, 1990)
and that students benefit from explicit instruction in strategies
that help them summarize main ideas while reading (e.g.,
Jitendra et al., 2000; Katims & Harris, 1997; Mastropieri,
Scruggs, Spencer, & Fontana, 2003).
These findings are also important because although direct
instruction in reading comprehension strategies usually results
in improved student comprehension, students generally do
not persist with strategy use or transfer what they have learned
when reading novel expository material (Vaughn et al., 2000).
This studys findings might be attributed, at least in part, to
the instructional methods employed that were informed by
recommendations in syntheses of the research literature (e.g.,
Mastropieri et al., 2003; Swanson, 1999). Although individual
strategies were taught over a relatively short period of time,
instruction was systematic and learning materials were care-
fully controlled to mediate processing demands. Furthermore,
using think aloud techniques, each strategy was carefully
modeled by the teacher to demonstrate: (a) the active and
strategic thought process needed to solve problems with
comprehension while reading and (b) how to use provided
Strategy Sheets to self-regulate strategy use. Strategy Sheets
contained strategy step reminders that allowed students to be
more independent in their learning as direct teacher support
was purposely faded. Another important aspect of instruction
was the structured guided practice. This part of the instruction
required students to work collaboratively to practice the strat-
egy steps and to solve problems while reading. Because stu-
dents discussed aloud their thought processes during these
lessons, the teacher was able to ensure that strategies were
being applied and practiced correctly, thus promoting the likeli-
hood of positive peer references. Finally, RCS instruction
included a strategy monitoring component that explicitly taught
students how to monitor their strategy use by selecting and
applying appropriate strategies. Like all strategies in the inter-
vention, strategy monitoring was first modeled by the instruc-
tor, then students received guided and independent practice
with carefully selected passages that required students to make
choices about which learned strategy they would apply.
Results did not reveal the same pattern in student com-
prehension of specific content area information. On this
measure, both strategy (RCS and RCS+AR) and the com-
parison groups improved scores from pretesting to post- and
delayed posttesting; however, no group scored significantly
higher than the other groups at any of these testing points.
This suggests that the comparison condition was also effec-
tive for helping students recall answers to questions related
to specific factual content. The lack of differences in student
performance on this type of reading comprehension may be
due to the practice students received in answering factual
content-specific information while using Read Naturally.
Overall, RCS instruction helped students to improve in both
specific factual information and main ideas, while Read
Naturally helped students only with recall of specific factual
information from their reading. This finding has practical
significance for teachers who need to make decisions about
how to use valuable instructional time.
Student Attributions
The AR instructional component in the current study was
designed to change students thinking habits in regard to how
they approach text (i.e., strategically). Instruction included
three major components: teaching students to recognize posi-
tive (self-promoting) and negative (self-defeating) thoughts,
teaching students how to use positive self-talk, and providing
specific feedback to teach them to attribute outcomes to stra-
tegic efforts. Identifying positive and negative thoughts was
difficult for students who had developed faulty attributions
for success and failure. Following are two examples of sce-
narios from teaching activities that students initially mis-
identified as positive thoughts:
30 Journal of Learning Disabilities 44(1)
1. A student reads a passage and gets the question cor-
rect. He thinks That question must have been easy.
2. A classmate tells everyone that you are very smart
so you dont need to study for the test.
Both are examples of negative thoughts because they are likely
to result in self-defeating behavior. The student in the first
scenario attributed success to external, uncontrollable efforts
instead of positively reinforcing his or her own efforts and
ability. The student in the second scenario hears a classmate
attribute outcomes to ability alone. If the student believes this
attribution, then he or she is likely to not study for the test and
potentially do poorly (resulting in harmful negative feelings
about ability). Once students were able to accurately recognize
negative thinking, they were taught to self-talk more appropri-
ate attributions as a way to help themselves persist on difficult
learning tasks. For example, for the following scenario: You
read the chapter assigned in class, but then get almost all of
the questions wrong, a student might self-talk I will read
this chapter again and this time I will try harder and use the
reading strategies I have learned. Finally, AR feedback was
designed to help students make direct connections between
the use of strategies and academic outcomes.
After experiencing years of failure in school, inappropriate
attributions of students with LD are often engrained. Previous
research has indicated that students with LD are generally
less likely to attribute outcomes to effort than their nondis-
abled peers (e.g., Tabassam & Grainger, 2002). Although
this 12-lesson intervention was relatively short, differences
in overall attributions for reading success for students in the
RCS+AR condition were obtained after instruction. The effect
size immediately following instruction was large (.86), and
the effect size at delayed posttesting was moderate (.54). This
difference may be because attribution feedback was not pro-
vided in the 6 weeks between instruction and delayed testing.
