480029

rvention in School and ClinicBerg and Wehby

© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2013

Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

ISC49110.1177/1053451213480029Inte

Feature Article
Intervention in School and Clinic 49(1) 14­–20
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2013
Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1053451213480029
isc.sagepub.com

Preteaching Strategies to Improve Student Learning in

Content Area Classes

Jessica L. Berg, MAEd1 and Joseph Wehby, PhD2

Abstract
Students with mild to moderate disabilities, English language learners, and other at-risk groups frequently struggle
academically in general education science and social studies classrooms. In this article, the research surrounding preteaching
as an academic intervention for content area instruction is reviewed. General suggestions for preteaching science and social
studies content to students from upper elementary to high school levels are given based on the theoretical and empirical
literature. Subsequently, suggestions for implementing three types of preteaching are described in detail: vocabulary
preteaching, preteaching with advance organizers, and preteaching targeting background knowledge. Conclusions are drawn
regarding the utility of preteaching and the need for further research investigating preteaching interventions.

Keywords
academic interventions, content area instruction, preteaching, struggling learners

Many students with disabilities and other struggling learn- 1

Arlington Public Schools, Arlington,VA, USA
ers show delayed progress in science and social studies 2
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
achievement. In 2009, the National Assessment of Educa-
Corresponding Author:
tional Progress found that, among students with disabilities, Joseph Wehby, Peabody College,Vanderbilt University, Box 228, GPC,
49% of 4th graders and 70% of 12th graders were perform- Nashville, TN 37203, USA.
ing in the “below basic” range in science (U.S. Department Email: joseph.wehby@vanderbilt.edu

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on May 26, 2016

Berg and Wehby 15
of Education, 2011). Similar results were found for U.S.
history in 2010, where 54% of 4th graders with learning
disabilities and 81% of 12th graders with learning disabili-
ties performed at “below basic” levels (U.S. Department of
Education, 2011). These numbers illustrate the struggles
teachers face in appropriately differentiating instruction to
meet the needs of all students in content area classes. Gen-
eral education teachers are presented with the challenge of
serving a wide range of ability levels in content area class-
rooms (Fernstrom & Goodnite, 2000).
When faced with this challenge, there are many reasons
to support content area learning for all students. First, these
classes may contain the most engaging content for students.
Motivation is a critical component of learning, and creative
teachers are able to make many social studies and science
lessons highly engaging for all students (Fernstrom &
Goodnite, 2000). A second reason to provide support in
these classes is that they are often an opportunity for inclu-
sion (Cawley, Hayden, Cade, & Baker-Kroczynski, 2002).
With accommodations and modifications, the least restric-
tive environment for many students during social studies
and science instruction may be the general education class-
room. In addition, special education mandates require
schools to provide access to the general education curricu-
lum for all students in these subjects (Individuals With
Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004).
Content area instruction generally takes one of two
forms: textbook-oriented instruction or whole-class lecture
(Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). Many adapta-
tions and strategies for use during textbook-oriented instruc-
tion and student independent learning have been identified.
Most of these interventions for content area learning involve
teaching students strategies to better gain information from
text (Garija, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007; Mastropieri,
Scruggs, & Graetz, 2003). Less research has been done on
ways teachers can provide better instruction for students
with mild to moderate disabilities. Some strategies for
improving teacher delivery of whole-class instruction have
been investigated, including the use of content enhance-
ment routines (Bulgren, Deshler, & Lenz, 2007), but the
research base on changes to teacher instructional behavior
is less robust than that of text-based strategies.
One method for teachers to differentiate instruction for
all struggling learners, not just those with disabilities, is
preteaching. Preteaching can be defined as the advance
introduction of information that prepares students for
upcoming instruction (Munk, Gibb, & Caldarella, 2010)
and can be accomplished through a variety of instructional
strategies. Preteaching may include instruction on new
information or vocabulary that students will revisit and
build on during the lesson (Hawkins, Musti-Rao, Hale,
McGuire, & Hailley, 2010). Other preteaching strategies
might involve instruction of concepts that provide a frame-
work or schema for upcoming instruction. Preteaching
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on May 26, 2016
could also target prerequisite knowledge and provide stu-
dents with foundational understandings that they need to
take in new knowledge during the lesson (Neuman, 1988).
Preteaching can provide many benefits for both teachers
and students. It encourages planful thinking on the part of
the teacher, through explicit identification of the most
important concepts that will be presented in upcoming
instruction (Darch, Carnine, & Kameenui, 1986). When
used in a coteaching or collaborative setting, preteaching
encourages effective collaboration between general and
special educators (Munk et al., 2010). For students, effec-
tive preteaching can provide the benefit of additional time
spent actively engaged with content material (Bos &
Anders, 1990) and can also help avoid the need to spend
extra time reteaching material to students who are unable to
grasp concepts during regular instruction. Also, if students
are struggling to master concepts during regular instruction,
preteaching provides the chance for teachers to supplement
their typical instructional style with explicit instruction or
other instructional procedures that better fit the students’
learning style (Hudson, 1996).
Research has found preteaching to be useful for learners
from elementary (Neuman, 1988) to high school levels
(Hawkins, Hale, Sheeley, & Ling, 2011). Students from
classrooms with a diverse range of abilities may benefit
from preteaching. Preteaching interventions have benefited
not only students with mild to moderate disabilities but
also general education students (Cantrell, Fusaro, &
Dougherty, 2000), English language learners (O’Donnell,
Weber, & McLaughlin, 2003) and at-risk students (Dufrene,
Henington, & Townsend, 2006). Preteaching may be pre-
sented as a whole-class, small-group, or one-on-one activ-
ity. It is recommended that grouping should be flexible and
responsive to student abilities and take into account both
student needs in the current unit of study and performance
in previous units (Munk et al., 2010). Selection of who
needs preteaching may require targeted assessment or pre-
testing regarding content knowledge of the upcoming les-
son or unit.
Decisions regarding who will implement preteaching
should also be flexible. For example, general educators may
best implement some preteaching strategies as part of their
regular routine (Lenz, Alley, & Schumaker, 1987), whereas
other preteaching strategies may be better implemented by
special education teachers in a coteaching team (Munk et
al., 2010). A third option is the use of peers as preteaching
interventionists (Dufrene et al., 2006). Although not yet
investigated in the research literature, the use of classroom
volunteers or other school staff, such as instructional assis-
tants, to deliver preteaching instruction under the direction
of the teacher may be a viable option as well.
Preteaching may occur during special education resource
instruction (Bos, Anders, Filip, & Jaffe, 1989) or during
regular education instruction (Hawkins et al., 2010). If
16 Intervention in School and Clinic 49(1)

small groups are receiving preteaching, teachers must con- Table 1. Steps for Vocabulary Preteaching Through Explicit
sider in what activities other students will be engaged dur- Instruction.
ing that time. The frequency of preteaching should, like
Step Description
other decisions, be flexible. Preteaching may occur at the
beginning of a unit, once per week, or at the beginning of Setting objectives Inform students of the academic and
every lesson, depending on student needs as well as the for preteaching behavioral goals of the lesson
amount of information, the type of preteaching imple- session
mented, and the goals of the preteaching intervention. For Introducing word Ensure that the definition is student
and definition friendly and applies to the context in
example, some high school students with learning disabili-
which the word will be used
ties have shown academic gains with a relatively intensive
Teacher modeling of Demonstrate the use of the word in a
preteaching intervention only once at the beginning of each use in context context similar to the instruction that
unit (Munk et al., 2010), whereas others have benefitted will follow the preteaching
from daily integration of smaller preteaching components Guided practice Ask students if the word is being used
(Hudson, 1996). with examples and correctly in a given context
This article reviews the empirical literature on several nonexamples
preteaching strategies that have been found effective in Independent Give students the opportunity to repeat
improving the academic performance of students with practice the definition and/or give their own
examples
learning disabilities in primarily lecture or reading-oriented
(Repeat Steps 2–5 with each word)
content area instruction. Although studies have addressed
Review and closing Confirm that students have learned each
learners from 2nd through 12th grade, the strategies pre- word
sented are likely most effective for upper elementary
through high school students.

