Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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 Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Mastropieri, Scruggs, &
from text (Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007). As students Graetz, 2003; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000) show that
transition from elementary school to middle school, they are this is also true for students with LD. Effect sizes reported
increasingly instructed in general education content area in meta-analyses of research in the area of reading compre-
classes such as social studies and science, where they are hension instruction for this population have been consistently
expected to read and understand increasingly difficult exposi- large (e.g., Berkeley, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, in press;
tory text. Research indicates that for most students, expository Edmonds et al., 2009; Gajria et al., 2007; Swanson, 1999).
reading is more challenging than narrative reading and that In particular, results for cognitive strategy instruction (includ-
students with learning disabilities (LD) have more difficulty ing self-monitoring and self-questioning) have been particu-
with expository reading than their peers (e.g., Saenz & Fuchs, larly promising. Taken together, these analyses of the research
2002). Expository texts are materials written to communicate have provided numerous insights into what constitutes effec-
information that helps readers learn something new (Weaver tive instruction for students with LD.
& 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 Strategy Instruction
reading expository text (Barton, 1997). However, teachers Students with LD have the cognitive tools needed to process
often operate under the false assumption that the reading information, but do so very inefficiently. Descriptive research
skills students have previously learned will transfer to exposi- has consistently shown that many children with LD experience
tory reading (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1996).
According to the Center for the Improvement of Early 1
George Mason University
Reading Achievement (2001), Research over 30 years has 2
George Mason University
3
shown that instruction in comprehension can help students George Mason University
understand what they read, remember what they read, and Corresponding Author:
communicate with others about what they read (p. 48). Sheri Berkeley, 110A Krug Hall MSN 1F2, Fairfax, VA 22030
Reviews of the special education literature (e.g., Gersten, Email: sberkele@gmu.edu
Berkeley et al. 19
poor comprehension due to a failure to read strategically and a strategy would be appropriate in addition to how to use the
to spontaneously monitor their understanding of what is being strategy itself (Pressley & Ghatala, 1990). Although it has
read, which indicates some sort of breakdown in processing been demonstrated that students can successfully be taught
(e.g., Gersten et al., 2001). Cognitive learning strategies are a reading comprehension strategy, it is also important to
methods and procedures that enable a student to learn to solve explicitly teach students how to determine when a particular
problems and complete tasks independently (Lenz, Ellis, & strategy might be effective. This is particularly important for
Scanlon, 1996). The basic premise underlying cognitive strat- students with LD who have difficulty with successful selec-
egy instruction is that students can be taught more effective tion, application, and monitoring of multiple strategies
and efficient strategies than the ones they learn and apply on (Wixson & Lipson, 1991).
their own (Johnson, Graham, & Harris, 1997).
When reading expository text, instruction in the use of
multiple strategies is required to produce significant results Attribution Retraining
in reading comprehension and improved transfer effects Students self-beliefs regarding achievement include the
(Gersten et al., 2001; Vaughn et al., 2000). Through meta- related factors: self-concept, self-efficacy, and causal attribu-
analysis of the research literature, Swanson (1999) determined tions (Chapman & Tunmer, 2003). Because these variables
that a combination of strategy and direct instruction is most are important to motivational cognition, metacognition, and
beneficial for reading comprehension instruction. Examples learning, these motivational beliefs have been included in
of effective components of reading comprehension strategy numerous cognitive models of learning, including social cog-
(RCS) instruction included modeling by the teacher of strategy nitive theory (e.g., Bandura, 1986). One of the constructs of
steps (e.g., overt demonstration through think-aloud models social cognitive theory, self-efficacy, is regarded as the most
of strategy steps and procedures) and the use of strategy cues essential process for motivating a persons behavior (Ford,
(e.g., explanation of benefits of the strategy, reminders to use 1992). Self-efficacy (students beliefs about their own capa-
the strategies). In 2003, Mastropieri et al. incorporated these bilities) is particularly important when placed in the context
components in their recommended instructional framework of strategy instruction. Students can be taught any number of
for RCS instruction: strategies to facilitate the learning process, but strategies in
themselves are only beneficial when students are motivated
clearly state objectives; to maintain their use after instruction. This becomes critical
follow a specific sequence for teaching (i.e., state for populations of students who characteristically do not main-
the purpose of the lesson and provide explicit tain and generalize what they learn, such as students with
instruction with modeling, guided practice, correc- disabilities. According to Ford (1992), there are four sources
tive feedback, independent practice, and generaliza- of self-efficacy information: (a) mastery experiences, (b) mod-
tion practice); eling, (c) social persuasion, and (d) affective body state infor-
inform the students of the purpose of the strategy; mation. In addition, attributional and social comparison
monitor student progress; processes are thought to influence self-efficacy judgments
encourage the students to think about the text and (Ford, 1992). More specifically, research has shown that feed-
strategies; back that helps students to make connections between effort
encourage appropriate attributions; and and success enhances motivation, self-efficacy, and skills,
teach for generalized use of the strategies. (p. 106) while feedback that helps students make connections between
insufficient effort and failure promotes effort attributions and
Although research has shown that such overt instruction of persistence (Schunk & Cox, 1986). This is especially impor-
strategies is an effective way to improve the reading com- tant for students who struggle with reading because student
prehension of students with mild disabilities, strategy instruc- beliefs about academic success and failure are thought to play
tion does not automatically create strategic learners who a major role in determining motivation to learn and to use
consistently approach tasks planfully and strategically (Wong, cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Shell, Colvin, &
Harris, Graham, & Butler, 2003). Bruning, 1995). This is also important for older students
Metacomprehension/strategy awareness. An aspect of strat- because they often do not persist in the use of strategies after
egy instruction sometimes overlooked is metacomprehension instruction (Gersten et al., 2001; Vaughn et al., 2000).
and strategy awareness. Metacognition involves knowledge Unlike elementary school students who attribute both effort
of ones thinking, using strategies to achieve goals, and evalu- and achievement to success in school, older students tend to
ating ones own progress (LaJoie, 2008). The application of believe that if they only need to put in a little effort, they must
this construct to reading comprehension, metacomprehension have high ability, and conversely that if they need to put in a
strategy awareness, refers to a persons knowledge about lot of effort that they must have low ability (Stipek, 1993).
specific task demands, including how to determine whether 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 investigated the effects of AR and RCS instruction for students
strategies. This is particularly the case for older students with of a variety of ages (range: 1014 years old). Students were
LD because they often have a history of academic failure and taught three reading comprehension strategies (main ideas
as a result, are likely to believe that they have little control over and details, topic sentences, and summarization) over six
their academic achievement (Nelson & Manset-Williamson, sessions. AR consisted of: (a) teacher modeling of making
2006). Compounding this problem, early research (e.g., Stipek, attributions to controllable factors; (b) discussing with stu-
1993; Stipek & Weiz, 1981) has indicated that older students dents the relationship between effortful strategy use and suc-
with LD often make inappropriate attributions (explanations) cess using the following statements to illustrate: I tried hard,
for why they succeed or fail in school. Compared with typi- used the strategy, and did well; and (c) guided practice in
cally developing students, students with LD are more likely the application of effort and strategy attributions while read-
to attribute successes to external causes (e.g., luck) and failures ing. Findings showed that RCS+AR and RCS+Complex AR
to internal causes (e.g., ability; Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr, groups scored significantly higher than both the RCS control
1988; Tabassam & Grainger, 2002). This is problematic and AR control groups on a paragraph summarization measure
because some researchers have suggested that the role of task and maintained differences with the two control conditions
persistence may be at least as important as knowledge of after a 2-week delay. There were no differences found for the
strategies in making sense out of complex expository text attributions themselves either before or after treatment.
(Gersten et al., 2001). The second study (Miranda et al., 1997) showed that sig-
There is some beginning evidence that positive attributions nificant improvements occurred for strategy instruction both
regarding effort can motivate children to acquire and persist with and without additional AR. In this study, elementary school
in using strategies. In 2000, Robertson reviewed empirical students with LD were the participants and multiple reading
research that investigated attribution retraining in achievement comprehension strategies were used during instruction in a
contexts for school-aged students with learning difficulties large group setting with one of the conditions receiving AR. Stu-
and found that attribution retraining (AR) was beneficial over- dents were taught a self-instruction (self-monitoring) procedure
all. The 20 studies reviewed included studies that investigated for six reading comprehension strategies (identify text structure,
strategy instruction combined with AR in the areas of reading activate previous knowledge, preview of text, self-question,
comprehension, spelling, math, and mnemonics. Half of the clarify, map ideas) over 13 sessions followed by practice in
studies included participants with LD. Mixed findings across all of the learned strategies for an additional 7 sessions. In this
some of the studies enabled the authors to draw conclusions study, AR consisted of: (a) student practice in the identification
about characteristics of AR that have proven to be effective of positive attributions (for success grounded in effort and fail-
and ineffective. First, attributions for effort should be given ure based on lack of effort or knowledge) and negative attribu-
only when a student has sufficient skills needed to be suc- tions (for success grounded in luck, help, and ease of task and
cessful with a task, otherwise low ability attributions may be failure based on lack of effort or bad luck), (b) modeling of
inadvertently reinforced. One way to do this is to teach strate- appropriate positive attributions when using strategies, and
gies that enable students to complete the task, although com- (c) prompts for students to make attributions for success or
bining attribution and strategy training may be most effective failure after reading activities followed by teacher feedback.
for students who do not generally make connections between Results showed that after treatment, both experimental groups
strategy use and success. Another way to accomplish this is (RCS and RCS+AR) scored at the same level on measures of
to encourage attributions to strategy use, in this way students comprehension as a normal achieving control group, but
attribute success or failure to the effectiveness (or ineffective- significant differences remained with students in the LD control
ness) of the strategy instead of factors they cannot control group. Researchers concluded that effects from RCS instruction
(e.g., ability). Finally, direct approaches to AR seem to have produced such strong results that additional AR may have been
advantages over indirect ones, and large group training is unnecessary. Considering the positive effects from the earlier
problematic because of the peer reference that can occur. Borkowski et al. (1988) study of 10- to 14-year-olds, an alternate
Although half of the studies reviewed by Robertson (2000) explanation might be that AR was unnecessary for elementary
involved reading in general, only four looked specifically at school students who generally attribute success in school to
instruction that used a combination of reading comprehension both effort and achievement (e.g., Stipek, 1993). Because stu-
strategies combined with AR (e.g., Borkowski et al., 1988; dent beliefs about academic success and failure (attributions)
Carr & Borkowski, 1989; Chan, 1996; Miranda, Villaescusa, are thought to influence strategy use (Shell et al., 1995), it is
& Vidal-Abarca, 1997). Findings from these studies have important for more research to be conducted that investigates
generally showed benefits for adding AR to strategy instruc- potential benefits of adding AR to RCS instruction for older
tion (e.g., Borkowski et al., 1988; Carr & Borkowski, 1989; students with LD who tend to have faulty attributions (e.g.,
Chan, 1996); however, only two investigated effects for Stipek, 1993) and who often do not persist with strategy use
students with LD. The first study (Borkowski et al., 1988) after instruction (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2000).
Berkeley et al. 21
Condition and n
including: general education, limited English proficiency, education services based on deficits in reading (79.7%) or
and special education. writing (76.3%), the majority of students were enrolled in
A total of 63 students were targeted for the intervention English classes (where reading and writing services are primar-
because of school identified weaknesses in the area of reading. ily delivered) within self-contained settings (72.9%) or team-
There was an attrition of 18 potential participants due to: taught settings (22%). Only 3 students (5.1%) were enrolled
refused consent by parent or student (n = 3), student moves in in general education English classes. In addition, 32 students
or out of the school district during the study (n = 4), excessive (59.2%) were enrolled in a reading class offered by the school.
absences caused by suspensions (n = 3), other behavior-related The sample included 29 ninth-grade, 15 eighth-grade, and
issues such as schedule changes based on student behavior 15 seventh-grade students with a mean age of 176.85 months
(n = 5), or student disabilities that did not meet the study (SD = 13.40). Table 2 displays student demographic informa-
criteria: intellectual disability, autism, and traumatic brain tion for students by condition. All students had IQs within
injury (n = 3). In addition, one student moved after completing the normal range, and all students demonstrated reading skills
the study, but prior to delayed posttesting. The final sample far below grade level on the Stanford Diagnostic Reading
consisted of 59 students with mild disabilities who received Test (SDRT) administered by the school at the beginning of
special education services through the school LD program. the academic year (RCS+AR = 4.22 years below grade level,
All students were identified for special education services RCS = 4.14 years below grade level, RN = 3.73 years below
based on district identified criteria. Students with LD demon- grade level). See also Table 3.
strated a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement. Teachers. A special education reading teacher (n = 5), a
Students with Other Health Impairment (OHI) were found reading specialist (n = 1), and a trained researcher (n = 1)
eligible for special education services because of attention- were instructors in the study. All instructors were Caucasian
deficit disorder/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (male = 2, female = 5). Six held masters degrees; one was
(ADD/ADHD; n = 10) or other medical diagnoses (n = 4). enrolled in a masters program. Instructors all held teaching
Most students (84.8%) received special education services for licenses (LD = 2; LD/ED = 1; LD/ED/MR = 3; reading spe-
a large portion of the school day (60% of the school day or cialist = 1) and averaged 12.29 years of teaching experience
more). Because the majority of students qualified for special (range = 135 years).
Berkeley et al. 23
Condition
Variable M SD M SD M SD F p
Figure 1. Reading comprehension and attribution retraining concepts and strategies taught.
(AR or read aloud), for a total of 30 minutes for each of teachers led discussions, but students were asked to actively
12 session. A description of each type of instruction follows participate. The articles were also read aloud by teachers,
(see also Figure 1). but strategy use was determined collaboratively among teach-
RCS instruction. Students in both RCS and RCS+AR condi- ers and students in the group. Independent practice lessons
tions received 20 minutes of instruction in how and when to allowed students to use strategies with a minimum amount
use the reading comprehension strategies. Instructional les- of support. However, teachers closely monitored student
sons were structured using the following sequence: (a) teacher responses on the student strategy worksheets and engaged
modeling, (b) guided practice, and (c) independent practice. in reteaching when necessary. These lessons gave teachers
Modeling lessons were designed to provide students with an an opportunity to provide additional assistance to any students
understanding about why and when they should use the strate- who required further instruction. During these lessons, stu-
gies. During these lessons, teachers led all discussions, read dents were the main participants during strategy review and
aloud the articles, and modeled aloud strategy use. Guided teacher-led discussion was minimal.
practice lessons were designed to provide maximum amount AR instruction. Prior to instruction in reading comprehen-
of support while students practiced using strategies. These sion strategies, students in the RCS+AR condition received
lessons also provided hands-on experience about why and 10 minutes of AR to help them understand and develop effec-
when students should use the strategies. In these lessons, 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- RCS and RCS+AR training. The researcher conducted a sepa-
egy lessons, each concept was modeled by teachers in the rate training session for teachers in the RCS and RCS+AR
first session, practiced with teacher guidance in the second conditions during a 90-minute planning period. During initial
session, and practiced independently by students in the last training, all materials were distributed. RCS teacher materials
session. To make the AR age appropriate and engaging, con- included a lesson manual with all needed teaching materials:
crete sport examples were used initially to help students scripted RCS lessons, student materials, answer keys, and
understand the concepts. For example, in the first lesson, stu- writing supplies. High-interest short story collections were
dents were told that they would be taught some of the strategies also provided for the read aloud portion of the lessons.
that sport psychologists teach professional athletes about how RCS+AR teacher materials included a lesson manual with
to focus their thinking and then practice using those strategies identical reading comprehension strategy lessons as the RCS
to help themselves become better readers (see Figure 1 for a manual. The manual also contained scripted AR lessons that
description of each attribution concept). RCS instruction introduced the attribution concepts, scenarios for out loud
immediately followed, and students were provided specific guided practice in applying the concepts learned, independent
scripted AR feedback as they completed comprehension ques- practice Attribution Challenge worksheets, and answer keys
tions that accompanied reading selections. For correct with AR feedback prompts that teachers provided as students
responses, students were prompted to attribute success to the answered comprehension questions about the passages read.
strategy: You got that one right. You did a good job using The researcher also demonstrated how to use the instructional
strategies and you tried hard! Keep it up. For incorrect materials within the RCS or RCS+AR manual. This demon-
responses, students were prompted to attribute failure to an stration included: modeling how to use the scripted lessons,
ineffective strategy or ineffective strategy use: You made a explaining the purpose of each of the strategies, and explain-
mistake on that one. Think of a different strategy that would ing how to monitor student learning and application of the
help you. What is it? Now try it! Remember, positive thinking strategy. For teachers in the RCS+AR training group, specific
helps. In the event that students had difficulty remembering directions and modeling of the scripted AR feedback was also
a strategy step, they would be directed to the strategy sheet provided. Finally, both groups of teachers were asked to prac-
and/or the strategy would be retaught. tice each of the scripted lessons prior to implementation and
RN instruction. The RN program required students to: to ask the researcher any questions prior to implementing.
(a) make predictions about the story, (b) practice reading the RN training. Because RN was currently used in each school,
story using a repeated reading technique, (c) answer implicit the reading specialist in each building conducted a refresher
and explicit comprehension questions about specific factual training with RN teachers during their 90-minute planning
content in the story, and (d) graph their fluency progress. For period. Teacher materials included all specified program mate-
each passage, students read with a teacher during a cold rials, and computerized version materials included the online
timing and their correct words per minute (CWPM) were technical guide to assist with programming student reading
recorded. Students then set a goal to improve the cold timing levels and troubleshooting. A duplicate set of the same high-
score and followed the steps previously described. Finally, interest short story collections provided to the RCS condition
students read with the teacher during a hot timing and their were also provided for the read aloud portion of the RN condi-
CWPM were again recorded. The student used their cold tion. Each teacher continued to use previously established
timing and hot timing scores to graph reading fluency growth. classroom organizational procedures.
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 Measures
short story collections. The read aloud activity was selected Comprehension summarization test. This criterion-refer-
because it aligned with the schools sustained silent reading enced comprehension summarization test included the fol-
initiative by promoting reading for pleasure. 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
Teacher Training Procedures from number 1, (c) list the most important words from the
In addition to specific training described in the following, the passage, and (d) write the summary of the text in two sen-
researcher consulted with teachers on a daily basis to provide tences. This measure was an indicator of student ability to
feedback to teachers and answer implementation questions. identify the most important information read and to synthesize
All teachers agreed to use teaching techniques and/or feedback that information accurately and succinctly.
that were part of the intervention only during the scheduled Passage-specific content test. A passage-specific content test
intervention time until after delayed posttest data had been was developed by the researcher for the purpose of this study
collected. 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 all testing and prompted students to take the assessments
choice format) related to the same passage as for the sum- seriously and to try their best.
marization measure. Questions consisted of both explicit On the first day of testing, the MSI and RAS were admin-
and implicit comprehension questions based on the text and/ istered. As neither of these measures were tests of reading,
or the text formats. This measure was an indicator of student both measures were read aloud to students. On the second
ability to recall specific factual content information. day of testing, both comprehension measures were adminis-
Different passages independent from instructional lessons tered. Students were told that they could take as long as they
were used with comprehension measures at pretest, posttest, needed to read the passage on their own, that teachers could
and delayed posttest (three separate passages in total). assist with decoding any words, and that passages would be
The reading passages were 242, 245, and 249 words in removed before they would be given the test. In addition,
length and each had a 6.9 readability level according to Flesch- students were informed they could choose to write on the
Kincaid statistics. In addition, a group of veteran special passage and/or answer the questions embedded at the end of
education teachers reviewed the passages and considered the passage before taking the test. After reading the passage,
them to be equivalent based on content difficulty. students first completed the comprehension summarization
Meta-Comprehension Strategy Index (MSI). The MSI test, before being given the passage-specific content test.
(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 Scoring Procedures
verifying, (b) previewing, (c) purpose setting, (d) self-ques- Scoring rubrics for the summary test and the production por-
tioning, (e) drawing from background knowledge, (f) sum- tion of the passage-specific content test were created by the
marizing, and (g) applying fix-up strategies. Although the researcher. A certified middle school social studies teacher
MSI was originally developed for narrative text, a modified with 14 years of teaching experience, a masters degree in
version for expository texts (Esser, 2001) with a reduced special education, and National Board Certification as an
number of items (n = 15) was used in the current study. The Exceptional Needs Specialist was consulted as a content spe-
modified version was created by eliminating redundant items. cialist for the study. This content specialist verified that the
For example, one item states: BEFORE I begin reading, its scoring rubric for the summary test was reflective of expecta-
a good idea to: (a) see how many pages are in the chapter, (b) tions for grade-level performance in history and verified that
look up all the big words in the dictionary, (c) make some the responses deemed acceptable and unacceptable for the
guesses about what I think the chapter will talk about, or (d) production items were accurate.
think about what happened so far in the chapter. This measure Reliability checking. Two researchers scored all pretests, post-
was intended to be an indicator of metacomprehension strategy tests, and delayed posttests using scoring guides for the MSI
knowledge. and the passage-specific content test and the rubric for the
Reading Attribution Scale (RAS). The RAS was adapted from summary test. Instructional condition was not indicated on
Shell et al. (1995) and consisted of 14 items rated using a any test protocols. When inconsistencies were found, they
5-point Likert scale (1 = never true, 2 = sometimes true, 3 = returned to original protocols and reached 100% agreement.
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 Fidelity of Treatment
(e.g., When I dont understand what I read, it is usually All teachers in the intervention conditions used scripted les-
because my teacher didnt help me) for each targeted attri- sons. In addition, all lessons were audio recorded to check
bution: ability, effort, assistance from a teacher, luck, interest, for consistency of treatment implementation. A checklist was
and task difficulty. Two additional items were added for this used to monitor specific items: (a) consistency with imple-
study to assess whether students attributed success and/or menting the intervention for the appropriate amount of time
failure to strategy use (e.g., When I understand what I read, for condition and (b) for the intervention groups, consistency
it is usually because I use strategies). and accuracy in implementing intervention using RCS+AR
or RCS scripted lessons. This information was used to provide
feedback to teachers throughout the study.
Testing Procedures Fidelity criteria for implementation within the specified
Each measure was administered by the researcher in the stu- time were met 100% of the time in the RCS+AR conditions,
dents regular classroom over 2 days at pre-, post-, and delayed 99% of the time in the RCS condition, and 100% of the
posttesting. Although testing groups consisted of students time in the RN groups. Fidelity for using lessons as scripted
from all experimental conditions, testing group size did not was met 100% of the time in both the RCS+AR and RCS
exceed 10 students. A classroom teacher was present during conditions.
Berkeley et al. 27
yielded a significant main effect for condition, F(2, 39) = 7.64, Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, and Effect Sizes for
p = .002, and no main effect for instructional group, F(16, Reading Attributions
39) = 1.41, p = .19. Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni
RCS+AR RCS RN
adjustment for multiple comparisons revealed that both the
RCS+AR group and the RCS group scored statistically higher Measure M SD M SD M SD
than the RN comparison condition (respectively, p = .005
RAS: Attributions
and p = .003). These differences represented large effect sizes for Success
for both RCS+AR (ES = 1.10) and RCS groups (ES = .93). Pretest 21.20 3.72 21.74 4.17 21.90 4.64
There was not a statistically significant difference between Posttest 25.80 3.74** 22.11 3.56 22.25 4.56
RCS+AR and RCS groups. MSI delayed posttest data did Effect size 0.86 0.03
not yield a significant main effect for condition, F(2, 38) = 2.99, Delayed posttest 23.74 2.84* 22.26 4.12 21.90 4.02
p = .06, or instructional group, F(16, 38) = .94, p = .54. See Effect size 0.54 0.09
Table 4 for means, standard deviations, and effect sizes. RAS: Attributions
for Failure
Pretest 21.15 2.32 21.32 1.95 21.35 2.70
Attributional Beliefs About Reading Posttest 22.40 2.80 20.47 2.78 21.60 3.08
Effect size 0.07 0.20
Cronbachs alpha was used to determine the internal consis- Delayed posttest 21.74 3.30 20.79 2.23 20.70 1.72
tency of the Reading Attribution Scale ( = .87). The ratings Effect size 0.41 0.05
for external items (i.e., assistance from a teacher, luck, inter- Note: Effect size calculated from: MTreatment MControl / .5 (SDTreatment +
est, and task difficulty) were reversed when calculating the SDControl). RCS = reading comprehension strategy; AR = attribution
total score; therefore, high overall scores (> 21) were indica- retraining; RN = Read Naturally; RAS = Reading Attribution Scale.
tive of high attributions for internal variables (effort, ability, *Indicates significant difference from RN comparison condition (p < .05).
**Indicates significant difference from both RCS and RN comparison
and strategy use) and low attributions for external variables conditions (p < .05).
(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 addition, there was not a main effect for instructional group
teacher, luck, interest, and task difficulty). at posttesting, F(16, 39) = 1.32, p = .24, or delayed posttest-
Attributions for reading success. Results from attribution ing, F(16, 38) = .38, p = .98. See Table 5 for means, standard
posttest data yielded a significant main effect for condition, deviations, and effect sizes.
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- Discussion
sons indicated the RCS+AR condition was significantly Students face increasingly challenging text in the upper
higher than both the RCS group (p = .001) and the RN grades (Barton, 1997). This text, often expository in nature,
comparison condition (p = .001). These differences repre- is where students are expected to gain new knowledge that
sented large effect sizes for RCS+AR compared to the RCS they must demonstrate on end-of-year tests. However, this
group (ES = 1.01) and the control group (ES = .86). There expectation is extremely challenging for students with dis-
was not a statistically significant difference between RCS abilities (including the students who participated in this study)
and RN groups. who often do not learn as much from expository reading as
In addition, results from delayed attribution posttest data their peers (Saenz & Fuchs, 2002). It is therefore extremely
yielded a significant main effect for condition, F(2, 38) = important that students such as these be taught strategies to
3.98, p = .03. Follow-up post hoc analyses with Bonferroni help them understand expository texts, including when and
adjustment for multiple comparisons indicated the RCS+AR where the strategies might be effective and how to persist in
condition remained significantly higher than the RN com- using strategies when text is not initially understood (Pressley
parison condition (p = .02), with a moderate effect size & Ghatala, 1990). Findings from the current investigation
(ES = .54). There were not statistically significant differ- showed that both RCS groups benefited in terms of learning
ences between RCS+AR and RCS groups or between the content and demonstrating higher level thinking about read-
RCS and RN groups. ing. In addition, benefits for students who received AR per-
Attributions for reading failure. Results for Reading Failure sisted more strongly after instruction ended. Taken together,
subscale items indicated that there was not a statistically sig- these findings provide evidence to support the practice of
nificant main effect for condition at either posttest, F(2, 39) = teaching reading comprehension strategies in conjunction
2.08, p = .14, or delayed posttest, F(2, 38) = 1.50, p = .24. In with AR.
Berkeley et al. 29
Strategy Instruction comprehension while reading and (b) how to use provided
Strategy Sheets to self-regulate strategy use. Strategy Sheets
Results of the current study indicate that RCS instruction contained strategy step reminders that allowed students to be
(with and without AR) resulted in greater strategy awareness more independent in their learning as direct teacher support
for students in the strategy groups than for students in the was purposely faded. Another important aspect of instruction
comparison Read Naturally condition who were not taught was the structured guided practice. This part of the instruction
reading comprehension strategies. In addition, students in required students to work collaboratively to practice the strat-
both strategy groups demonstrated improved reading com- egy steps and to solve problems while reading. Because stu-
prehension on the reading summarization measure. Further- dents discussed aloud their thought processes during these
more, students in both strategy groups continued to outperform lessons, the teacher was able to ensure that strategies were
the comparison condition after a 6-week delay. Although being applied and practiced correctly, thus promoting the likeli-
there wasnt a direct measure of strategy use, findings suggest hood of positive peer references. Finally, RCS instruction
that students who received RCS instruction persisted with included a strategy monitoring component that explicitly taught
strategy use on a novel passage a month and a half after the students how to monitor their strategy use by selecting and
intervention was implemented. applying appropriate strategies. Like all strategies in the inter-
Summarization is a complex skill that requires students vention, strategy monitoring was first modeled by the instruc-
to actively engage in the reading process. For example, in tor, then students received guided and independent practice
order to summarize material, one must be able to distinguish with carefully selected passages that required students to make
between main ideas and details and construct new knowledge choices about which learned strategy they would apply.
by integrating prior knowledge with what was read. Because Results did not reveal the same pattern in student com-
students with LD are generally inactive readers (Jitendra, prehension of specific content area information. On this
Hoppes, & Xin, 2000), this skill is particularly challenging. measure, both strategy (RCS and RCS+AR) and the com-
However, the current study demonstrates that students with parison groups improved scores from pretesting to post- and
disabilities who were explicitly taught how to summarize delayed posttesting; however, no group scored significantly
main ideas were able to apply that knowledge to a similar higher than the other groups at any of these testing points.
article in a testing situation. This is encouraging for classroom This suggests that the comparison condition was also effec-
teachers who have students that struggle with this higher tive for helping students recall answers to questions related
level skill, particularly in the upper grades where students to specific factual content. The lack of differences in student
are expected to learn important content information through performance on this type of reading comprehension may be
independent reading. These findings are consistent with due to the practice students received in answering factual
numerous other studies that found that learners who demon- content-specific information while using Read Naturally.
strate metacognitive awareness are more strategic and perform Overall, RCS instruction helped students to improve in both
better than unaware learners (e.g., Pressley & Ghatala, 1990) specific factual information and main ideas, while Read
and that students benefit from explicit instruction in strategies Naturally helped students only with recall of specific factual
that help them summarize main ideas while reading (e.g., information from their reading. This finding has practical
Jitendra et al., 2000; Katims & Harris, 1997; Mastropieri, significance for teachers who need to make decisions about
Scruggs, Spencer, & Fontana, 2003). how to use valuable instructional time.
These findings are also important because although direct
instruction in reading comprehension strategies usually results
in improved student comprehension, students generally do Student Attributions
not persist with strategy use or transfer what they have learned The AR instructional component in the current study was
when reading novel expository material (Vaughn et al., 2000). designed to change students thinking habits in regard to how
This studys findings might be attributed, at least in part, to they approach text (i.e., strategically). Instruction included
the instructional methods employed that were informed by three major components: teaching students to recognize posi-
recommendations in syntheses of the research literature (e.g., tive (self-promoting) and negative (self-defeating) thoughts,
Mastropieri et al., 2003; Swanson, 1999). Although individual teaching students how to use positive self-talk, and providing
strategies were taught over a relatively short period of time, specific feedback to teach them to attribute outcomes to stra-
instruction was systematic and learning materials were care- tegic efforts. Identifying positive and negative thoughts was
fully controlled to mediate processing demands. Furthermore, difficult for students who had developed faulty attributions
using think aloud techniques, each strategy was carefully for success and failure. Following are two examples of sce-
modeled by the teacher to demonstrate: (a) the active and narios from teaching activities that students initially mis-
strategic thought process needed to solve problems with identified as positive thoughts:
30 Journal of Learning Disabilities 44(1)
1. A student reads a passage and gets the question cor- concluded that powerful strategy instruction may make attri-
rect. He thinks That question must have been easy. bution retraining unnecessary. However, in the current study
2. A classmate tells everyone that you are very smart there were practically significant differences between reading
so you dont need to study for the test. performance of the strategy groups. At posttesting, both groups
displayed large effect sizes (RCS = 1.44; RCS+AR = .94)
Both are examples of negative thoughts because they are likely compared to the RN control group, but at delayed posttesting
to result in self-defeating behavior. The student in the first the group of students who received AR training continued to
scenario attributed success to external, uncontrollable efforts display a large effect size (1.21) while the effect size for the
instead of positively reinforcing his or her own efforts and RCS group was moderate (ES = .71). Considering the minimal
ability. The student in the second scenario hears a classmate amount of instructional time needed to address student attribu-
attribute outcomes to ability alone. If the student believes this tions, this addition to strategy instruction seems to be war-
attribution, then he or she is likely to not study for the test and ranted if it results in practical benefits for student learning.
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- Limitations and Future Research
ate attributions as a way to help themselves persist on difficult There were limitations in the current study that should be
learning tasks. For example, for the following scenario: You addressed in future research. Although random assignment
read the chapter assigned in class, but then get almost all of procedures were employed, the researcher taught a dispro-
the questions wrong, a student might self-talk I will read portionate number of RCS+AR groups. The current study
this chapter again and this time I will try harder and use the also utilized self-reporting by students for strategy awareness
reading strategies I have learned. Finally, AR feedback was and attribution measures. In addition, the RAS subscale for
designed to help students make direct connections between attributions for reading failure incorporated the use of double
the use of strategies and academic outcomes. negatives (i.e., When I dont understand what I read, it is
After experiencing years of failure in school, inappropriate because I am not smart.), which could have potentially been
attributions of students with LD are often engrained. Previous misinterpreted by students. It is unclear how these factors
research has indicated that students with LD are generally may have influenced findings.
less likely to attribute outcomes to effort than their nondis- Future researchers may get a clearer picture of strategy
abled peers (e.g., Tabassam & Grainger, 2002). Although knowledge and attributions for strategy use with measures
this 12-lesson intervention was relatively short, differences that do not rely on self-reporting as students may not always
in overall attributions for reading success for students in the be accurate. Maintained improvements of students in the
RCS+AR condition were obtained after instruction. The effect RCS+AR condition of the current study may have been due
size immediately following instruction was large (.86), and to greater sustained use of strategies by those students; there-
the effect size at delayed posttesting was moderate (.54). This fore, future researchers might consider adding a direct measure
difference may be because attribution feedback was not pro- of strategy use. Future researchers might also consider adding
vided in the 6 weeks between instruction and delayed testing. measures of self-efficacy and motivation as this may give a
These findings suggest that effort attributions for success, rounder picture of how strategy instruction and AR impact
including effort to use strategies, can be altered in students student learning.
with high functioning disabilities such as LD, but that attribu-
tion feedback from the teacher may be necessary for a longer Declaration of Conflicting Interests
period of time to maintain changes. This is consistent with The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the
the conclusions drawn by Borkowski et al. (1988). authorship and/or publication of this article.
Because research has shown that positive attributions
toward effort, including strategy use, can motivate children Funding
to acquire and use metacognitive strategies (Borkowski, Carr, This research was supported in part by a grant from the Office of
Rellinger, & Pressley, 1990), it was anticipated that students Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education grant
who received AR would benefit more from RCS instruction Number H234D020020. This paper does not necessarily reflect the
than students who received RCS instruction alone. However, position or policies of that funding agency, and no official endorse-
results were different than predicted. Although students in ment should thereby be inferred.
the RCS+AR condition displayed higher attributions for suc-
cess at both post- and delayed posttesting, AR did not produce References
statistically higher scores than RCS instruction alone. This Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
finding is similar to those of Miranda et al. (1997), who social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Berkeley et al. 31
Barton, M. L. (1997). Addressing the literacy crisis: Teaching reading The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring
in the content areas. National Association of Secondary School instruction. Journal of Special Education, 34, 127139. doi:
Principals Bulletin, 81, 2230. doi: 10.1177/019263659708158705 10.1177/002246690003400302
Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (in press). Johnson, L, Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1997). The effects of
Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning goal setting and self-instruction on learning a reading com-
disabilities, 1995-2006. Remedial & Special Education. prehension strategy: A study of students with learning dis-
Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., Rellinger, L., & Pressley, M. (1990). abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 8091. doi:
Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of metacognition, 10.1177/002221949703000107
attributions and self-esteem. In B. J. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Katims, D. S., & Harris, S. (1997). Improving the reading com-
Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 5392). prehension of middle school students in inclusive classrooms.
London: Routledge. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41, 116123. http://
Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects www.reading.org
of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading compre- LaJoie, S. P. (2008). Metacognition, self regulation and self
hension in learning disabled students. Journal of Educational regulated learning: A rose by any other name? Educational
Psychology, 80, 4653. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.46 Psychology Review, 20, 469475. doi: 10.1007/s10648-
Carr, M., & Borkowski, J. G. (1989). Attributional training and 008-9088-1
the generalization of reading strategies with underachieving Lenz, B. K., Ellis, E. S., & Scanlon, D. (1996). Teaching learning
children. Learning & Individual Differences, 1, 327341. doi: strategies to adolescents and adults with learning disabilities.
10.1016/1041-6080(89)90015-0 Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievements. (2001). Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1996). Reflections
Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching on Promoting thinking skills of students with learn-
children to read. Ann Arbor, MI: Author. ing disabilities: Effects on recall and comprehension of
Chan, L. K. S. (1996). Combined strategy and attributional training expository prose. Exceptionality, 6, 5357. doi: 10.1207/
for seventh grade average and poor readers. Journal of Research s15327035ex0601_1
in Reading, 19, 111127. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.1996 Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading
.tb00092.x comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for
Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2003). Reading difficulties, struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly,
reading-related self-perceptions, and strategies for overcoming 26, 103116.
negative self-beliefs. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 524. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mohler, L., Beranek, M., Boon, R.,
doi: 10.1080/10573560390143003 Spencer, V., & Talbott, E. (2001). Can middle school students
Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., with serious reading difficulties help each other and learn any-
Tackett, K. K., & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of thing? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 1827.
reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension doi: 10.1111/0938-8982.00003
outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Spencer, V., & Fontana, J. (2003).
Research, 79, 262300. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325998 Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring
Esser, M. M. S. (2001). The effects of metacognitive strategy train- versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
ing and attribution retraining on reading comprehension in 18, 5265. doi: 10.1111/1540-5826.00057
African-American students with learning disabilities. Disserta- Miranda, A., Villaescusa, M. I., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (1997). Is attri-
tion Abstracts International, 67(7-A), 2340. (UMI No. 3021672) bution retraining necessary? Use of self-regulation procedures
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and for enhancing the reading comprehension strategies of children
personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30,
Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving 503512. doi: 10.1177/002221949703000506
comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research Nelson, J. M., & Manset-Williamson, G. (2006). The impact
synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210225. doi: of explicit, self-regulatory reading comprehension strategy
10.1177/00222194070400030301 instruction on the reading-specific self-efficacy, attributions,
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching and affect of students with reading disabilities. Learning Dis-
reading comprehension strategies to students with learning dis- ability Quarterly, 29, 213230.
abilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning:
71, 279320. doi: 10.3102/00346543071002279 Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25,
Ihnot, C. (1992). Read naturally. St. Paul, MN: Read Naturally. 1933. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2501_3
Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing Robertson, J. S. (2000). Is attribution retraining a worthwhile
summary comprehension for students with learning problems: classroom intervention for K-12 students with learning
32 Journal of Learning Disabilities 44(1)
difficulties? Educational Psychology Review, 12, 111134. doi: Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr,
10.1023/A:1009089118008 M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook
Saenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading diffi- of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 230244). White Plains, NY:
culty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Exposi- Longman.
tory versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, Wixson, K. K., & Lipson, M. Y. (1991). Perspectives on reading
3141. doi: 10.1177/074193250202300105 disability research. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, &
Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure childrens P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2,
awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, pp. 539570). White Plains, NY: Longman.
43, 454461. Wong, B. Y. L., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Butler, D. L. (2003).
Schunk, D. H., & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategic training and Cognitive strategies instruction research in learning disabili-
attributional feedback with learning disabled students. ties. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.),
Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 201209. doi: Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 383402). New York,
10.1037/0022-0663.78.3.201 NY: Guilford.
Shell, D., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. (1995). Self-efficacy, attri-
bution and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and About the Authors
writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level dif- Sheri Berkeley, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the College
ferences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386398. doi: of Education and Human Development at George Mason Uni-
10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.386 versity. Her research interests include issues related to improving
Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice instruction for secondary students with learning disabilities
(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. including: reading, learning strategies, and responsiveness
Stipek, D. J., & Weiz, J. R. (1981). Perceived personal control and to intervention.
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 51,
101137. doi: 10.3102/00346543051001101 Margo A. Mastropieri, PhD, is a University Professor in the
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading research for students with College of Education and Human Development at George Mason
learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of intervention out- University. Her current research interests include mnemonic strate-
comes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504532. doi: gies, teacher education, meta-analysis, science and social studies,
10.1177/002221949903200605 and effective instruction for inclusive education.
Tabassam, W., & Grainger, J. (2002). Self-concept, attributional
style and self-efficacy beliefs of students with learning disabili- Thomas E. Scruggs, PhD, is a University Professor in the
ties with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. College of Education and Human Development and director of
Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 141151. the PhD in Education Program at George Mason University. His
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying current research interests include learning and memory strategies,
message in LD intervention research: Findings from research research synthesis, science and social studies and inclusive
synthesis. Exceptional Children, 67, 99114. education.