These findings suggest that effort attributions for success,
including effort to use strategies, can be altered in students
with high functioning disabilities such as LD, but that attribu-
tion feedback from the teacher may be necessary for a longer
period of time to maintain changes. This is consistent with
the conclusions drawn by Borkowski et al. (1988).
Because research has shown that positive attributions
toward effort, including strategy use, can motivate children
to acquire and use metacognitive strategies (Borkowski, Carr,
Rellinger, & Pressley, 1990), it was anticipated that students
who received AR would benefit more from RCS instruction
than students who received RCS instruction alone. However,
results were different than predicted. Although students in
the RCS+AR condition displayed higher attributions for suc-
cess at both post- and delayed posttesting, AR did not produce
statistically higher scores than RCS instruction alone. This
finding is similar to those of Miranda et al. (1997), who
concluded that powerful strategy instruction may make attri-
bution retraining unnecessary. However, in the current study
there were practically significant differences between reading
performance of the strategy groups. At posttesting, both groups
displayed large effect sizes (RCS = 1.44; RCS+AR = .94)
compared to the RN control group, but at delayed posttesting
the group of students who received AR training continued to
display a large effect size (1.21) while the effect size for the
RCS group was moderate (ES = .71). Considering the minimal
amount of instructional time needed to address student attribu-
tions, this addition to strategy instruction seems to be war-
ranted if it results in practical benefits for student learning.
Limitations and Future Research
There were limitations in the current study that should be
addressed in future research. Although random assignment
procedures were employed, the researcher taught a dispro-
portionate number of RCS+AR groups. The current study
also utilized self-reporting by students for strategy awareness
and attribution measures. In addition, the RAS subscale for
attributions for reading failure incorporated the use of double
negatives (i.e., When I dont understand what I read, it is
because I am not smart.), which could have potentially been
misinterpreted by students. It is unclear how these factors
may have influenced findings.
Future researchers may get a clearer picture of strategy
knowledge and attributions for strategy use with measures
that do not rely on self-reporting as students may not always
be accurate. Maintained improvements of students in the
RCS+AR condition of the current study may have been due
to greater sustained use of strategies by those students; there-
fore, future researchers might consider adding a direct measure
of strategy use. Future researchers might also consider adding
measures of self-efficacy and motivation as this may give a
rounder picture of how strategy instruction and AR impact
student learning.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the
authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Office of
Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education grant
Number H234D020020. This paper does not necessarily reflect the
position or policies of that funding agency, and no official endorse-
ment should thereby be inferred.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Berkeley et al. 31
Barton, M. L. (1997). Addressing the literacy crisis: Teaching reading
in the content areas. National Association of Secondary School
Principals Bulletin, 81, 2230. doi: 10.1177/019263659708158705
Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (in press).
Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning
disabilities, 1995-2006. Remedial & Special Education.
Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., Rellinger, L., & Pressley, M. (1990).
Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of metacognition,
attributions and self-esteem. In B. J. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.),
Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 5392).
London: Routledge.
Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects
of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading compre-
hension in learning disabled students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 4653. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.46
Carr, M., & Borkowski, J. G. (1989). Attributional training and
the generalization of reading strategies with underachieving
children. Learning & Individual Differences, 1, 327341. doi:
10.1016/1041-6080(89)90015-0
Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievements. (2001).
Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching
children to read. Ann Arbor, MI: Author.
Chan, L. K. S. (1996). Combined strategy and attributional training
for seventh grade average and poor readers. Journal of Research
in Reading, 19, 111127. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.1996
.tb00092.x
Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2003). Reading difficulties,
reading-related self-perceptions, and strategies for overcoming
negative self-beliefs. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 524.
doi: 10.1080/10573560390143003
Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A.,
Tackett, K. K., & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of
reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension
outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational
Research, 79, 262300. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325998
Esser, M. M. S. (2001). The effects of metacognitive strategy train-
ing and attribution retraining on reading comprehension in
African-American students with learning disabilities. Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 67(7-A), 2340. (UMI No. 3021672)
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and
personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving
comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research
synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210225. doi:
10.1177/00222194070400030301
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching
reading comprehension strategies to students with learning dis-
abilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research,
71, 279320. doi: 10.3102/00346543071002279
Ihnot, C. (1992). Read naturally. St. Paul, MN: Read Naturally.
Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing
summary comprehension for students with learning problems:
The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring
instruction. Journal of Special Education, 34, 127139. doi:
10.1177/002246690003400302
Johnson, L, Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1997). The effects of
goal setting and self-instruction on learning a reading com-
prehension strategy: A study of students with learning dis-
abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 8091. doi:
10.1177/002221949703000107
Katims, D. S., & Harris, S. (1997). Improving the reading com-
prehension of middle school students in inclusive classrooms.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41, 116123. http://
www.reading.org
LaJoie, S. P. (2008). Metacognition, self regulation and self
regulated learning: A rose by any other name? Educational
Psychology Review, 20, 469475. doi: 10.1007/s10648-
008-9088-1
Lenz, B. K., Ellis, E. S., & Scanlon, D. (1996). Teaching learning
strategies to adolescents and adults with learning disabilities.
Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1996). Reflections
on Promoting thinking skills of students with learn-
ing disabilities: Effects on recall and comprehension of
expository prose. Exceptionality, 6, 5357. doi: 10.1207/
s15327035ex0601_1
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading
comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for
struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly,
26, 103116.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mohler, L., Beranek, M., Boon, R.,
Spencer, V., & Talbott, E. (2001). Can middle school students
with serious reading difficulties help each other and learn any-
thing? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 1827.
doi: 10.1111/0938-8982.00003
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Spencer, V., & Fontana, J. (2003).
Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring
versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
18, 5265. doi: 10.1111/1540-5826.00057
Miranda, A., Villaescusa, M. I., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (1997). Is attri-
bution retraining necessary? Use of self-regulation procedures
for enhancing the reading comprehension strategies of children
with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30,
503512. doi: 10.1177/002221949703000506
Nelson, J. M., & Manset-Williamson, G. (2006). The impact
of explicit, self-regulatory reading comprehension strategy
instruction on the reading-specific self-efficacy, attributions,
and affect of students with reading disabilities. Learning Dis-
ability Quarterly, 29, 213230.
Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning:
Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25,
1933. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2501_3
Robertson, J. S. (2000). Is attribution retraining a worthwhile
classroom intervention for K-12 students with learning
32 Journal of Learning Disabilities 44(1)
difficulties? Educational Psychology Review, 12, 111134. doi:
10.1023/A:1009089118008
Saenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading diffi-
culty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Exposi-
tory versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23,
3141. doi: 10.1177/074193250202300105
Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure childrens
awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher,
43, 454461.
Schunk, D. H., & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategic training and
attributional feedback with learning disabled students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 201209. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.78.3.201
Shell, D., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. (1995). Self-efficacy, attri-
bution and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and
writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level dif-
ferences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386398. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.386
Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice
(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Stipek, D. J., & Weiz, J. R. (1981). Perceived personal control and
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 51,
101137. doi: 10.3102/00346543051001101
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading research for students with
learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of intervention out-
comes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504532. doi:
10.1177/002221949903200605
Tabassam, W., & Grainger, J. (2002). Self-concept, attributional
style and self-efficacy beliefs of students with learning disabili-
ties with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 141151.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying
message in LD intervention research: Findings from research
synthesis. Exceptional Children, 67, 99114.
Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr,
M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook
of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 230244). White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Wixson, K. K., & Lipson, M. Y. (1991). Perspectives on reading
disability research. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, &
P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2,
pp. 539570). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Wong, B. Y. L., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Butler, D. L. (2003).
Cognitive strategies instruction research in learning disabili-
ties. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.),
Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 383402). New York,
NY: Guilford.
About the Authors
Sheri Berkeley, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the College
of Education and Human Development at George Mason Uni-
versity. Her research interests include issues related to improving
instruction for secondary students with learning disabilities
including: reading, learning strategies, and responsiveness
to intervention.
Margo A. Mastropieri, PhD, is a University Professor in the
College of Education and Human Development at George Mason
University. Her current research interests include mnemonic strate-
gies, teacher education, meta-analysis, science and social studies,
and effective instruction for inclusive education.
Thomas E. Scruggs, PhD, is a University Professor in the
College of Education and Human Development and director of
the PhD in Education Program at George Mason University. His
current research interests include learning and memory strategies,
research synthesis, science and social studies and inclusive
education.