Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The efficacy of Collaborative Strategic Reading in middle school science and social studies classes

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the efficacy of a multi-component reading comprehension instructional approach, Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR), compared to business-as-usual instructional methods with 19 teachers and 1074 students in middle school social studies and science classrooms in a large urban district. Researchers collaborated with school personnel to provide teachers with ongoing professional development and classroom support. Using an experimental design, teachers’ classrooms were assigned either to CSR or to a business-as-usual comparison condition. Multi-level analyses showed that students receiving CSR instruction scored higher on a standardized reading comprehension assessment compared to their peers in comparison classrooms (g = 0.18, p < 0.05). While implementation varied across classrooms, students in the CSR condition were observed using CSR strategies and working together in small groups. Teachers attended to the quality of student work and provided more feedback when teaching CSR. CSR is an effective method to improve the reading comprehension of adolescents and to increase their access to complex informational text.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Hedge’s g effect size metric is recommended by the What Works Clearinghouse (2013), and was reported in previous experimental studies of CSR (Vaughn et al., 2011; Boardman et al., under review).

References

  • August, D. E., & Shanahan, T. E. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, A., Buckley, P., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Scornavacco, K., & Klingner, J. (in press). The relationship between implementation of Collaborative Strategic Reading and student outcomes for adolescents with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities.

  • Boardman, A., Vaughn, S., Buckley, P., Roberts, G., & Reutebuch, C.K. (under review). Collaborative Strategic Reading for students with learning disabilities in upper elementary classrooms. Manuscript submitted to Exceptional Children.

  • Brown, R. (2008). The road not yet taken: A transactional strategies approach to comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 61(7), 538–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, K. R., & Kintsch, W. (2003). Text comprehension and discourse processing. Handbook of psychology. New Jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, M. W. (2008). Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 84–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, M. W., & Wise, A. (2011). Comprehension for what? Preparing Students for their meaningful future. Theory into Practice, 50(2), 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K. (2003). Reading to learn from the very beginning: Information books in early childhood. Young Children, 58(2), 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds, M. S., et al. (2009). Synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faggella-Luby, M. N., & Deshler, D. D. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know; what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 70–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., & Wagner, R. K. (2014). Accumulating knowledge: When are reading intervention results meaningful? Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7, 294–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2009). Harnessing the wandering mind: The role of perceptual load. Cognition, 111(3), 345–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, S. (2007). Comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 175–205). New York: Cambridge Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., Coddington, C. S., Klauda, S. L., Wigfield, A., & Barbosa, P. (2009). Impacts of comprehensive reading instruction on diverse outcomes of low- and high-achieving readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 111, pp. 403–422). New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, L. (2005). Teachers and content area reading: Attitudes, beliefs and change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamre, B. K., et al. (2010). Implementation fidelity of MyTeacherPartner literacy and language activities: Association with preschoolers’ language and literacy growth. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 329–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helder, A., Van Leijenhorst, L., Beker, K., & Van den Broek, P. (2013). Sources of comprehension problems during reading. In B. Miller, L. Cutting, & P. McCardle (Eds.), Unraveling the behavioral, neurobiological, and genetic components of reading comprehension (pp. 43–53). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulleman, C. S., & Cordray, D. S. (2009). Moving from the lab to the field: The role of fidelity and achieved relative intervention strength. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 88–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, V. A. (2008). Adolescent literacy: Putting the crisis in context. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 7–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Roseth, C. (2010). Cooperative learning in middle schools: Interrelationship of relationships and achievement. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaestle, C. F., Campbell, A., Finn, J. D., Johnson, S. T., & Mikulecky, L. J. (2001). Adult literacy and education in America. Education Statistics Quarterly, 3, 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

  • Kim, A. H., Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., Woodruff, A. L., Klein, C., & Kouzekanani, K. (2006). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students with disabilities through Computer-Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading (CACSR). Remedial and Special Education, 27, 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkland, D. E. (2013). Urban literacy learning. In H. R. Milner IV & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 394–412). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingner, J. K. (2004). Assessing reading comprehension. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(4), 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingner, J. K., Boardman, A. G., & McMaster, K. (2013). What does it take to scale up and sustain evidence-based practices? Exceptional Children, 79, 195–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Argüelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Ahwee, S. (2004). Collaborative Strategic Reading: “Real world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Boardman, A., & Swanson, E. (2012). Now we get it! Boosting comprehension with Collaborative Strategic Reading. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. (1998). Collaborative Strategic Reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. D. (2004). Literacy in the academic disciplines and the needs of adolescent struggling readers. Voices in Urban Education, 3, 14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. D., & Heafner, T. L. (2004). Promoting reading comprehension in social studies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(1), 26–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowbray, C., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 315–340.

