See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/26328467

Teaching Students With Reading Difficulties to be Close Readers: A Feasibility

Study

Article  in  Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · August 2009

DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/07-0096) · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

27 5,173

2 authors, including:

Joanne F. Carlisle
University of Michigan
69 PUBLICATIONS   3,665 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joanne F. Carlisle on 26 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 LSHSS

Clinical Forum

Teaching Students With Reading

Difficulties to be Close Readers:
A Feasibility Study
Lauren A. Katz
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH
Joanne F. Carlisle
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

D uring the primary grades, children learn strategies

for reading words that focus on basic letter-sound
correspondences and syllable types. By the interme-
diate grades, children must become adept at decoding multisyl-
labic words and words with prefixes and suffixes (Schlagel, 1992).
They also need to become fluent readers of texts that place demands
on their ability to understand unfamiliar words and topics. Evi-
dence has suggested that students with reading disabilities need more
explicit and prolonged instruction in higher level decoding strat-
egies, vocabulary, and comprehension strategies in order to acquire
these reading skills (e.g., Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman-
Davis, 2003). Intervention studies for poor readers have focused
primarily on phonological awareness and phonics training, which
has resulted in significant improvements in decoding skills but
not necessarily in reading fluency or comprehension (e.g., Abbott
& Berninger, 1999; Berninger et al., 1999; Torgesen & Hudson,
2006).
In theory, students making slow progress in fluency and com-
prehension might need strategies that link decoding and compre-
hension, along with sufficient guided practice applying these
strategies during reading so that deployment of strategies becomes
habitual. Children with reading disabilities demonstrate not only
slow progress in word reading and vocabulary (e.g., Adams, 1990;
Ehri, 1997; Kuhn & Stahl, 1998), but also limitations in their
knowledge and application of cognitive strategies during reading,
compared to same-age, skilled readers (Garner & Kraus, 1981–82;

ABSTRACT: Purpose: This article describes a program that was
designed to help upper elementary students read and understand
words as they read texts independently. As a first step in helping
middle-to-upper elementary children with mild-to-moderate lan-
guage and/or reading difficulties engage in textual analysis during
reading, the Close Reading program combines instruction in
morphological-analysis and context-analysis strategies with guided
experiences applying these strategies during reading.
Method: To carry out an initial feasibility study of the program, we
conducted 3 case studies using standardized pretest and posttest
measures of language and reading skills and experimental progress
monitoring measures administered before, during, and after instruc-
tion. Three fourth-grade girls participated in the 12-week program.
Results: All 3 students showed improved word reading and
comprehension with small to large effect sizes on standardized and
experimental measures. Patterns of improvement reflected the
initial strengths and weaknesses of the students’ reading and
language skills.
Conclusion: The results suggest that further experimental investi-
gation of this program is warranted. Instruction in morphological-
analysis strategies with guided practice during reading holds
promise as a way to improve word reading and comprehension for
struggling readers in the middle-to-upper elementary years.
KEY WORDS: written comprehension disorders, morphology,
literacy, intervention

LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 40 • 325–340 • July 2009 * American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 325
0161-1461/09/4003-0325
Palincsar & Brown, 1987). For example, Palincsar and Brown
noted that, compared to good readers, poor readers do not see
reading as a search for meaning. They do not monitor their own
comprehension, engage in strategies when there is a breakdown in
comprehension, or modify their choice of strategy to meet the task
demands.
An important step in improving the reading of struggling readers
in the late elementary years is providing strategies for decoding
unfamiliar words in texts and linking these decoding strategies to
word meanings. As Nagy and Scott (2000) argued, students need to
take an active role in word learning, but for this to happen, they
need knowledge about the structure of the words and strategies
for inferring the meanings of words. According to Nagy and Scott,
“context and morphology (word parts) are the two major sources
of information immediately available to a reader who comes across
a new word” (p. 275). Teaching students how to derive meaning
from unfamiliar words as they read is beneficial for building inde-
pendence during reading (Fukkink & deGlopper, 1998).
Analytic Strategies
Morphological analysis (MA). Because morphemes are units
of meaning, MA can provide a basis for both decoding unfamiliar
words and acquiring an understanding of their meanings (Anglin,
1993). As Nagy and Scott (2000, p. 275) stated, “It is hard to
overstate the importance of morphology in vocabulary growth.”
Nagy and Anderson (1984) estimated that 60% of the new words
that a student encounters in reading textbooks are made up of
word parts (base words and affixes) that can assist the reader in
inferring meaning. Second, the prevalence of morphologically
complex words increases in texts as students progress through the
elementary years. Many complex words are not decodable through
application of letter-sound correspondence rules (e.g., partial);
rather, the student needs to recognize the word parts, making use
of mental representations of their sound, spelling, and meanings.
Through exposure to words in text and in oral language contexts,
good readers acquire high-quality lexical representations of words
and common affixes (Reichle & Perfetti, 2003).
Studies have shown that awareness of morphological struc-
ture is related to both word reading and reading comprehension
(Carlisle, 2000; Katz, 2004). Moreover, studies suggest that
struggling readers may benefit from instruction in strategies for
decoding and inferring the meanings of morphologically complex
words in texts (Baumann et al., 2002; White, Power & White,
1989). Evidence from other studies (e.g., Abbott & Berninger,
1999; Berninger et al., 2003; Henry, 1989; Lovett, Lacerenza, &
Borden, 2000) suggests that there is value in teaching elementary
and middle school students with reading disabilities how to use
MA to decode and understand unfamiliar words in texts.
Context analysis (CA). White et al. (1989) argued that MA alone
might not be sufficient for the purpose of deriving the meanings
of words (e.g., the word unassuming means modest, not not as-
suming). In addition, they suggested that context cues might acti-
vate less familiar word meanings, which would improve readers’
chances for success. Context cues are pieces of information found in
text (e.g., synonyms and definitions, antonyms and contrasts, and
examples) that can serve to help readers infer meaning from less
familiar and unfamiliar words that are generally within close prox-
imity to the cues (e.g., “No one wants spiders around. Still, they
come uninvited to every feast that is held.”).
326 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 40 • 325–340 • July 2009
Fukkink and deGlopper (1998) carried out a meta-analysis of
21 instructional treatments aimed at improving strategies for deriv-
ing word meaning from context. They concluded that this type of
instruction could promote vocabulary growth in students. More-
over, research studies (e.g., Buikema & Graves, 1993; Carnine,
Kame’enui, & Coyle, 1984; Jenkins, Matlock, & Slocum, 1989;
McKeown, 1985; Shefelbine, 1990) have shown that normally
achieving students can learn to use context-analysis strategies
effectively for deriving word meaning. Stanovich (1986) argued
that although poor readers do use context, they seem to do so more
for the purpose of facilitating word recognition than for aiding in
comprehension. Other researchers have suggested that students
with language and reading difficulties might benefit from explicit
instruction and guided practice in CA (e.g., Goerss, Beck, &
McKeown, 1999). As Nagy and Scott (2000) pointed out, word-part
analysis and CA work best when they are used in combination.
Benefits of Engagement With Texts
Because upper elementary struggling readers show a lack of
perseverance and other difficulties monitoring their reading of
challenging texts, an effective intervention program should have
the goal of helping them become analytic and engaged readers.1
Initially, application of specific strategies can help struggling readers
overcome habits of skipping hard words when reading and over-
relying on prior knowledge in interpreting the text (Baker & Brown,
1984). Guided experience with strategies designed to support
analysis of the text might promote both language development and
interest in reading (Stanovich, 1986). When such strategies become
second nature to readers, readers are likely to become better at
comprehension monitoring and at the same time learn new words
and word meanings. Students are more likely to be successful,
independent readers if they realize that they are equipped with
effective strategies for figuring out the likely meanings of the un-
familiar words that impede their comprehension during reading.
Given the above review of the literature, we realized how im-
portant it is for students with language and reading difficulties to
become more accustomed to monitoring reading for meaning and
were attuned to the values of analytic reading of texts. In designing
a study to meet this goal, we combined instruction in two word-
level analysis strategies that should improve students’ compre-
hension: morphological-analysis and context-analysis strategies;
however, a central feature of the program was time devoted to
shared reading, during which the students received guided practice
using these strategies to analyze the meaning of unfamiliar words in
texts. We refer to this program as the Close Reading (CR) program.
Three other treatment programs are similar to ours in their focus
on instruction in reading and understanding morphologically com-
plex words, but these have primarily sought to improve students’
decoding and spelling of such words (Berninger et al., 2003; Henry,
1989; Lovett et al., 2000).
Berninger and her colleagues (Berninger et al., 2003) investi-
gated the effectiveness of interventions that focused on either
phonological or morphological awareness. In the morphological
awareness condition, students were taught MA for purposes of
word reading. They worked on activities that were designed to
1
The term “engagement” is used to refer to the idea of helping students become more
independent in their reading of texts by way of connecting with the print in a thoughtful
or active manner.
help them gain insights into the writing system as well as activities
that were designed to use morphemic elements to facilitate word
reading (e.g., building words from base words and affixes). They
received instruction in the meanings of prefixes and suffixes, op-
portunities to highlight and discuss unfamiliar words, and practice
in oral reading fluency and text comprehension. The program for
students in the phonological awareness condition had the same
goals, but the activities in this program focused at the level of
phonemes and graphemes. Results showed that both phonological
and morphological treatments were effective in increasing the
accuracy of phonological decoding for students with reading dis-
abilities. However, no measures of comprehension or vocabulary
were used, as the focus was on improvement of word recognition and
decoding skills.
A second program intended to improve the word reading skills
of students with reading disabilities is Lovett’s PHAST program
(Lovett et al., 2000). This program combines direct instruction
in phonics (called PHAB) and strategy instruction in decoding
(called WIST). Of the four strategies students learned, one involved
MA. This strategy, called “peeling off,” provided extensive train-
ing for students in the recognition of prefixes and suffixes in
morphologically complex words. These researchers reported that
7- to 13-year-olds with severe reading disabilities who were taught
the PHAST program demonstrated significant gains in word
identification skills.
Henry’s program (1988, 1989) involves instruction in word
structure and etymology with the goal of improving students’
reading, spelling, and vocabulary. It combines instruction in lin-
guistic units (e.g., syllables, morphemic units) and word etymology.
The program is organized by instruction by linguistic unit and word
origins; students also practice reading and analyzing sentences
containing target words. Young students are taught sound and let-
ter correspondences through the Anglo-Saxon layer; later lessons
involve the transparent morphological units of Anglo-Saxon (e.g.,
helpful ). Older students receive instruction in the Latinate and
then Greek layers of language, learning relations of word struc-
ture and meaning (e.g., script means write, as in manuscript and
scripture). In one study (Henry, 1989), third- and fifth-grade nor-
mally achieving students and students with learning disabilities who
were taught to analyze word structure made significant gains in
decoding as well as deriving meaning from unfamiliar words.
To our knowledge, only one study has focused on teaching
students to use both morphological-analysis and context-analysis
strategies (Baumann et al., 2002). In this study, fifth graders were
assigned to a morphological-analysis, context-analysis, or com-
bined condition in which they studied words with specific prefixes
that were drawn from science texts (e.g., sub in subsoil). The re-
sults of this study showed that each of the strategy instruction con-
ditions and a condition that combined the two separate strategies
led to significant gains on a vocabulary measure. These results
reinforced our view that readers need to be able to analyze both a
word’s structure and the context in which the word is used. However,
the results showed no significant effects on performance in reading
comprehension. It is possible that the students’ comprehension
might have improved had they received more guidance in applying
word-learning strategies during reading—a possibility we explore
in our study of CR. Thus, the CR program builds on features of
earlier studies (e.g., analysis of word structure) but is unique in its
focus on developing students’ use of morphological-analysis and
context-analysis strategies during reading.
Purpose and Design of This Study
In their systematic review of studies focused on language inter-
vention in school-age children, Cirrin and Gillam (2008) found that
only 21 studies examining the effectiveness or efficacy of inter-
vention practices for this population were carried out since 1985. As
argued by the researchers, this striking finding is disconcerting.
First, the paucity of work in the area of school-age language
intervention means that in their efforts to use the ostensibly man-
dated evidence-based practice (EBP) methods, clinicians have
almost no evidence available to them to allow them to practice in
this manner. Second, and along the same lines, it is difficult to
encourage and train graduate students in the use of EBP approaches
when there are few studies available to them for this purpose. There
are valid reasons that explain why there are so few intervention
studies with disordered populations in general, including difficult-
ies with recruitment and retention of participants with particular
language profiles, and difficulty in procuring the funding neces-
sary for and investing the energy in carrying out expensive, time-
intensive, and uncertain projects (see Brackenbury, Burroughs, &
Hewitt, 2008; Lord et al., 2005). Without a preponderance of high-
quality intervention studies available for the implementation of
EBP, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)
has declared the goal of EBP as an integration of (a) clinical ex-
pertise, (b) best current clinical evidence, and (c) client values in
order to provide high-quality services that are a reflection of the
interests, values, needs, and choices of those who are served by
speech-language pathologists (SLPs; ASHA, 2004).
As a way to evaluate the quality of the evidence that is pre-
sented in published studies, Gillam and Gillam (2006) recommended
using randomly controlled trials or quasi-experimental/comparison
studies of nonrandomized groups to describe Level 1 or Level 2
studies, respectively. In an initial effort to move toward development
of a Level 1 or Level 2 study, the study reported in this article was
developed to explore the feasibility or potential for effectiveness
of an instructional program aimed at improving language and
reading skills in students with mild-to-moderate language and
reading difficulties in the middle-to-upper elementary grades with
differing language and reading profiles. Addressing these research
design issues, Robey and colleagues (Robey, 2004; Robey &
Schultz, 1998) proposed a five-phase model for evaluating the
clinical outcomes of a new treatment protocol. The present study
follows their protocol, as the study is exploratory in nature,
with the goal of identifying whether therapeutic effects might
exist as a result of a clinical intervention. Robey and colleagues
suggested that case studies with pre- and posttests included are
appropriate for this early level of research and that effect sizes
should be calculated as part of determining the potential for
carrying out further study.
To summarize, the purpose of the exploratory study of CR was
to evaluate the potential benefits of a program that is designed to
help struggling readers acquire specific strategies and habits that
might enable them to become more analytic and independent in
their reading of texts; in other words, close readers of texts. Because
struggling students are in need of higher level decoding skills and
comprehension strategies, the particular focus of this program
was designed to provide students with knowledge of and experience
with strategies that would be used during reading. In this program,
instruction in these strategies was accompanied by daily reading
in which the researchers guided the students’ engagement with texts.
Katz & Carlisle: Close Reading 327
In this study, three cases of students with language and reading
difficulties were used to explore the feasibility of this treatment
paradigm. The research questions were as follows:
& Will the targeted instruction have a therapeutic effect on
the participants’ language and reading skills, with particular
changes in the areas of listening and reading comprehension?
& Will the targeted instruction have a therapeutic effect on
the participants’ ability to read and derive meaning from
morphologically complex words, both those encountered and
those not encountered in the treatment sessions?
& Will the targeted instruction have a therapeutic effect on the
participants’ oral reading fluency, in terms of both accuracy
and rate?
& Will the 3 participants differ in improvement in reading
morphologically complex words and understanding passages
with such words? If so, will these differences reflect their
initial language and reading skills?
It was anticipated that instruction that focused on strategies that
students would use during reading might support improvement not
only in word reading accuracy but also in fluency of reading and
comprehension of words and texts. However, it was also expected
that there would be differential progress for each of the students
according to their initial oral language and reading skills. For
example, a participant with significant weaknesses across all areas
of language and reading might show limited improvement in these
areas as a result of such diffuse initial impairment. In contrast, a
participant with less significant weaknesses in these areas might be
more able to make use of the strategies for reading and deriving
meaning from unfamiliar words in texts.
METHOD
As a preliminary examination of the CR program, we conducted
three case studies using pretest and posttest measures of various
language and reading skills. The treatment was designed to help
middle-to-upper elementary students become more engaged and
successful readers of texts as a consequence of being able to read
and derive meaning from unfamiliar complex words.
Participants
Students who demonstrated mild-to-moderate reading and lan-
guage difficulties were recruited from a private clinic. Eligibility was
determined by below grade-level performance on standardized
measures of oral language and/or reading and a history of reading
problems in school. Specifically, selected subtests from the Woodcock-
Johnson Psychoeducational Battery—Revised (WJPB–R; Woodcock
& Johnson, 1989) were administered to determine eligibility.
Below grade-level performance on one or more of the measures
administered in addition to parent report of reading problems in
school qualified students for participation in the study. However,
students were not eligible for participation if both their decoding
and word identification skills were below a second-grade level as
determined by performance on the Letter-Word Identification and
Word Attack subtests of the WJPB–R. This exclusionary criterion
was necessary because students needed to be able to read words in
passages that were appropriate for middle-to-upper elementary
students, passages that contained multisyllabic and morphologically
complex words.
Three fourth-grade girls (all Caucasian) participated in this
program of treatment: EL, SU, and KT. All of the participants’
parents provided informed consent, and all of the participants
provided assent consistent with the institution’s human subjects’
review board. All of the participants had a history of language and
reading difficulties, as reported by their families, and none of the
participants was receiving special education services during the time
of the study. No other educational information was available. Table 1
includes the children’s pretest scores on the WJPB–R subtests.
In this treatment program, performance below a standard score of
90 (below the 25th percentile) was considered to be below average.

Table 1. Pretest and posttest standard scores (and grade equivalents) from selected subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson
Psychoeducational Battery—Revised (WJPB–R; Woodcock & Johnson, 1989).

EL SU KT
Subtest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Letter-Word Identification 95 (3.8) 102 (5.1)** 88 (3.1) 90 (3.6) 93 (3.6) 87 (3.3)***

Effect Size .47 .13 –.40
Word Attack 91 (3.0) 97 (4.1)** 82 (2.0) 90 (3.0)** 79 (1.9) 78 (2.0)
Effect Size .40 .53 –.07
Passage Comprehension 99 (4.2) 117 (7.6)*** 99 (4.2) 106 (5.6)** 85 (2.8) 89 (3.3)**
Effect Size 1.2 .47 .27
Picture Vocabulary 82 (2.0) 96 (4.2)*** 119 (7.2) 115 (7.2)** 91 (2.9) 88 (2.9)*
Effect Size .93 –.27 –.20
Oral Vocabulary 91 (3.3) 99 (4.7)** 103 (4.7) 114 (6.7)** 83 (2.5) 91 (3.7)***
Effect Size .53 .73 .53
Listening Comprehension 97 (3.9) 109 (6.4)*** 103 (4.9) 116 (8.6)*** 75.0 (1.0) 90 (3.1)***
Effect Size .80 .87 1.0

Note. Standard error of measure (SEM) for the students’ grade level (year and month in fourth grade) is as follows for each subtest:
for Letter-Word Identification, pretest 4, posttest 4; for Word Attack, pretest 4, posttest 5; for Passage Comprehension, pretest 5, posttest 6;
for Picture Vocabulary, pretest 6, posttest 6; for Oral Vocabulary, pretest 6, posttest 6; for Listening Comprehension, pretest 7, posttest7.
*Small effect (.2), **moderate effect (.5), ***large effect (.8).

328 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 40 • 325–340 • July 2009
 EL was age 9;11 (years;months) at the start of the treatment
program. Overall, her performance on the WJPB–R measures
suggested low average to average oral language and reading skills,
with the exception of below average performance on picture naming,
which is potentially suggestive of word retrieval difficulties.
SU was age 9;4 at the start of the treatment program. She had a
history of difficulties acquiring word reading skills. Overall, SU’s
performance on the standardized measures was much stronger than
EL’s in terms of her oral language skills; her scores were all solidly
average or above average. Still, SU showed weaknesses in word
recognition decoding.
KT was age 9;7 at the start of the treatment program. She had
been identified as having a language disorder in first grade, and she
had received speech-language therapy the preceding fall from the
clinic; no further information about the nature of this therapy was
provided. At the time of KT’s participation in the program, her
parents were working with school personnel to make arrangements
for appropriate special educational services in school. Pretest per-
formance on the WJPB–R subtests showed significant under-
achievement in almost all areas, with the exception of low average
performance in naming pictures and word recognition. Relative to
EL and SU, KT appeared to be the most impaired in both oral
language and reading skills.
Measures
Standardized measures. Three reading and three language
subtests of the WJPB–R were administered before and after the
intervention program. The reading subtests were Letter-Word
Identification (word reading), Word Attack (nonword decoding),
and Passage Comprehension (reading comprehension); the lan-
guage subtests were Picture Vocabulary (picture naming), Oral
Vocabulary (oral generation of synonyms and antonyms), and
Listening Comprehension (oral comprehension).
Experimental measures. Eighty-two morphologically complex
words were drawn from 16 stories in two books of African folk tales
(The Long Grass Whispers [Elliot, 1968a] and Where the Leopard
Passes [Elliot, 1968b]) that were to be read in the program; the plan was
to read one story per week. These words were semantically transpar-
ent and contained at least one derivational affix (e.g., excitement).2
Appendix A provides a sample of these treatment words. These
82 words were sampled to create two experimental measures: a measure
of word reading and a measure of word comprehension. Both treatment
measures were developed to serve as an index of the children’s abil-
ity to apply the strategies they were taught for decoding and deriving
meaning from the morphologically complex words targeted during
the sessions. A description of the experimental measures follows, and
a testing schedule for all of the measures administered is reported in
Table 2.
Reading Story Words (ReadingSW ): The ReadingSW measure
assessed the students’ accuracy of reading morphologically com-
plex words that were found in the African folk tales that they were
reading. The score reflected the percentage of words that were
2
The word excitement was identified as being semantically transparent because a common
meaning of the base word is retained in the meaning of the derived form. Only words
with common affixes were used (e.g., -ly, -ance, -less). However, we did not control strictly
for familiarity of the meaning of base words. For example, the word undesirable would
be hard to understand if the student did not know the word desire. Words of this type were
needed in order to foster students’ use of CA in conjunction with word analysis.
read correctly. Tests were administered before the intervention
(Pretests A and B), at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 9 weeks, 12 weeks, and
immediately following the intervention (Posttests A and B), for
a total of eight administrations.
Story Words in Context (SWContext): The SWContext measure
assessed the students’ understanding of the morphologically com-
plex words from the African folk tales when they were presented
in sentence contexts. Four forms, each containing 20 multiple-
choice items, were administered at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 9 weeks, and
12 weeks of instruction. Performance was intended to reflect the
students’ comprehension of words that were encountered on prac-
tice exercises and story reading; thus, we chose not to administer
this measure as a pretest. In each form, 15 of the items required the
student to select the best definition for the underlined target word
in the sentence; the correct definition could be chosen based on
knowledge of the word or through use of word analysis. The re-
maining five items required the students to select the most appro-
priate target word to complete the sentence (i.e., a cloze format).
These items required the students to use CA. An example of each
item type follows:
The leopard’s handsome appearance made the men in the fields
want to capture and tame him.
a. look
b. face
c. fur
d. friend
When the wart-hog remembered that his trap had been set and
that it might have caught something, his snout twitched with _____ .
a. distrust
b. business
c. excitement
d. laziness
The score reflected the percentage of items that were correctly
answered.
Transfer Words in Context (TWContext): The TWContext
measure assessed the student’s ability to determine the meaning
of transparent morphologically complex words with common
suffixes such as those used in the SWContext test; however, these
words were not encountered in the instructional sessions. The ex-
tent to which the student was able to apply the strategies for word
learning was inferred. Five forms of this measure were created, each
containing 20 multiple-choice items of two types. The types and
number of items were the same as those used in the SWContext test.
The score reflected the percentage of items that were answered
correctly. Tests were administered before the intervention (Pretests
A and B), at 6 weeks, and immediately following the intervention
(Posttests A and B), for a total of five administrations.
Reading Fluency Test (RFT): The RFT measured the student’s
reading rate and accuracy for a 281-word novel passage contain-
ing 18 morphologically complex words that were not reviewed in
the instructional sessions (e.g., slowly, coldness). Measures of rate
and overall accuracy, as well as a miscue analysis, were used to
assess the students’ reading fluency skills. Reading rate and ac-
curacy are the most typical measures taken to assess an individual’s
fluency during reading. Readers who demonstrate problems with
reading fluency can show decreased reading speed (as measured
in words per minute, or wpm), low levels of word reading accuracy
Katz & Carlisle: Close Reading 329
 Table 2. Testing schedule.

Test Pretest A Pretest B (Week 1) Week 3 Week 6 Week 9 Week 12 Posttest A (Week 12) Posttest B (Week 13)

WJPB–R ( (
RFT ( (
ReadingSW ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (
SWContext ( ( ( (
TWContext ( ( ( ( (

Note. RFT = Reading Fluency Test, ReadingSW = Reading Story Words Test, SWContext = Story Words in Context, TWContext =
Transfer Words in Context.

(as measured in percentage of deviations from print), or both. To
obtain a more informative picture of an individual’s reading fluency,
a thorough examination of deviations from print can be conducted
(i.e., a miscue analysis). Deviations examined often include word
additions, omissions, substitutions, and repetitions. Judgments can
also be made about the extent to which an individual is compre-
hending and/or monitoring his or her comprehension during read-
ing by way of examining whether the deviations from print disrupt
the semantic and/or syntactic integrity of the words, phrases, and
sentences in the text. With the type of intervention being provided
in the CR program, we expected to see the students show an in-
crease in their reading fluency skills by way of improvement in
rate and/or accuracy. The RFT was administered before initiating
intervention and at 12 weeks of instruction (i.e., at the end of the
treatment program).
Procedures
Overview of the program. The CR program was implemented
in a clinical setting over a 12-week period between January and
May of the school year. All 3 participants were seen during the
same time period. The two researchers served as clinicians: one
researcher worked with EL, and one with SU and KT. In terms
of fidelity, plans for all of the sessions were determined before
initiating treatment (including content, activities, and instructional
procedures), and all plans were written. The researchers provided
the intervention within this structured program and kept records
of what was actually covered in each lesson on the written plans
themselves. Content coverage varied somewhat, depending on
students’ need for additional time to go over concepts and activ-
ities. Weekly meetings were held to review program plans and
students’ progress. Additionally, both researchers scored and
double-scored each of the measures to ensure accuracy. Finally,
three of the sessions for each of the participants were video recorded
(at the beginning, middle, and end of the program period), and
analyses, not reported in this article, were carried out by examin-
ing these recordings (see Carlisle, 2006). More specifically, the
researchers observed each other’s lessons on video to evaluate
consistency in terms of adherence to the written instructional
plans. Analyses of these video recordings confirmed complete
fidelity to the content, structure, and instructional approaches
of the lessons.
One researcher met with each student individually twice a
week for a 30-min session. In the first 15 min, students were taught
morphological-analysis strategies. In the first module of the program
(i.e., during the first 8 weeks), the focus was MA; in the second
module (i.e., during the last 4 weeks), it was CA. The MA and CA
strategies were presented separately so that the participants could
learn the purpose and procedures of each. The decision to introduce
strategies one at a time adheres to effective practices for students
with reading difficulties (e.g., Lovett et al., 2000). More time was
allotted for introducing the MA than the CA strategy because in
planning the program, we judged that students would need prelimi-
nary instruction in the morphological structure of words before
learning to use morphological structure as a strategy. However, from
the very beginning of the treatment program, during the second half
of each session when the researcher and the student read African
stories together, both MA and CA strategies were modeled and
discussed. This procedure was deemed necessary because the two
strategies complement each other as students read and seek to
understand unfamiliar words in texts (Nagy & Scott, 2000). Details
of the components of the program follow.
Module 1: MA. During the first 15 min, instruction progressed
from building students’ MA ability to increasing their understand-
ing of common suffixes and prefixes to increasing their under-
standing of etymology (i.e., Latin and Greek roots) and dictionary
use. The high frequency, easily definable prefixes and suffixes
that were used in these instructional activities were pulled from
The Reading Teacher’s Book of Lists (Fry, Kress, & Lee, 2000).
Although the targeted affixes included those found in the targeted
treatment words, we aimed to train students in how to use MA more
generally, so a large set of affixes was used. Students engaged in
practice exercises that included identifying affixes and base words
in speeded drills (e.g., underlining the prefixes and suffixes on
words), Word Sorts (sorting words into categories based on struc-
ture and meaning), and Word Building (constructing morpholog-
ically complex words from prefixes, suffixes, and base words)
(see Appendix B for sample activities).
Module 2: CA. In the ninth week of the program, the first 15 min
of the instruction shifted from a focus on MA to a focus on CA.
One objective was to make the students aware that context could
be helpful for recognizing and deriving meanings from unfamiliar
words. For example, passages with missing words were presented
so that the students would gain experience in analyzing text for
probable meaning and words to fill the blanks.
Another objective was to help the students to identify clues
in passages that could be useful in analyzing words in text. Con-
text clues included highlighting the presence of synonyms and
definitions (e.g., “The man was so persistent that he never gave
up.”), antonyms and contrasts (e.g., “Although some people are
boisterous, others are quiet.”), and examples (e.g., “Root vegetables,
such as potatoes, carrots, and beetsI.”). In addition, the students

330 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 40 • 325–340 • July 2009
were provided with a systematic procedure for using context to
read and/or derive meaning from unfamiliar words, adapted from
Jenkins et al. (1989), which we termed the SLAP strategy.
SAY the unknown word to yourself.
LOOK for passage clues to the meaning of the word.
ASK yourself what the word might mean: Find a word or phrase
that shows the meaning.
PUT the definition in the passage to see if it makes sense.
This strategy was initially practiced using sentence-level and
paragraph-level exercises in the first half of the lesson. Then, dur-
ing shared reading, the SLAP strategy was occasionally modeled
by the researcher until the students began to use it independently
(see Appendix B for a sample of CA activities).
Story reading. In the second half of each session, the student
and researcher read an African folk tale together. Shared reading
allowed both the researcher and the student to have some control
over what each person would read. The researcher could stop
reading at any point (even mid-sentence), indicating that it was the
student’s turn. This immediate switch could be used to give the
student the opportunity to practice reading a target word. The stu-
dent could also decide to stop reading at any point, at which time the
researcher took over the reading.
While reading the story, the researcher modeled strategic
behaviors by thinking aloud during the shared reading experiences.
The primary strategic behaviors carried out by the researcher
included stopping to ponder the meaning of an unfamiliar word
(i.e., the specified targets) and then applying MA and/or CA
strategies to derive the meaning of the word. As noted above,
whereas the explicit activities targeted either MA or CA depending
on the module, the story reading portion of the sessions was not
limited to using one method or another. Rather, the method or
methods that were best suited for deriving meaning from a tar-
geted word were used. On average, there were five or six mor-
phologically complex words within each story that were selected as
targets for application of morphological-analysis strategies. In
addition, the researcher engaged in other think-aloud behaviors that
have been used widely by skilled readers (see e.g., Cote & Goldman,
1999; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995): expressing uncertainty about
the meaning of a section of text that was just read and going back to
reread for clarification, stopping to summarize events, stopping to
personify characters, stopping to make predictions about what might
happen next, and stopping to relate events or other information in the
text to previous stories read or personal experiences.
All of these think-aloud behaviors also served as exemplars for
the students on how to engage with texts during reading. The fre-
quency and richness of the thinking aloud that the researcher pro-
vided decreased over time, with the aim of gradually relinquishing
responsibility of thinking aloud from the researcher to the student.
The hope was that the student would begin initiating the strategic
behaviors and/or only require cues to do so from the researcher. For
example, early on in the program, the instructor might say, “That’s
an interesting wordIsatinyIhmmmII wonder what that might
mean? Do you see a base word in that word?” Or, “You just read the
word, countless. What do you think it means here? Do you think
it would be helpful to use the SLAP strategy to look for clues in the
sentence that can help you?” After several weeks of shared read-
ing, the researcher might say, “I noticed an unfamiliar word in that
sentence—did you?” The final objective was for the students to
integrate the MA and CA strategies independently during reading.
Progress monitoring with experimental measures. Before, dur-
ing, and after the 12-week program, the students were administered
the three experimental measures: ReadingSW, SWContext, and
TWContext. The goal was to examine the students’ ability to read
accurately words from the stories, presented out of context; their
ability to identify the correct meaning of such words in sentence
contexts; and their ability to use MA and CA strategies to infer
meanings of words in context that were not found in the stories that
were used during treatment. Students were given opportunities to
examine their performance on each of these measures, a procedure
that was included in order to promote self-assessment of reading.
RESULTS
Performance on Standardized Measures
of Reading and Language
Evaluation of the feasibility of the CR program entailed ex-
amining the therapeutic effects as determined by improved per-
formance on standardized tests assessing reading and language
skills. We used two methods for evaluating progress on standard-
ized measures: effect size and standard error of measure (SEM).
Progress on standardized measures of reading and language fol-
lowing instruction in morphological-analysis strategies was deter-
mined by comparing the pre- and posttest results for the reading and
language subtests, as reported in Table 1. We computed the effect of
the intervention over and above what would be considered typical
development. So, using this reasoning, the effect size would be the
change in standard score from pretest to posttest (assuming that
there would be no change in standard score if the intervention had
no effect) divided by the standard deviation of 15 (i.e., the standard
deviation on the WJPB–R). We used Cohen’s (1988) descriptive
rankings of effect sizes: small effect, .2; moderate effect, .5; large
effect, .8. In addition, we report the SEM for each subtest at pre-
test and posttest; SEM provides a statistical estimate of the amount
of error that is inherent in a score and so can be used to provide
an indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed in an
obtained score. We reasoned that nonoverlapping pre- and posttest
SEMs suggested clinical improvement in the skills measured.
Reading subtests. Gains on the Passage Comprehension subtest
of the WJPB–R were notable for all 3 girls; effect sizes were in
the small-to-large categories (range = .3 to 1.2). The largest gain
was made by EL (standard score [SS] of 99 to 117), followed by
SU (99 to 106 SS) and then KT (85 to 89 SS), and EL’s improve-
ment was clinically significant given that it was outside of the SEM.
Although we did not expect noteworthy growth in alphabetic
decoding skills or recognition of common sight words, the re-
sults showed small and moderate effect sizes, although within the
SEM, in Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack. In short,
although all 3 girls made gains in comprehension, progress in
Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack was variable; only
EL made gains on both measures.
Language subtests. All 3 girls made noteworthy gains on the
Listening Comprehension subtest of the WJPB–R; the large effect
sizes ranged from .8 to 1.0, and KT’s improvement was clinically
significant. Overall, the smaller gains on reading as compared to
Listening Comprehension might be attributable at least in part to the
girls’ continuing weaknesses in basic word attack skills. We had not
Katz & Carlisle: Close Reading 331
anticipated that the girls would make substantial gains on the Table 3. EL’s performance on the progress monitoring measures
vocabulary measures (Oral Vocabulary and Picture Vocabulary) (% correct).
because of the relative brevity of the treatment program. None-
theless, all 3 girls made moderate gains on Oral Vocabulary. Only
EL made gains on Picture Vocabulary, and the effect size was large. Pretest Posttest
A and B During treatment A and B
We note that EL and SU started the project with listening and reading
comprehension performances in the average range, whereas KT was
significantly below average on these subtests. Therefore, KT’s improve- ReadingSW 48 48 52 33 71 95 48 86
ment from 75 to 90 SS on Listening Comprehension may suggest SWContext 85 85 81
TWContext 55 55 65 84 85
improvement in attention and comprehension monitoring, along with
improvement in analysis of short passages for comprehension.
Note. All measures were not administered at all time points.

Performance on Experimental Measures SU made substantial progress on the ReadingSW measure

The participants varied in the extent to which they showed
improvement in reading morphologically complex words taken
from the stories (ReadingSW), selecting the meaning of morpho-
logically complex words in short passages (i.e., words found in
the stories) (SWContext), and selecting the meaning of complex
words in passages that were not taken from the stories (transfer
words, TWContext) (see Tables 3, 4, and 5). To examine the
students’ progress, visual analysis was employed for all three mea-
sures, and a standardized mean difference formula was applied
for the ReadingSW and TWContext measures (see Kromrey &
Foster-Johnson, 1996). The standardized mean difference formula
used was as follows: mean posttest – mean pretest/standard devia-
tion of pretest = d. The value d represented the effect size. Per-
formance on the experimental measures for each of the participants
is described below.3
EL demonstrated an increase in performance on the ReadingSW
measure across time. Her pretest performance (average of pretest
A and B) was 48% correct, whereas her posttest performance
(average of posttest A and B) was 67% correct. Only EL was
available to participate in two delayed posttests (approximately
2 weeks following completion of Posttest B). On these, her scores
were 81% and 95% correct (a mean performance of 88% correct).
These delayed posttest scores suggest that EL maintained her skills
with reading morphologically complex words; her last two treat-
ment scores were 71% and 95%, and her two posttest scores
were 48% and 86%. The test items were read aloud to EL for
the SWContext and TWContext measures when they were first
administered, so this procedure was followed during and after
treatment assessments as well.4 On the SWContext measures,
EL maintained steady performance at three times (85%, 85%,
and 81% accuracy).5 On the TWContext measures of the 3 students,
EL made the greatest progress, moving from aproximately 55%
correct at pretest to 84% and 85% correct on the posttests. Again,
only EL was available to participate in two delayed TWContext
posttests. On these, she maintained a mean performance of 84.5%
correct, indicating that her ability to infer the meanings of unfamiliar
words from structural and CA remained steady for several weeks.
across time. Her average pretest performance was 33.5% correct,
and her average posttest performance was 78.5% correct. The
standardized mean difference resulted in a large effect size (ES =
6.997). On the SWContext measures, SU’s performance fluctuated
somewhat over the four time points, reflected by scores of 80%,
65%, 77%, and 85% accuracy. On the TWContext measures, SU’s
pretest scores were 50% and 35% correct; on the posttests, she
scored 55% and 50% correct. SU seems to have made relatively
little progress in terms of deriving meaning on her own from treated
and untreated words in passages. The fluctuation of her scores
mirrors an insecurity in her that we observed when she was decod-
ing unfamiliar words, a difficulty that then affected her ability to
infer meanings of these words in context. Nonetheless, the stan-
dardized mean difference in SU’s performance on the TWContext
measure was large (ES = .94).
KT’s average pretest performance on the ReadingSW mea-
sure was 21.5% correct, and her average posttest performance was
47.5%. Although her posttest score mean was low, KT’s growth
from pretest to posttest was large (ES = 2.45). On the SWContext
measures, KT started with a weak performance (45% correct).
Although she seemed to show good progress in assessing meaning
of the story words on the subsequent two tests (60% and 68%
correct), her final score was 55% correct. This initial trend of im-
provement may suggest an increased ability to recall words that
had been discussed and perhaps to use clues from the sentence con-
text to infer meaning; however, the reason for her lack of sustained
improvement is not clear. On the TWContext measures, KT made
remarkable progress, moving from 25% and 40% correct on the
pretests to 60% and 40% on the posttests. Her progress from pretest
to posttest resulted in a large effect (ES = 1.65). Overall, KT had
limited success on all of the progress monitoring measures, a finding
that is in keeping with her underachievement in language and reading
on the standardized language and reading measures.
Table 4. SU’s performance on the progress monitoring measures
(% correct).

3
Standardized mean difference scores could not be calculated for EL because her Pretest Posttest
two pretest scores on both the ReadingSW and the TWContext measures were the A and B During treatment A and B
same, which resulted in a standard deviation of zero for each measure. However, it
should be noted that EL’s improvement with visual analysis was remarkable.
4
Due to researcher error, the SWContext and TWContext items were read aloud to EL, ReadingSW 38 29 55 62 86 86 81 76
but not to KT and SU. SWContext 80 65 77 85
5
TWContext 50 35 60 55 50
The score for one of the four SWContext measures is missing.

332 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 40 • 325–340 • July 2009
Table 5. KT’s performance on the progress monitoring measures Table 6. Percentage of EL’s miscues at pre- and posttest on the RFT.
(% correct).

Miscues Pretest Posttest

Pretest Posttest
A and B During treatment A and B
Total 14% 15%
Substitutions 84% 57%
ReadingSW 14 29 27 41 57 71 52 43 Omissions 3% 7%
SWContext 45 60 68 55 Additions 5% 5%
TWContext 25 40 45 60 40 Repetitions 8% 24%
Self-corrections 17% 31%
Nonwords 28% (22%) 16% (13%)
Semantic changes 86% (71%) 81% (53%)
Syntactic changes 57% (43%) 63% (44%)
Performance on the RFT Phonemic/graphemic similarity 76% 81%
Morphological changes 24% (18%) 15% (12%)
Using performance on the RFT, we compared pretest and Morphologically complex words 20% (14%) 14% (14%)
posttest reading speed, levels of overall accuracy, and types of
miscues. The performance of the 3 girls differed noticeably. For
Note. The first value includes the percentage of miscues that were self-corrected.
KT, there was no change in the time it took her to read the passage at The value in parentheses reflects the percentage of uncorrected miscues (i.e.,
pretest and posttest (260 s vs. 253 s). Although she made fewer those that were not self-corrected). Percentages for the following miscue types
miscues on the posttest, both the large number of errors and her (i.e., substitutions, omissions, additions, repetitions, self-corrections, nonwords,
reading speed document her lack of fluency on this task (pretest = semantic changes, syntactic changes, phonemic/graphemic similarity) represent
proportions for each type within the total number of miscues recorded. “Mor-
51 wpm read accurately and posttest = 57 wpm read accurately). phological changes” refer to any morphological alterations that were made to any
For SU, her initial reading of the passage was very slow (294 s), of the words in the passage. “Morphologically complex words” refer to miscues
but her reading at posttest was notably faster (202 s). At pretest, that were observed on any of the 18 targeted morphologically complex words
SU made 24 errors (13 miscues, 11 repetitions); at posttest, she embedded in the passage.
made 15 errors (10 miscues and 5 repetitions). Additionally,
an improvement in her wpm was noted: pretest = 53 wpm and 31%, and the percentage of repetitions increased from 8% to
posttest = 77 wpm. 24% between pretest and posttest.
Because improvement in reading fluency often reflects im-
provements in overall rate and accuracy, and because we did not see
this in EL’s case, we decided to carry out a more extensive analysis
of EL’s performance on the RFT passage. For her, there was no DISCUSSION
difference in overall reading speed between pretest and posttest
(211 s vs. 213 s, respectively), there was a slight increase in total Beginning at approximately fourth grade, students are ex-
miscues from pretest to posttest (14% to 15%, respectively), and posed to texts containing a large number of unfamiliar words
her wpm scores were equivalent (pretest = 69 wpm and posttest = with transparent morphological structure, such that the morphemic
68 wpm). However, further analysis of her miscues showed a constituents (base word and affixes) can be used to aid both in
noteworthy change in her performance from pretest to posttest, decoding and in inferring the meaning of the word in context (Nagy,
suggesting an overall improvement in word recognition skills and Anderson, Schommer, Scott, & Stallman, 1989). Skill in using
comprehension monitoring. Table 6 shows a summary of EL’s context to infer word meanings is particularly useful for words
miscues at pretest and at posttest. whose meaning is not clearly indicated by analysis of morpholog-
First, on both pretest and posttest, the percentage of EL’s ical structure (Baumann et al., 2002). However, students with
miscues that were similar in pronunciation or spelling to the target reading difficulties are less able than their normally reading peers
word (e.g., manic for maniac, stick for stack, science for since) was at reading and understanding complex words in isolation and in
substantial, suggesting that her application of phonics principles texts. Persistent word reading and comprehension problems neg-
for reading is present but unstable. Second, among the total mis- atively affect motivation, self-esteem, and productive engagement
cues, the percentage of substitutions decreased from 84% to 57% with written texts (Stanovich, 1986).
from pretest and posttest. Third, among the words that were sub- To prevent increasingly pervasive problems with engagement
stituted, the percentage of nonwords produced (e.g., bizzen for and reading competence, research suggests that a reading program
businessman, goble for global, fayshun for fashion) decreased from for students in the middle-to-late elementary years might include
pretest to posttest (28% to 16%). Fourth, morphological miscues instruction in methods to analyze unfamiliar words in texts as
were examined. Two calculations were carried out: first, from they read. Such analysis begins with pronunciation of words that
pretest to posttest, among the total miscues observed, miscues initially do not look familiar, as some might in fact be in the stu-
involving changes to the morphological structure of words in dents’ oral vocabulary. It also involves inferring the meaning of
the passage (e.g., cold for coldness, blush for bluish) decreased words based on structural and CA. When students can infer the
from 24% to 15%. Additionally, among the18 morphologically meanings of words that are critical to understanding a passage,
complex words that were embedded in the passage, miscues they are more likely to engage in self-monitoring their own com-
were recorded for 20% of these words at pretest and 14% of prehension. In theory, then, independent use of morphological-
these words at posttest. Finally, the percentage of miscues analysis strategies during reading should lead to improved
that were self-corrected during reading increased from 17% to comprehension of texts for struggling readers.

Katz & Carlisle: Close Reading 333

 Having developed the CR program to reflect these principles,
we designed a study of its feasibility, as defined and described by
Robey and Schultz (1998). We carried out three case studies with
fourth-grade girls with mild-to-moderate difficulties acquiring
reading and language skills. The 3 participants, who had different
reading and language skills, were taught with the same lesson
plans and procedures and were administered the same progress
monitoring measures during treatment. The feasibility of this ini-
tial implementation of the program was assessed both through
examination of performance on standardized and experimental tests
administered before and after treatment and by considering the
extent to which each student’s progress was in line with expecta-
tions, given their initial reading and language profiles.
The results showed that the participants made noteworthy
gains in reading and listening comprehension and, in some cases,
word reading and oral vocabulary. These are reflected in the effect
sizes reported in Table 1. Although all 3 participants demonstrated
large gains on the Listening Comprehension subtest, only KT’s
progress was clinically significant, as demonstrated by gains
outside of the SEM. On the Passage Comprehension subtest, all
3 participants again demonstrated growth (with small, moderate,
and large effect sizes), and EL’s growth was clinically significant.
However, the fact that many of the gains were within the SEM
does not totally undermine their value, as the students did show
notable improvement. Additionally, progress on experimental
measures was significant using both visual analysis and standard-
ized mean difference calculations. We explore these preliminary
findings by first considering the progress made by the participants
(even in the absence of clinical significance), then reflecting on
the extent to which response to the program followed expectations
for each participant. Finally, we consider limitations of the study
and steps that might be taken to explore further this method of
addressing the problems of students with reading difficulties in
the late elementary and middle school years.
Students’ Progress in Reading
and Listening Comprehension
All 3 participants made progress in reading and listening com-
prehension, with effect sizes on the WJPB–R subtests ranging
from small to large. Their progress in comprehension might indicate
that participation in the program affected their ability to identify
and use context clues to derive meaning from unknown words.
Additionally, their experiences working on unfamiliar words in
the narrative stories might have helped them learn to engage in self-
monitoring of text comprehension and to persist when difficult
words were encountered. Based on these findings, linking instruc-
tion in the decoding and meaning-making of complex words and
practicing strategies to understand complex words in texts might
be a beneficial supplement to the programs that have been success-
ful in improving the decoding skills of students in the late elemen-
tary and middle school years (e.g., Berninger et al., 2003; Henry,
1989; Lovett et al., 2000).
Differential Progress, Given Initial Language
and Reading Profiles
One reason for using case studies as a method to investigate the
feasibility of the CR program was that it offered a chance to explore
334 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 40 • 325–340 • July 2009
its effectiveness for students with reading problems of different
types and levels of severity. The 3 girls started out with different
strengths and weaknesses in reading and language, as Table 1
shows. Our evaluation indicates that each of the students may have
benefited in some way. All 3 students made progress in reading and
listening comprehension. Other aspects of their progress must be
seen in relation to the strengths and weaknesses of each student.
SU presented with specific problems in word reading and word
attack. Her vocabulary was well above average. At posttest, SU
showed notable gains on the Word Attack subtest (82 to 90 SS ),
but clearly her basic decoding and word reading continued to be
weaker than her language comprehension. We had expected SU
to make progress in word reading, on the premise that morphemes
would give her recognizable, meaningful units within longer
words. Gains in decoding and word reading (along with practic-
ing morphological-analysis strategies while reading) might lead to
gains in reading comprehension. We saw substantial progress on the
Reading SW measures—her pretest scores were 39% and 29%
correct; her posttest scores were 81% and 76% correct. Still, her
ability to apply these strategies during reading was limited, and
her decoding problems affected performance on the SWContext
and TWContext measures. SU was particularly vocal about her
struggles reading words, regularly telling the researcher that a long
word “looked like Chinese.” She also tended not to take risks.
Her cautious nature and her basic decoding problem continued to
hold her back; by the end of the program, her vocabulary continued
to be much stronger than her reading comprehension. It was her
listening comprehension, not her reading comprehension, that
showed particular improvement by the end of the program. It seems
likely that SU would have benefited from additional work on phonics
and decoding strategies, as MA did not help her read such words as
occasionally; even if she could manage the suffix, she still had to
contend with the base word.
At pretest, KT showed significant weaknesses in vocabulary,
listening comprehension, passage comprehension, and word at-
tack on the WJPB–R. Given her pervasive difficulties in language
and reading, we did not expect KT to make substantial gains in any
one area. However, KT’s performance on the WJPB–R posttest
showed noteworthy gains in oral vocabulary and significant gains in
listening comprehension; her reading showed some progress but
remained an area of significant concern. Performance on the prog-
ress monitoring measures showed some positive signs that she
was improving her word reading and meaning-making skills.
However, although KT made some progress through her partici-
pation in the CR program, her profile at the end indicates the
need for extensive remediation in both language and reading.
EL’s weaknesses were mild in all areas at the start of the pro-
gram, but she benefited from the program nonetheless—if stan-
dardized and experimental language and reading scores provide
grounds for such a conclusion. At the start of the program, EL
showed weak decoding skills and considerable impatience. She
had a tendency to rush when asked to read aloud, paying little
attention to the meaning of the text. It seemed likely that the
CR program would provide her with strategies to work out the
pronunciation and meaning of unfamiliar words and to become
more used to monitoring the meaning of sentences and passages
as she read. Her standardized test scores show gains in all areas,
but particularly in reading comprehension, which was clinically
significant. Of particular interest was the change in EL’s oral
reading behaviors. The rate of her oral reading did not change;
in fact, she approached oral reading more carefully, making fewer
errors that were gross substitutions and more repetitions as she
attempted to sound out and make sense of the written words. Addi-
tionally, her miscues that impacted the morphological structure of
the printed words decreased from pretest to posttest, suggesting the
possibility that she was becoming more sensitive to morphemic
units in printed words, namely prefixes and suffixes. These changes
reflect progress toward becoming a more engaged reader—a close
reader.
In summary, for the 3 participants, the most noticeable gains
were in reading and listening comprehension on the standardized
measures. Performance on the transfer word progress monitoring
measure was also a promising indication that the students were
benefiting from guided practice, as 2 of the 3 girls showed progress
on this measure. They also made some progress in working out the
meanings of words that they had encountered in reading the African
folk tales (SWContext). These preliminary findings support Nagy
and Scott’s (2000) suggestion that students should benefit from
learning to use both MA and CA, although our findings showed
that the extent of students’ responses to the program varied. It is
important to keep in mind that the students received 12 hr of in-
struction over 12 weeks; for KT, in particular, longer sessions and
a longer lasting program might have been needed to bring about
more substantial changes in her reading. The results are compatible
with the findings of others who have indicated that the design of
reading programs for students with reading disabilities should take
into account the nature of their initial language and reading profiles
(e.g., Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003).
Finally, analysis of students’ gains in fluency on one passage,
read before and after participation in the program, indicated that
progress is not always seen simply in speed of reading. In the ini-
tial stages of learning to apply morphological-analysis strategies,
students might move through the text more deliberately than they
had before learning the strategies. Given the current concern for
lack of improvement in fluency for struggling readers who have
received phonics remediation (Torgesen & Hudson, 2006), we see
this as an important implication. The job of “making meaning”
while reading depends a good deal on automaticity of decoding, and
for struggling readers, this job goes on requiring attention and time.
Presumably, with more experience, increases in fluency would
result (Levy, 2001).
Evaluation of the CR Program
Although the CR program is in the initial stages of study,
there are indications of promising practices that clinicians might
want to explore—not only because they appear to have benefited
students in this feasibility study, but also because they have been
found effective in other studies. First, the morphological- and
context-analysis strategies appear to be appropriate for the pur-
pose of helping middle-to-upper elementary students gain inde-
pendence in reading texts for meaning. Taught separately at first,
as recommended also by Lovett et al. (2000), students had an
opportunity to learn how to use the strategy. Used together while
reading stories, the two strategies reinforced each other, as recom-
mended by Nagy and Scott (2000).
Our analyses of the students’ engagement in the shared reading of
stories provide support for the standardized and experimental test
results in that the students, over time, took on greater responsibility
in figuring out the meanings of unfamiliar words. The following
excerpts from student–clinician discourse show both changes in the
clinician’s scaffolding of one students’ analysis of text and this
student’s increasing ability to participate in word analysis during
reading (Carlisle, 2006).
Excerpt 1
Clinician (C): Oh, okay [starts reading] “Of course, Najeeri
didn’t know if he’d forgotten anythingIand hadn’t it been set as
cunningly as any trap that had ever been laid?” Do you know that
word, “cunningly”?
Student (S): I think “cunningly” means, like, the best trap or
something?
C: You’re on the right track, yeah.
S: I know.
C: Highlight it [points to text] and see, ya know, uhm, “cunning” is
“clever.”
Excerpt 2
S: [Reading from text] “Time to get up, he muttered with a yawn.
Time to get up [repeated with a sleepy intonation] [Both student and
teacher laugh] Not there, not that there is anything to get up for. Or
is there? He frowned thoughtfully.”
C: That’s a good word: “thoughtfully.”
S: I know what “thoughtfully” is.
C: [Nods expectantly]
S: Like you’re thinking of someone, like, ahh [smiles]
C: You’re full of thought?
S: Yeah.
In the first excerpt, the clinician raised the question about the
word cunningly, asked the student to “highlight it,” and prompted
discussion of the meaning. In the second excerpt, the clinician
simply remarked that thoughtfully is a “good word.” The student,
now accustomed to having conversations about words, volunteered
that she knew the meaning and offered a definition. These exam-
ples show a transition that might have been important in the transfer
of the strategy instruction to the student’s reading of texts.
Another insight that might be useful to clinicians is the extent
to which learning to be a close reader leads to fluent reading. In
designing the CR program, we had initially thought that the students
would makes gains in the fluency of their text reading (Levy, 2001;
Torgesen & Hudson, 2006). However, this turned out not to be
the case. We have come to realize that EL’s performance on the oral
reading measure is probably what should be expected: Students
must first slow down to apply the strategies that they are learning.
Only when the use of such strategies takes place automatically and
relatively effortlessly would we be likely to see gains in fluency.
Thus, we observed changes in reading behavior that foreshadow
improvements in fluency (e.g., fewer major reading miscues), but
a longer lasting instructional program would be required to see
changes in the rate of passage reading.
Finally, we feel that it is important to acknowledge the feasibility
of carrying out this kind of intervention from the clinician’s per-
spective. First, the participants in our study seemed to demon-
strate therapeutic benefit following only 12 hr of treatment. This
suggests that a clinician might not need to invest tremendous
amounts of time in teaching these strategies in order to see benefits.
Second, in addition to narrative texts, these strategies can be applied
to making meaning from expository or informational texts (see
Katz, Philip, & Jenks, 2006). This allows clinicians to support
Katz & Carlisle: Close Reading 335
teachers in their teaching of subject-specific vocabulary and con-
cepts embedded in specific classroom texts (e.g., science, social
studies).
Last, modified versions of the CR program have been ex-
amined for feasibility, with success, with a pair of students (Katz,
Carlisle, & Stone, 2002) and a trio of students (Katz et al., 2006),
suggesting that instruction in the understanding and implementation
of MA and CA strategies has the potential to be therapeutically
beneficial when it is provided to small groups of students. This
is significant given the many challenges currently facing SLPs who
are working in school settings. Specifically, ASHA asserts that
the expertise and experience that SLPs have in normal and dis-
ordered language prepares them to play an active role in literacy
development and remediation (ASHA, 2001, 2002). This means
that ASHA’s Scope of Practice in Speech-Language Pathology now
includes treatment and intervention in the area of reading (ASHA,
2000). Effectively managing large caseloads (Kaegi, Svitich,
Chambers, Bakker, & Schneider, 2002) and effectively providing
services in the classroom (Farber & Klein, 1999) are two additional
challenges facing school-based SLPs. With further investigation,
the CR program has the potential to be of use to school-based SLPs
who are targeting written language difficulties in small-group and
classroom contexts.
Limitations
We designed this program based on the current literature and
research supporting the importance of contextual and morpholog-
ical knowledge in assissting readers as they advance beyond the
early stages. Although we were able to implement the program
successfully, the uncontrolled pretest–posttest design allows
for only cautious optimism. We were unable to control for the
effects of concurrent reading instruction and normal development.
Raters were not blind to treatment status. The investigation of
this intervention paradigm in an experimental framework is
needed.
These limitations provide direction for further study. One
important feature that needs to be explored is the amount of time
that would be needed for students to learn to use MA and CA
strategies entirely on their own. A second issue is the extent to
which students with specific decoding difficulties should receive
additional instruction in decoding to supplement the CR program.
The more severe the reading and language problems, the longer
the program should be and the more likely that the program is just
one part of a more comprehensive treatment plan. The need to
explore these aspects of the CR program features are particularly
evident in the case of KT, the student who had significant weak-
nesses in both language and reading development and who made
the least progress in this CR feasibility study.
Summary
Intervention programs for struggling readers in the middle-to-
late elementary years primarily focus on comprehension strategies
(e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1987) or decoding skills, including, in
some cases, MA (e.g., Berninger et al., 2003, Lovett et al., 2000).
However, such programs have not attempted to link instruction in
decoding to strategies for inferring meanings of unfamiliar words
while reading. This preliminary exploration of the CR program
is one effort to fill this gap. Findings from the three case studies
336 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 40 • 325–340 • July 2009
suggest that the participating fourth-grade students did show growth
in their reading and comprehension skills following instruction
and practice with natural texts. The findings from the case studies
are sufficiently encouraging to suggest the value of further study of
this and similar programs, which might serve as a missing com-
ponent in reading instruction for struggling readers in the late
elementary and middle school years.
REFERENCES
Abbott, S. P., & Berninger, V. W. (1999). It’s never too late to remediate:
Teaching word recognition to students with reading disabilities in grades
4–7. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 223–250.
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000). Guidelines
for the roles and responsibilities of the school-based speech-language
pathologist. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Roles and
responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to reading
and writing in children and adolescents. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2002). Knowledge
and skills needed by speech-language pathologists with respect to
reading and writing in children and adolescents. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Report of the
Joint Coordinating Committee on Evidence-Based Practices. Retrieved
February 14, 2008, from www.asha.org.
Anglin, J. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
58(10, Serial No. 238).
Baker, L., & Brown, A. C. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In
P. D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Barr, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 353–394). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Font, G., Tereshinski, C. A.,
Kame’enui, E. J., & Olejnik, S. F. (2002). Teaching morphemic and
contextual analysis to fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly,
37, 150–176.
Berninger, V. B., Nagy, W. E., Carlisle, J. F., Thomson, J., Hoffer, D.,
Abbott, S., et al. (2003). Effective treatment for children with dyslexia
in grades 4–6: Behavioral and brain evidence. In B. Foorman (Ed.),
Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to
scale ( pp. 382–417). Baltimore: York Press.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Zook, D., Ogier, S., Lemos-Britton, Z., &
Brooksher, R. (1999). Early intervention for reading disabilities:
Teaching the alphabetic principle in a connectionist framework. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 32, 491–503.
Brackenbury, T., Burroughs, E., & Hewitt, L. E. (2008). A qualitative
examination of current guidelines for evidence-based practice in child
language intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 39, 78–88.
Buikema, J. L., & Graves, M. F. (1993). Teaching students to use con-
text cues to infer word meanings. Journal of Reading, 36, 450–457.
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of mor-
phologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 169–190.
Carlisle, J. F. (2006). Fostering morphological processing, vocabulary
development, and reading comprehension. In R. Wagner, A. Muse, &
K. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary development and its implications for
reading comprehension ( pp. 78–103). New York: Guilford Press.
Carnine, D., Kame’enui, E. J., & Coyle, G. (1984). Utilization of con-
textual information in determining the meaning of unfamiliar words.
Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 188–204.
Cirrin, F. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2008). Language intervention practices
for school-age children with spoken language disorders: A systematic review.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, S110–S137.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cote, N., & Goldman, S. R. (1999). Building representations of infor-
mational text: Evidence from children’s think-aloud protocols. In
H. von Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of
mental representations during reading ( pp. 169–193). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Ehri, L. C. (1997). Sight word learning in normal readers and dyslexics.
In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia
( pp. 163–189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Elliot, G. (1968a). The long grass whispers. New York: Schoecken Books.
Elliot, G. (1968b). Where the leopard passes. New York: Schoecken Books.
Farber, J., & Klein, E. (1999). Classroom-based assessment of a collab-
orative intervention program with kindergarten and first-grade students.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 83–91.
Fry, E. B., Kress, J. E., & Lee, D. (2000). The reading teacher’s book of
lists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fukkink, R. G., & deGlopper, K. (1998). Effects of instruction in deriving
word meaning from context: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 68, 450–469.
Garner, R., & Kraus, C. (1981–82). Good and poor comprehender dif-
ferences in knowing and regulating reading behaviors. Educational
Research Quarterly, 6, 5–12.
Gillam, S. L., & Gillam, R. B. (2006). Making evidence-based decisions
about childlanguage intervention in schools. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services inSchools, 37, 304–315.
Goerss, B. L., Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1999). Increasing remedial
students’ ability to derive word meaning from context. Reading Psy-
chology, 20, 151–175.
Henry, M. K. (1988). Beyond phonics. Integrated decoding and spelling
instruction based on word origin and structure. Annals of Dyslexia, 38,
258–275.
Henry, M. K. (1989). Children’s word structure and knowledge: Implica-
tions for decoding and spelling instruction. Reading and Writing, 1,
135–152.
Jenkins, J. R., Matlock, B., & Slocum, T. A. (1989). Two approaches to
vocabulary instruction: The teaching of individual word meanings and
practice in deriving word meaning from context. Reading Research
Quarterly, 24, 215–235.
Kaegi, S., Svitich, K., Chambers, L., Bakker, C., & Schneider, P. (2002).
Job satisfaction of school speech-language pathologists. Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 26, 126–137.
Katz, L. A. (2004). An investigation of the relationship of morphological
awareness to reading comprehension in fourth and sixth graders (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Michigan, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 65, 2138.
Katz, L. A., Carlisle, J. F., & Stone, C. A. (2002, July). The making of
close readers: Instruction that bridges decoding and meaning. Poster
session presented at the Society for Scientific Study of Reading Confer-
ence, Chicago, IL.
Katz, L. A., Philip, B. A., & Jenks, B. K. (2006, November). Teaching
strategic reading in small groups: Feasibility & effectiveness. Poster
session presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-
Language-Hearing Association, Miami, FL.
Kromrey, J. D., & Foster-Johnson, L. (1996). Determining the efficacy of
intervention: The use of effect sizes for data analysis in single-subject
research. Journal of Experimental Education, 65(1), 73–93.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (1998). Teaching children to learn word
meanings from context: A synthesis and some questions. Journal of
Literacy Research, 30, 119–138.
Levy, B. A. (2001). Moving the bottom: Improving reading fluency.
In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency and the brain ( pp. 357–379).
Timonium, MD: York Press.
Lord, C., Wagner, A., Rogers, S., Szatmari, P., Aman, M., Charman, T.
et al. (2005). Challenges in evaluating psychosocial interventions for
autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 35(6), 695–708.
Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., & Borden, S. L. (2000). Putting struggling
readers on the PHAST track: A program to integrate phonological and
strategy-based remedial reading instruction and maximize outcomes.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 458–476.
McKeown, M. G. (1985). The acquisition of word meaning from context
by children of high and low ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 20,
482–496.
Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. (1984). The number of words in printed
school English. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.
Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R., Schommer, M., Scott, J. A., & Stallman,
A. C. (1989). Morphological families and word recognition. Reading
Research Quarterly, 24, 262–282.
Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil,
P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. III, pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, D. A. (1987). Enhancing instructional time
through attention to metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20,
66–75.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The
nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reichle, E. P., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Morphology in word identification:
A word-experience model that accounts for morpheme frequency effects.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 219–237.
Robey, R., & Schultz, M. (1998). A model for conducting clinical-outcome
research: Anadaptation of the standard protocol for use in aphasiology.
Aphasiology, 12, 787–810.
Robey, R. R. (2004). A five-phase model for clinical-outcome research.
Journal of Communication Disorders, 37, 401–411.
Schlagel, R. C. (1992). Patterns of orthographic development into the
intermediate grades. In S. Templeton & D. Bear (Eds.), Development of
orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy: A memorial
festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson ( pp. 31–52). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Shefelbine, J. L. (1990). Student factors related to variability in learn-
ing word meanings from context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22,
71–97.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of
individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research
Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
Torgesen, J., & Hudson, R. F. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues for
struggling readers. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What
research has to say about fluency instruction ( pp. 130–158). Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). Group size and time allotted to
intervention: Effects for students with reading difficulties. In B. R.
Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties
( pp. 300–324). Baltimore: York Press.
Katz & Carlisle: Close Reading 337
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman-Davis, P. (2003). Response Received December 5, 2007
to treatment as a means for identifying students with reading/learning Accepted July 31, 2008
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391–410. DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/07-0096)
White, T. G., Power, M. A., & White, S. (1989). Morphological analysis:
Implications for teaching and understanding vocabulary growth. Reading Contact author: Lauren A. Katz, Bowling Green State University,
Research Quarterly, 24, 283–304. Communication Disorders, 200 Health Center Building, Bowling Green,
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson OH 43403. E-mail: katzla@bgsu.edu.
Psychoeducational Battery—Revised. Allen, TX: DLM.

APPENDIX A. SAMPLE LIST OF STORY AND TRANSFER WORDS

FROM THE SELECTED AFRICAN FOLK TALES

Story Words
buttony unreliable
appearance thoughtfully
foolishness mistaken
undesirable countless
tiresome reddish
unpleasant cleverness
unbearable frightful
stillness noiselessly
uninvited overjoyed

Transfer Words
doubtless plentiful
approval modernize
momentary misleading
legalize reliability
misconduct miscalculated
faithfully solidify
unavoidable worrisome
precisely inflexible
steepness dependable

338 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 40 • 325–340 • July 2009
APPENDIX B (P. 1 of 2). EXAMPLES OF MORPHOLOGICAL-ANALYSIS
AND CONTEXT-ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES IN THE CLOSE READING PROGRAM

Morphological-Analysis Activities (Module 1)

“Boxing the Bases”

Find the “base word” or little word in each of the following big words, and draw a box around it. Work as quickly as you can!
Examples: unhelpful softly carefully
1. careful 13. milky
2. careless 14. hopefully
3. helpful 15. handy
4. sleepless 16. foolish
5. jumpy 17. hopelessly
6. boyish 18. safely

“Finding the Fixes”

Circle the “fixes” you find in each big word. The “fixes” can come at the beginning of the word, the end of the word, or at both the
beginning and the end of the word. Work as quickly as you can!
Examples: zipper flatness incorrectly
1. satiny 13. admiration
2. playful 14. coldly
3. unpack 15. eagerly
4. stillness 16. scratchy
5. unzip 17. disappear
6. player 18. joyful

Word Sort
Present the student with these cards and ask her to try and figure out how to divide them into two different piles. If further assistance
is needed, tell her to separate words with fixes from words without fixes.

Sleepy Draw Unzip

Pencil Misspell Elephant

Apple Careful Rewrite

Slowly Window Darkness

Word Building
Present the student with these cards and have her build as many real words as possible using the prefixes, suffixes, and base words
in a specified time limit (e.g., 1 minute). The clinician can keep track of the words that are built, so that the word parts can be reused. When
the time limit is up, the clinician and student can review the list and determine which words are real and worthy of credit.

un- -er Harm Hope

Mis- -ment Turn Mud

dis- -y Help Thought

re- -ful Place Happy

-less -ness Move Care

-ly Play Like Color

Katz & Carlisle: Close Reading 339

 APPENDIX B (P. 2 of 2). EXAMPLES OF MORPHOLOGICAL-ANALYSIS
AND CONTEXT-ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES IN THE CLOSE READING PROGRAM

Using Common Suffixes to Generate Words and Derive Meaning

For each suffix, look at the example, and write down some other words that have that suffix. Then, try to think of a definition for that
suffix.

SUFFIX EXAMPLE OTHER WORDS DEFINITION

-ful Hopeful

-less thoughtless

-er, -ar, -or painter, beggar, tailor

-er Smarter

-en strengthen

-ness Kindness

Context-Analysis Activities (Module 2)

Sentence Completion
Find the right word to complete the sentence and underline clues to its meaning.
1. It was the giant’s _____ to be too big to reach his hand in the tiny cookie jar.
mistake misfortune retake unhappiness
2. Dorothy would not wear the sweater her grandmother made for her. It was so scratchy that it was _____.
unfastened cautiously unbearable foolishness
3. He was so eager to have his sister win the tennis match that he watched it
noiselessly countless unattentive attentively
Passage Completion
Read the passage, and use context clues to help you fill in the blanks. If you get stuck, use the word bank at the bottom of the page
for help.
Passage from The Greedy Hyena
He had not gone far when he heard a soft pad-padding behind him. Instantly, he stopped and _____Ibut the padding stopped
too, and their was no sound except the _____ of the wind and the distant hooting of an _____. “Perhaps I was _____,” thought
the Jackal, and he moved on. The steps began again almost at once. Something, someone was _____ him. There could be no doubt
about it at all. Suddenly, the Jackal wheeled round. “Who’s there?” he _____. Who are you and why do you _____ me?”
Word Bank:
mistaken follow rustle demanded listened following owl

340 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 40 • 325–340 • July 2009
 Teaching Students With Reading Difficulties to be Close Readers: A Feasibility
Study

Lauren A. Katz, and Joanne F. Carlisle

Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2009;40;325-340
DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/07-0096)

The references for this article include 7 HighWire-hosted articles which you can
access for free at: http://lshss.asha.org/cgi/content/full/40/3/325#BIBL

This article has been cited by 2 HighWire-hosted article(s) which you can access for
free at:
http://lshss.asha.org/cgi/content/full/40/3/325#otherarticles

This information is current as of August 24, 2011

This article, along with updated information and services, is

located on the World Wide Web at:
http://lshss.asha.org/cgi/content/full/40/3/325

View publication stats