Vocabulary Preteaching Myriad instructional strategies have been devised for

One strategy that is often suggested for supporting content
area learning is vocabulary preteaching, which involves
targeted student interaction with selected vocabulary words
from the upcoming lesson. Much of the theory behind
vocabulary preteaching comes from research on the role of
vocabulary in reading comprehension, but the concepts can
be easily applied to prepare students for other instructional
activities, such as teacher lecture or hands-on activities. In
all activities, if struggling learners do not have a working
knowledge of words that are central to a lesson, they are
unlikely to build a sufficient understanding of the concepts
presented in that lesson (Anders & Bos, 1986). In addition
to building word meanings from context through reading or
listening, explicit instruction in vocabulary is essential for
students with learning disabilities (Jitendra, Edwards,
Sacks, & Jacobson, 2004).
In preparing for vocabulary preteaching, it is important
to select words strategically. Ruddell (2002) recommended
consideration of words that are (a) central to the meaning of
the lesson, (b) potential barriers for comprehension of the
main ideas of the lesson, or (c) potentially problematic for
students who lack background knowledge of the subject
being studied. The number of words selected for preteach-
ing may vary based on the characteristics and needs of the
students and the lesson objectives. Although Manzo,
Manzo, and Estes (2001) recommended targeting no more
than 5 words per preteaching session, studies have found
success when preteaching more than 10 vocabulary phrases
(Bos et al., 1989).
teaching vocabulary (Manzo et al., 2001), and several effec-
tive, research-based strategies are recommended specifi-
cally for struggling learners (Jitendra et al., 2004). Both
explicit instruction and cognitive strategy instruction have
been found effective for preteaching vocabulary to students
with mild to moderate disabilities.
Vocabulary Preteaching Through
Explicit Instruction
Explicit instruction is one of the most common methods of
preteaching vocabulary. Although some general education
teachers contend that it is an ineffective method for vocab-
ulary instruction (Heverly, 2011), research supports the use
of direct vocabulary instruction for struggling learners
(Jitendra et al., 2004). Vocabulary preteaching may involve
the following steps included in Table 1 (Carnine, Silbert,
Kame’enui, & Tarver, 2010; Munk et al., 2010).
Throughout this sequence, teachers should make fre-
quent checks for student understanding and provide ample
feedback and praise to all students. This explicit teaching
model allows students multiple exposures and opportuni-
ties to practice words before applying them in the subse-
quent lesson. However, the intensity of preteaching should
depend on the level of word comprehension required for
the upcoming task, the difficulty of the targeted vocabu-
lary, and the amount of prior knowledge that students have
surrounding the broader concepts. For example, introduc-
tion and reading of definitions with repeated independent

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on May 26, 2016

Berg and Wehby 17
Important Concepts
Important
Vocabulary money barter credit
get goods and  
services
exchange or trade  
currency  
debt  
banks  
tobacco and cash  
crops
harvest  
Figure 1. Forms of exchange in colonial America.
practice was sufficient for improving the content area com-
prehension of below grade level high school students
(Hawkins et al., 2011). In another study, a more robust
method approximating that outlined above was found to
increase the test performance of high school students with
learning disabilities in general education science class-
rooms (Munk et al., 2010).
Vocabulary Preteaching Through
Cognitive Strategy Instruction
Cognitive strategy instruction is a form of instruction
designed to “provide students with strategies and a frame-
work for understanding a semantic network of words”
(Jitendra et al., 2004, p. 312). One type of cognitive strat-
egy instruction found to be effective for students receiving
special education services is semantic feature analysis
(SFA; Anders & Bos, 1986). Although primarily studied as
a prereading strategy, SFA is also suggested for use before
whole-class instruction for struggling learners (Bos &
Vaughn, 2006). In SFA, a relationship chart is created by
the teacher using key ideas from the unit or lesson and
related essential vocabulary (see Figure 1). First, each key
idea is introduced to students. If students are familiar with
it, they are asked to generate a definition; otherwise, the
definition is provided by the teacher. Students are then
asked to give examples based on any previous experiences
with that main idea. This procedure is then repeated for
each of the vocabulary terms. Finally, students predict rela-
tionships between key ideas and vocabulary as positive (+),
negative (–), no relationship (0), or unsure (?). After
instruction, the relationship chart may be reviewed and
revised as appropriate by the students independently or in
conjunction with the teacher.
In a number of studies, SFA has been found superior to
dictionary instruction for students with learning disabilities
both before science instruction in middle school (Bos &
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on May 26, 2016
Anders, 1990) and before social studies instruction in high
school (Bos et al., 1989). In these studies, the impact of SFA
extended beyond the memorization of vocabulary terms; it
improved long-term retention of the concepts being taught.
Because it is a relatively intense strategy, SFA is recom-
mended for use before large units of study; it may not be
practical to use on a daily basis.
Advance Organizers
Preteaching with advance organizers involves instruction in
which “appropriate and relevant subsuming concepts (orga-
nizers) are deliberately introduced prior to the learning of
unfamiliar academic material” (Ausubel, 1960, p. 267).
Advance organizers serve as a framework to prepare stu-
dents to organize future learning (Hartley & Davies, 1976).
They may take many forms (Lenz et al., 1987), ranging from
simple statements to complex outlines. The level of detail in
advance organizers depends, as in the vocabulary preteach-
ing strategies detailed previously, on the amount and diffi-
culty of material that is to be covered in the upcoming lesson
or unit. Although not noted specifically in the literature,
advance organizers may integrate well with classroom tech-
nology, such as Smart Boards or concept mapping software.
A variety of advance organizers in a range of inclusive
secondary content area classes was investigated by Lenz
et al. (1987). The results of this study show that teachers
can actively increase their use of advance organizers.
Furthermore, the authors found that teachers were generally
satisfied with student performance as a result of the use of
advance organizers, and 81% of the teachers in the study
planned to continue using them in their classes.
Behavioral Objectives as Advance
Organizers
Perhaps the simplest form of an advance organizer is the
presentation of behavioral objectives, which are direct
statements of the academic goals of the lesson. Preteaching
using behavioral objectives involves a simple statement
before a lesson begins that informs students of the content
they are expected to learn during the lesson (Hartley &
Davies, 1976). Behavioral objectives should be stated in
clear, operational terms. Some examples of appropriate
behavioral objectives are the following:
• Chemistry: “Today’s objective is to identify how
the periodic table is organized.”
• World geography: “Today you will learn three
ways how technology has changed the way that
humans impact our environment.”
• Sixth grade science: “At the end of our lesson, you
will be able to list the events in the formation of a
cloud.”
18 Intervention in School and Clinic 49(1)

Types of Rocks and the Rock Cycle

1.  Rocks are classified based on how they are formed.

   a.  Sedimentary – layers of sediments bonded together
   b.  Igneous – melted and cooled
   c.  Metamorphic – changed by heat and pressure
2.  Rocks change over time.
   a.  Inside the Earth, they change due to heat and pressure.
   b. On the surface of the Earth, they change due to
weathering and erosion.
3. These processes change rocks from one type to another
over and over again.

Figure 2. Traditional outline.

Behavioral objectives may come from curriculum

frameworks, state standards for a given course, or a review
of the material to be covered in a given instructional task.
The presentation of behavioral objectives alone can affect
student performance but may be more effective combined
with one or more other strategies, including (a) review of
previously learned content, (b) connection to previously
learned content, (c) explanation of the relevance of new
content, (d) statements of conduct expectations, (e) positive
statements encouraging student investment in the upcoming
lesson, or (f) other brief orienting comments. In a study
with middle school students with learning disabilities,
Hudson (1996) found the combination of behavioral objec-
tives, review of previously studied content, and presenta-
tion of a rationale for learning resulted in increased
comprehension of social studies content presented in lec-
ture format. The use of behavioral objectives phrased in the
form of guiding questions was found to increase the test
performance of high school students with learning disabili-
ties more than repetition of key information (Lenz, Adams,
Bulgren, Pouliot, & Laraux, 2007).
Outlines as Advance Organizers
Several studies have demonstrated the utility of outlines as
advance organizers for struggling learners. These outlines
may take traditional forms (see Figure 2; Darch & Gersten,
1986), or may be depicted in a visual representation (see
Figure 3; Darch & Carnine, 1986).
In generating either type of outline, teachers should
review the intended objectives of the lesson or unit and
include only the most critical elements in the outline.
Outlines should not include every piece of information to be
presented but rather should provide a framework for orga-
nizing new knowledge from the lesson or unit. The integra-
tion of key vocabulary from the lesson will allow for extra
exposure to new words that may cause students difficulty.
When introducing an outline during preteaching, teachers
Figure 3. Graphic outline.
should guide students through each element of the outline
and student engagement should be facilitated. Students
should also be encouraged to ask questions during preteach-
ing, as the outline review is also an opportunity for develop-
ment of prior knowledge necessary for comprehension of
upcoming academic instruction. If students ask questions
that will be covered thoroughly during the lesson, a simple
statement such as “Great question! Listen carefully during
class to see if you can figure out the answer,” will be suffi-
cient; teachers should not spend so much time preteaching
that all material from the upcoming lesson is introduced.
Like the relationship maps generated in SFA, outlines can
also be revisited for review after instruction.
Background Knowledge
Preteaching using background knowledge is a third com-
monly suggested strategy for supporting struggling learners
in content area classes and may take one of three forms:
review of previous instruction, activation of preexisting
prior knowledge (of concepts not recently taught in class),
and active instruction to build background knowledge
(Christen & Murphy, 1991; Graves, Cooke, & Laberge,
1983). Strong background knowledge provides benefits
similar to advance organizers: a context for receiving new
information and an anchor to which students can attach new
information (Healy, 1989).
Review of Previous Instruction
In this simple preteaching strategy, suggested earlier as a
complement to behavioral objectives, previous instruction
on a given topic that is foundational to the understanding of

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on May 26, 2016

Berg and Wehby 19
the current lesson’s objectives is reviewed. This is not an
exhaustive reteaching of all material in the previous lesson,
but rather a targeted reminder of the key concepts that will
support retention during upcoming instruction. An interac-
tive method of review of the previous day’s or week’s
instruction has been found to be an effective instructional
component for students with learning difficulties in content
area classes (Hudson, 1996).
Activation of Prior Knowledge
Activation of prior knowledge involves making students
aware of information they already know about a subject that
will support the learning of related concepts. Suggestions
for activities include (a) brainstorming, (b) asking questions,
and (c) conducting discussions surrounding a problem or
scenario (Christen & Murphy, 1991). However, for students
with disabilities, it is important for teachers to be methodical
in conducting these activities. Activation of prior knowledge
must be purposeful to be effective. A discussion of prior
knowledge should be guided toward concepts the teacher
has deemed key for understanding the upcoming lesson. In
activating prior knowledge to prepare students for a lesson
on physical characteristics of the ocean environment, a
broad question (“When you go to a beach, what do you
see?”) is less effective than a more specific one (“What
words could you use to describe the environment of the
ocean and the beach?”). Discussing people playing volley-
ball on the beach will not prepare students to learn about
salinity. Instead, when targeting the concept of salinity,
teachers should make sure that students mention how salty
the water is at the beach. Teachers should identify ahead of
time which important prerequisite facts need to be a part of
the discussion and direct the discussion accordingly.
Building Background Knowledge
Building background knowledge is a more intensive pre-
teaching intervention than reviews and activation of prior
knowledge. It involves instruction on concepts that are
critical to support the learning of upcoming instructional
content. Depending on the type of material presented, back-
ground knowledge might be obtained through many activi-
ties, ranging from direct instruction to demonstrations
(Christen & Murphy, 1991). The differentiated instruction
provided during this type of preteaching may take many
forms, but should use effective teaching strategies for strug-
gling learners (for foundations of effective instruction for
these students, see Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000). Although
no research has been conducted explicitly on building back-
ground knowledge for struggling learners in content area
classes, the presentation of prerequisite knowledge passages
has been found effective in improving the science learning
of typically developing ninth grade students (Healy, 1989),
and preview passages building background knowledge have
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on May 26, 2016
been effective in improving the reading comprehension of
low ability high school students (Graves et al., 1983).
Conclusion
The current state of content area instruction for students
with high-incidence disabilities is not allowing many of
them to meet even basic levels of performance on national
assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). The
effective use of academic interventions can increase the
content area learning of struggling students (Scruggs,
Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Graetz, 2010). General and special
educators have many options for differentiating instruction
to meet student needs. It is important that they choose
research-based interventions; teachers are advised to use
caution when implementing strategies with little research
base. Fortunately, researchers have established many strate-
gies, such as the preteaching strategies described in this
article, which, when implemented effectively, can improve
students’ access to and ability to benefit from content area
instruction. It is important that teachers be flexible and
reflective when making the instructional and logistical deci-
sions involved in planning preteaching. If teachers select the
type of preteaching that best meets the needs of their par-
ticular students in a specific lesson or unit of study, they can
provide students with the level of support needed for suc-
cess in accessing and learning from content area instruction.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Anders, P. L., & Bos, C. S. (1986). Semantic feature analysis: An
interactive strategy for vocabulary development and text com-
prehension. Journal of Reading, 29, 610–616.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learn-
ing and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272. doi:10.1037/h0046669
Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabu-
lary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading com-
prehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 13, 31–42.
Bos, C. S., Anders, P. L., Filip, D., & Jaffe, L. E. (1989). The
effects of an interactive instructional strategy for enhancing
reading comprehension and content area learning for students
with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22,
384–390.
Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (2006). Strategies for teaching students
with learning and behavior problems (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
20 Intervention in School and Clinic 49(1)
Bulgren, J., Deshler, D. D., & Lenz, B. K. (2007). Engaging ado-
lescents with LD in higher order thinking about history con-
cepts using integrated content enhancement routines. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 40, 121–133.
Cantrell, R. J., Fusaro, J. A., & Dougherty, E. A. (2000). Explor-
ing the effectiveness of journal writing on learning social
studies: A comparative study. Reading Psychology, 21, 1–11.
doi:10.1080/027027100278310
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2010).
Direct instruction reading (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Merrill.
Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker-Kroczynski, S. (2002).
Including students with disabilities into the general education
science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 423–435.
Christen, W. L., & Murphy, T. J. (1991). Increasing comprehen-
sion by activating prior knowledge. Retrieved from ERIC
database. (ED328885)
Darch, C., & Carnine, D. (1986). Teaching content area mate-
rial to learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 53,
240–246.
Darch, C. B., Carnine, D. W., & Kameenui, E. J. (1986). The
role of graphic organizers and social structure in content area
instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 275–295.
Darch, C., & Gersten, R. (1986). Direction-setting activities in
reading comprehension: A comparison of two approaches.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 235–243.
Dufrene, B. A., Henington, C., & Townsend, A. E. (2006). Peer
tutoring for reading fluency: Student implementation and
effects on reading fluency. Journal of Evidence-Based Prac-
tices for Schools, 7(2), 118–137.
Fernstrom, P., & Goodnite, B. (2000). 20 ways to accommodate
student diversity in the general education social studies class-
room. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35, 244–245.
Garija, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improv-
ing comprehension of expository text in students with LD:
A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40,
210–225.
Graves, M. F., Cooke, C. L., & Laberge, M. J. (1983). Effects of
previewing difficult short stories on low ability junior high
school students’ comprehension, recall, and attitudes. Reading
Research Quarterly, 18, 262–276. doi:10.2307/747388
Hartley, J., & Davies, I. K. (1976). Preinstructional strategies: The
role of pretests, behavioral objectives, overviews and advance
organizers. Review of Educational Research, 46, 239–265.
Hawkins, R. O., Hale, A. D., Sheeley, W., & Ling, S. (2011).
Repeated reading and vocabulary-previewing interven-
tions to improve fluency and comprehension for struggling
high-school readers. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 59–77.
doi:10.1002/pits.20545
Hawkins, R. O., Musti-Rao, S., Hale, A. D., McGuire, S., &
Hailley, J. (2010). Examining listening previewing as a class-
wide strategy to promote reading comprehension and vocabu-
lary. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 903–916. doi:10.1002/
pits.20513
Healy, V. C. (1989). The effects of advance organizer and prereq-
uisite knowledge passages on the learning and retention of
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on May 26, 2016
science concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
26, 627–642. doi:10.1002/tea.3660260707
Heverly, J. (2011). Why I no longer teach vocabulary. English
Journal, 100(4), 98–100.
Hudson, P. (1996). Using a learning set to increase the test per-
formance of students with learning disabilities in social stud-
ies classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11(2),
78–85.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004,
Pub. L. No. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L. L., Sacks, G., & Jacobson, L. A.
(2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for
students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70,
299–322.
Lenz, B. K., Adams, G. L., Bulgren, J. A., Pouliot, N., & Laraux,
M. (2007). Effects of curriculum maps and guiding questions
on the test performance of adolescents with learning disabili-
ties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 235–244.
Lenz, B. K., Alley, G. R., & Schumaker, J. B. (1987). Activat-
ing the inactive learner: Advance organizers in the secondary
content classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 53–67.
Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C., & Estes, T. H. (2001). Content area
literacy: Interactive teaching for active learning (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: John Wiley.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). The inclusive class-
room: Strategies for effective instruction. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill.
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, 103–116.
Munk, J. H., Gibb, G. S., & Caldarella, P. (2010). Collaborative
preteaching of students at risk for academic failure. Interven-
tion in School and Clinic, 45, 177–185.
Neuman, S. B. (1988). Enhancing children’s comprehension
through previewing. National Reading Conference Yearbook,
37, 219–224.
O’Donnell, P., Weber, K. P., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2003). Improv-
ing correct and error rate and reading comprehension using
key words and previewing: A case report with a language
minority student. Education and Treatment of Children, 26,
237–254.
Ruddell, R. B. (2002). Teaching children to read and write:
Becoming an effective literacy teacher (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S., & Graetz, J. E.
(2010). Do special education interventions improve learning
of secondary content? A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special
Education, 31, 437–449.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-
teaching in inclusive settings: A metasynthesis of qualitative
research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s
report card. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/