  • May, H., et al. (2015). Year one results from the multisite randomized evaluation of the i3 scale-up of reading recovery. American Educational Research Journal, Month XXXX, XX(X), 1–35. doi:10.3102/0002831214565788.2015.AERA. http://aerj.aera.net

  • Moje, E., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The complex world of adolescent literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 107–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., Soter, A. O., Henessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s report card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012-457). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: A first look: 2013 mathematics and reading trial urban district assessment (NCEs 2014-466). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ness, M. (2009). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content classrooms: Teacher use of and attitudes towards reading comprehension instruction. Reading Horizons, 49(2), 143–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relation to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84.

  • Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 73–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). The reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(3), 272–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. (2002). Conclusion: Improving comprehension strategy instruction: A path for the future. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrel, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction (pp. 385–399). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Allington, R. (2014). Reading instruction that works: A case for balanced literacy (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Brown, R., El-Dinary, P. B., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). The comprehension instruction that students need: Instruction fostering constructively responsive reading. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 215–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, L., Schuder, T., Begman, J., Amasi, L., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 511–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2002). How can children be taught to comprehend text better (pp. 33–51). Successful reading instruction: Research in educational productivity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, D. N., Broek, P. V. D., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, T. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, T., & Congdon, R. (2010). HLM 7 hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Illinois: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robb, L. (2000). Teaching reading in middle school. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (Eds.). (2004). Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salinger, T. (2003). Helping older, struggling readers. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 47(2), 79–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schallert, D. L., & Martin, D. B. (2003). A psychological analysis of what teachers and students do in the language arts classroom. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 31–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood, J., Fishman, D. J., & Schooler, J. W. (2007). Counting the cost of an absent mind: Mind wandering as an underrecognized influence on educational performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 230–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr, M. S., Kambe, G., Miller, B., & Rayner, K. (2002). Cognitive processes and eye movements during reading. In E. Witruk, A. D. Friederici, & T. Lachmann (Eds.), Basic functions of language and language disorders (pp. 121–136). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vacca, R. T., Vacca, J. A. L., & Mraz, M. E. (2005). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum. New York, NY: Pearson Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Van Leijenhorst, L. (2013). Sensitivity to structural centrality: Developmental and individual differences in reading comprehension skills. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading: From words to multiple texts (pp. 132–146). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, S., et al. (2011). Efficacy of Collaborative Strategic Reading with middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 938–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, S., et al. (2013a). Collaborative Strategic Reading: Findings from experienced implementers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(2), 137–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, S., et al. (2013b). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 77–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, B. J. (2005). Thinking aloud: Struggling readers often require more than a model. The Reading Teacher, 58(7), 688–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanzek, J., et al. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 163–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washington, D.C. Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  • What Works Clearinghouse (WWC, 2013). What works clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook (version 3.0). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/documentsum.aspx?sid=19

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study is funded by a U.S. Department of Education Investing in Innovation Grant, #U396B100143i3. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. Department of Education.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of Colorado Boulder, 249 UCB, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA

    Alison G. Boardman, Janette K. Klingner, Pamela Buckley & Cristin J. Lasser

  2. Department of Special Education, University of Kansas, Joseph R. Pearson Hall, Rm. 537, 1122 West Campus Rd., Lawrence, KS, 66045-3101, USA

    Subini Annamma

Authors
  1. Alison G. Boardman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janette K. Klingner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pamela Buckley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Subini Annamma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cristin J. Lasser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alison G. Boardman.

Additional information

Dr. Janette K. Klingner passed away in March 2014. The legacy of her work with Collaborative Strategic Reading will inform research and practice for years to come.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boardman, A.G., Klingner, J.K., Buckley, P. et al. The efficacy of Collaborative Strategic Reading in middle school science and social studies classes. Read Writ 28, 1257–1283 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9570-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9570-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation