Content uploaded by Wendy Cavendish
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wendy Cavendish on Feb 07, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Collaborative
Strategic Reading
ISSUE 26 WINTER 2017
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Wendy Cavendish, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Special Education in the Department of
Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami. Her research foci include school and family supports that
facilitate successful transition for diverse adolescents with high-incidence disabilities.
Kristen Hodnett, Clinical Professor in the Department of Special Education at Hunter College-City
University of New York, holds a Master’s Degree in Special Education with a specialization in learning disabilities.
Kristen teaches graduate courses in Foundations of Learning Disabilities, Inclusive Education, Methods of Reading
Instruction of Adolescents, and English Language Learners with Learning Disabilities.
What is Collaborative Strategic
Reading?
Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) is a peer-mediated reading
comprehension instructional model informed by the methods in
reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), cooperative learning
(Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 2000), and transactional strategies
instruction (Pressley et al., 1992). The strategies in CSR are designed
to teach students with diverse abilities comprehension strategies for use
with expository text (Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2015). CSR explicitly
uses strategy instruction to teach meta-cognitive and self-monitoring skills
theorized to lead to improved reading comprehension (Klingner, Vaughn,
& Schumm, 1998). The approach uses a mix of whole class instruction and
small cooperative peer learning groups. Whole group instruction in CSR begins
with teacher modeling, role playing, and teacher think-alouds. These steps are
followed by the formation of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in
which students employ four comprehension strategies before, during, and after
reading: (a) preview, (b) click and clunk, (c) get the gist, and (d) wrap up
(Bremer, Vaughn, Clapper, & Kim, 2002; Klingner et al., 2015; Klingner, Vaughn,
Boardman, & Swanson, 2012).
For Whom is CSR Intended?
Collaborative Strategic Reading was developed to improve reading comprehension
skills for students with learning disabilities (LD) and students at risk for reading
difficulties. The early implementation of CSR was conducted in linguistically diverse
classrooms with both English language learners (ELL) and non–ELL students
(Klingner & Vaughn, 1996). Early studies suggested that CSR had positive effects
for both ELL and non–ELL students (Klingner et al., 1998). Some early research
suggested that the peer-mediated group learning aspect of CSR may support ELL
students due largely to cooperative learning aspects that allow linguistically
diverse students to have support in their native language from peers who are
bilingual (e.g., Klingner & Vaughn, 2000; Saenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). In
contrast, a large-scale study (Hitchcock et al., 2011) revealed that neither ELL
nor non-ELL 5th graders benefited from CSR (though implementation fidelity
of the intervention may have been a confounding issue). However, across two
decades of research, CSR has demonstrated positive outcomes for elementary
and middle school students at risk for reading difficulties; students with LD;
average and high achieving students; and, in most cases, ELL students (e.g.,
Boardman, Vaughn, et al., 2016; Bryant et al., 2000; Klingner et al.,
1998; Vaughn et al., 2000). Thus, CSR is an appropriate strategy for
elementary and middle school struggling readers, students with LD,
and linguistically diverse students.
How Does It Work?
In CSR, teachers provide explicit instruction to students in meta-
cognitive strategy use and then facilitate peer-mediated learning within
mixed-ability cooperative learning groups (Klingner & Vaughn, 1998). An
important aspect of CSR is that it “rejects dominant notions of literacy as an
isolated act and instead, emphasizes peer interaction which reflects the cultural
practices of many students in urban schools” (Boardman, Klingner, Buckley,
Annamma, & Lasser, 2015, p. 1259). The implementation of CSR involves teachers
providing explicit instruction and modeling in four comprehension strategies: (a)
preview, (b) click and clunk, (c) get the gist, and (d) wrap up. When introducing
CSR to students, the teacher first models all the steps in whole group instruction.
After students demonstrate competency in the strategies, they employ the strategies
in small student groups. Each strategy is described in Figure 1, on page 2.
In CSR, the students have specific roles in the cooperative learning groups that
are rotated across lessons. After students demonstrate the ability to apply the four
strategies through teacher-led activities, they are taught the different roles they will
perform while using CSR in the peer-mediated groups. Student roles in CSR groups
can include:
• Leader: This student leads the group in the implementation of CSR by
identifying the order of text to be read and which strategy to apply. The leader
may ask the teacher for assistance, if necessary.
• Clunk expert: This student uses “clunk cards” to remind the group of the
steps to follow when trying to figure out a difficult word or concept. Each
clunk card describes a fix-up strategy. Fix-up strategies include (a) use
context clues: reread the sentence with the clunk and look for key concepts to
figure out the word, (b) reread the sentences before and after the clunk to
look for clues, (c) identify an affix in the word to help with comprehension,
and (d) break the word apart to look for root words.
• Reporter: During the class wrap-up, this student reports to the class the
main ideas (the gist) learned in the small groups.
continued on page 2
Collaborative Strategic Reading – ALERT 26
• 2 •
classrooms and 22 control group classrooms, and did not find a main effect for
CSR on student outcomes, nor that CSR implementation fidelity was significantly
related to student outcomes.
The research on CSR for students with LD is a bit more limited in that several
studies have not reported disaggregated findings for students with LD specifically.
However, a recent study of CSR reported the results of a large-scale study with 60
4th- and 5th-grade teachers who were randomly assigned to teach CSR or to a
control group (Boardman, Vaughn, et al., 2016). They found that students with
LD who received CSR instruction made significantly greater gains in reading
comprehension than students with LD in control classrooms. In particular, they
reported a significant, positive interaction effect between the CSR implementation
group and LD status. Students with LD scored higher on the Gates-MacGinitie in
the CSR condition (g = 0.52).
Other research on CSR that disaggregated findings for or focused solely on
poor readers and students with disabilities, including LD, has been consistent in
finding positive effects of CSR for these students. For example, Kim et al. (2006)
implemented a computer-assisted CSR intervention with middle school students
with LD in two classrooms, and found statistically significant gains in reading
for students with LD receiving computer-assisted CSR, compared with the control
group. Kim and colleagues reported improved reading comprehension on the
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (standardized mean difference [SMD] effect size
= 0.50) and improved performance on researcher-designed “Get the Gist” (SMD
effect size = 0.95) and “Questioning” (SMD effect size = 1.18). Boardman et al.
(2015) examined the effects of CSR among students in classrooms assigned to
one of three conditions: full CSR intervention, partial CSR intervention, or control
Overall, CSR provides a flexible instructional model in which students, with
guidance from the teacher and peer support, can become skilled at applying
reading comprehension strategies while reading a variety of texts. We refer
readers to Klingner and Vaughn (1998) for detailed guidelines on how to
implement CSR.
How Adequate is the Research
Knowledge Base?
Almost 20 years of research has examined the effectiveness of CSR for students at
risk for reading failure, as well as for average achieving students and ELL students
(e.g., Beyers, Lembke, & Curs, 2013; Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, & Arguelles,
1999). As early as 1998, Klingner and colleagues reported on the effectiveness
of CSR, citing significant growth as measured by the Gates-MacGinitie reading
comprehension scores (effect size = 0.34) for students receiving CSR compared
with students in a control group (both intervention and control
included students with LD and ELL students). The
research that followed has employed a wide variety
of research designs and analytic methods, including
many studies that used randomized control group
design and multilevel analytic models (e.g., Boardman,
Vaughn, et al., 2016). Most studies found statistically significant
main effects of CSR on improved student reading comprehension
for diverse students in elementary and middle school using standardized
measures. However, one study by Vaughn et al. (2013) examined a follow-up
year (year 2) of CSR implementation in 26 middle school reading or English
continued on page 3
continued from page 1
FIGURE 1: COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES IN CSR (ADAPTED FROM KLINGNER & VAUGHN, 1998)
PREVIEW THE TEXT (BEFORE READING)
CLICK AND CLUNK (DURING READING)
GET THE GIST (DURING READING)
WRAP UP (AFTER READING)
• Previewing the text activates prior knowledge, stimulates students’ interest about the topic, and facilitates making
predictions. During this step, students look at headings, key words, pictures, and charts. The teacher facilitates
questions and predictions from students.
• Students identify the “who” or “what” of the text and the most important ideas. Students explain the main idea of
pre-determined two- to four-paragraph portions of text. Students share their “gist” statements in their own words
within cooperative groups as a check for understanding.
• There are two parts to Wrap Up. First, the students identify the important concepts from the text they read. Second,
students develop different types of questions and answers about that information. With teacher scaffolding, students
develop literal questions, within-text inference questions, and higher-order thinking questions regarding the author’s
intent or purpose. Students then ask and answer the questions developed.
• In this step, students monitor their understanding of the text. Clicking and clunking is designed to teach students
to be aware of when they understand the text, and when they do not understand. Students self-monitor their
understanding (the “clicks”) as they are reading. When students find a word or concept that they find difficult to
understand, it is a “clunk.” Students identify the clunks and then figure them out as a group using “fix-up strategies”
such as partner retelling and determining meaning using affixes, roots, and vocabulary or sentence context clues.
FIGURE
1
ALERT 26 – Collaborative Strategic Reading
• 3 •
group (business as usual in reading instruction). They reported significant
effects (g = 0.18) for students receiving the full CSR intervention, including for
all students who began the study as low readers (i.e., ELL, LD, other disabilities).
The studies outlined in Table 1 represent the empirical base over 20 years for
the efficacy of CSR for improving reading comprehension skills for elementary and
secondary students with LD. Although two of the seven studies (i.e., Boardman,
Buckley et al., 2016 and Vaughn et al., 2011) described in Table 1 did not report
disaggregated data specifically for students with LD (just special education
status), they did include students with LD in both experimental and control
groups. The studies involved a range of research designs and used a variety of
reading measures. All studies found support for the effectiveness of CSR.
continued from page 2
continued on page 4
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF STUDIES SUPPORTING COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIC READING
RESEARCH
DESIGN SAMPLE OUTCOME
MEASURE FINDING(S) STUDY
Pretest-
posttest quasi-
experimental
(with classes
randomly
assigned) control
group design
Pretest-
posttest quasi-
experimental
design group
comparison
(CSR vs. PR)
Pretest-
posttest quasi-
experimental
control group
design
Randomized
block study
design
141 4th grade
students: 85
experimental
group & 56 in
control group,
12 with LD
and 71 ELL
111 3rd grade
students: 55 in
CSR group & 56
in PR group, 16
students with
reading LD
34 middle
school
students with
disabilities (16
in intervention
group; 18 in
control group);
28 with LD,
6 other
disabilities
782 7th and
8th grade
students,
400 CSR (34
classes) and
382 (27 classes)
control group,
95 struggling
readers
Klingner,
Vaughn, &
Schumm,
1998
Vaughn et
al., 2000
Kim et al.,
2006
Vaughn et
al., 2011
Gates-MacGinitie
Reading Test-
comprehension,
50- question unit
posttest
Gray Oral
Reading Test,
Test Of Reading
Fluency
Researcher-
developed
measure
(finding main
idea, question
generation),
Woodcock
Reading Mastery
Test-passage
comprehension
AIMSweb
reading
curriculum
based measure,
Gates-MacGinitie
Reading Test-
comprehension,
TOWRE,
TOSREC, & MSI
Students in the intervention group (including
students with LD and ELL students) had
significantly greater growth in Gates-MacGinitie
reading comprehension scores (effect size=0.34)
than control group. No statistically significant
difference in unit posttest scores.
No statistically significant group (CSR vs. PR)
effects. Reading rate increased significantly
from pretest to posttest for both PR and CSR
groups for participants with LD on all outcomes.
Treatment (computer-assisted CSR) group
outperformed the control group on the
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-posttest
(SMD effect size = 0.50). On the researcher-
developed measure, CSR group also
outperformed the control group (for main
idea, SMD effect size=0.95; for the question
generation, SMD effect size=1.18).
On Gates-MacGinitie, participants in CSR
significantly outperformed nonparticipants
(g=0.36) when effects of clustering and
pretreatment differences were explicitly
modeled. Significant interaction indicated that
when student performance on the MSI was
controlled for, CSR group made significantly
greater gains than comparison group. No
significant group differences on AIMSweb and
TOSREC. Results for struggling readers were
similar to those for the total sample.
Notes. CSR=Collaborative Strategic Reading. ELL=English Language Learners. g = Hedge’s g. LD=Learning disabilities.
MSI=Metacomprehension Strategy Index. PR=Partner Reading. SMD=standard mean difference. TOSREC=Test of Silent Reading
Efficiency and Comprehension. TOWRE=Test of Word Reading Efficiency.
GO
For It
!
Collaborative Strategic Reading – ALERT 26
• 4 •
continued from page 3
TABLE 1 (CONT): SUMMARY OF STUDIES SUPPORTING COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIC READING
RESEARCH
DESIGN SAMPLE OUTCOME
MEASURE FINDING(S) STUDY
Pretest-
posttest
randomized
control group
design
Multi-site
cluster, pretest-
posttest
randomized
control design
Multi-level,
single-group
pretest-posttest
design
19 middle school
teachers; 1,074
students (394 in
Full CSR group,
261 in Partial CSR
group, and 419
in control group),
544 ELL, 122 in
special education,
81 with LD
60 teachers;
1,372 4th & 5th
grade students
(686 CSR &
686 control
group), 342 ELL,
128 in special
education, 87
with LD
Study 1: 597
middle school
students
(61 in special
education)
Study 2: 552
middle school
students
(67 in special
education)
Boardman,
Klingner,
Buckley,
Annamma,
& Lasser,
2015
Boardman,
Vaughn,
et al.,
2016
Boardman,
Buckley,
et al.,
2016
Gates-MacGinitie
Reading Test-
comprehension;
State standards-
based assess-
ment in reading
& writing
Gates-
MacGinitie
Reading Test-
comprehension
Gates-
MacGinitie
Reading Test-
comprehension;
fidelity checklist
Gates-MacGinitie comprehension scores
significantly higher for Full CSR than for control
group (g=0.18). No differences on the Gates-
MacGinitie between Partial CSR and control group.
Reading and writing state assessment scores
were not statistically different between groups.
All students who received CSR made similar
gains, including ELL students and students
with LD.
No significant main effect of CSR on student
outcomes; a significant interaction effect
between condition and posttest scores for
students with LD. Students with LD scored
4.86 points higher on Gates-MacGinitie in
CSR condition (g=0.52).
No main effects for quality or amount of CSR
instruction, but significant interaction effects
between quality of implementation and special
education status in both studies. Higher quality
CSR instruction associated with higher reading
outcomes for students with disabilities.
TABLE
1
Kim et al.’s (2006) study on computer-assisted CSR with
middle school students with LD also examined students’
perceptions of CSR. Most of the students (12 out of 16)
perceived the CSR intervention positively. The four students who
did not report positive perceptions noted that they found the CSR
program “boring.” The two participating teachers also reported positive
perceptions and reported that the CSR program was an effective instructional
tool. Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, and Arguelles (1999) examined teacher
implementation of CSR (as one of 3 interventions) over three years, as well as
teachers’ perceptions of the sustainability of CSR. They reported that teachers
found that schools’ standardized testing focus led to a lack of instructional time
for non-test-preparation instruction, but also that adequate training, access
to materials, and students’ acceptance of the CSR strategy were factors that
facilitated sustained use of CSR.
continued on page 5
How Practical Is It?
Collaborative Strategic Reading is a teacher-modeled, peer-mediated strategy
for reading comprehension that can be applied to any content area text.
Therefore, teachers may integrate models like CSR in core content subjects
without sacrificing instructional time. Because CSR can be implemented in
a variety of content areas, students may also be more likely to generalize the
reading comprehension strategies across academic areas/courses. This may be
particularly important for struggling readers in secondary school (Bremer et
al., 2002). In addition, CSR instruction requires no special tools or resources
outside of a typical classroom. Although some teachers may find it challenging
to implement a multi-component reading intervention such as CSR with high
fidelity (e.g., Klingner, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1998), one recent study reported a
strong relationship between fidelity of implementation and improved reading
outcomes for students with disabilities (Boardman, Buckley, et al., 2016).
Teachers who do not use peer-mediated instruction (i.e., small groups) as part
of their current instructional practices may also find CSR implementation
challenging (Vaughn et al., 2011).
ALERT 26 – Collaborative Strategic Reading
• 5 •
GO
For It
!
What Questions Remain?
CSR has been found effective for improving reading comprehension for
students at risk for reading failure, students with LD, and average-achieving
students in elementary and middle school grades. Most of the research base also
demonstrates gains for ELLs; however, a recent, large-scale study did not find
improved gains for ELL students receiving CSR compared with their non-ELL
peers (Hitchcock et al., 2011). Thus, additional research on the efficacy of
CSR for ELLs is warranted. Further, there is limited research on CSR with high
school or post-secondary students (e.g., Zoghi, Mustapha, & Maasum, 2010).
Additional research with high school and college students with LD would bolster
the strong evidence base for CSR.
How Do I Learn More?
There are several websites and support resources that teachers can use to learn
more about CSR and how to implement it in classrooms for diverse students
and students with LD. Listed below are resources and a brief description of each
resource.
Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using Collaborative Strategic Reading. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 30, 32-37. doi: 10.1177/004005999803000607
This article describes how to teach CSR to mixed-ability students using
examples from an upper elementary school classroom.
http://toolkit.csrcolorado.org/
A comprehensive website that includes on-line learning modules, video
examples, and instructional resources for teachers. Access to the site’s
resources is free but requires registration.
https://www.edutopia.org/discussion/collaborative-strategic-reading-
csr-comprehension-strategy-enhance-content-area-learning
This website offers a teacher-friendly outline of the CSR strategies.
http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/csr/
The Iris Center at Vanderbilt University provides a 5-step learning module
for teachers on CSR.
http://www.adlit.org/strategies/22355/
An adolescent literacy website that provides classroom strategies on CSR, a
long with graphic organizer templates for use as CSR learning logs.
http://www.meadowscenter.org/files/msmi_resources/
Webinar_02-14.pdf
The Meadows Center at University of Texas-Austin provides a webinar
resource on CSR led by Dr. Vaughn.
References
Beyers, S., Lembke, E., & Curs, B. (2013). Social studies progress monitoring and
intervention for middle school students. Assessment for Effective
Intervention 38, 224-235. doi: 10.1177/1534508413489162
Boardman, A., Klingner, J., Buckley, P., Annamma, S., & Lasser, C. (2015). The
efficacy of Collaborative Strategic Reading in middle school science and
social studies classes. Reading & Writing, 28, 1257-1283.
doi: 10.1007/s11145-015-9570-3
Boardman, A., Buckley, P., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Scornavacco, K., &
Klingner, J. (2016). Relationship between implementation of Collaborative
Strategic Reading and student outcomes for adolescents with disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, Advance online publication.
doi: 10.1177/0022219416640784
Boardman, A., Vaughn, S., Buckley, P. Reutebuch, C., Roberts, G., & Klingner, J.
(2016). Collaborative Strategic Reading for students with learning
disabilities in upper elementary classrooms. Exceptional Children,
Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0014402915625067
Bremer, C., Vaughn, S. Clapper, A., & Kim, A. (2002). Collaborative Strategic
Reading (CSR): Improving secondary students’ reading comprehension
skills. Research to Practice Brief: National Center on Secondary Education
and Transition. Retrieved from
http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=424
Bryant, D., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M.
(2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without reading
disabilities in general education middle-school content area classes.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 238-252. doi:10.2307/1511347
Hitchcock, J., Dimino, J., Kurki, A., Wilkins, C., & Gersten, R. (2011). The impact
of Collaborative Strategic Reading on the reading comprehension
of grade 5 students in linguistically diverse schools. Institute of
Education Sciences: REL Southwest.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning
methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html
Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Klingner, J., Woodruff, A., Reutebuch, C., & Kouzekanani, K.
(2006). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school
students with disabilities through computer-assisted Collaborative
Strategic Reading. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 235-249.
doi: 10.1177/07419325060270040401
Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension
strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English
as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 275-293.
doi: 10.1086/461828
Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using Collaborative Strategic Reading.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 30, 32-37.
doi: 10.1177/004005999803000607
Klingner, J. & Vaughn, S. (2000). The helping behaviors of fifth graders
while using collaborative strategic reading during ESL content classes.
TESOL Quarterly, 34, 69-98. doi: 10.2307/3588097
Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., & Boardman, A. (2015). Teaching reading
comprehension to students with learning difficulties. New York:
Guilford Press.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Boardman, A. G., & Swanson, E. (2012). Now we
get it!: Boosting comprehension with Collaborative Strategic Reading.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Teacher.
Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Arguelles, M. (1999). Sustaining
research-based practices in reading: A 3-year follow-up. Remedial and
Special Education, 20, 263–274. doi:10.1177/074193259902000502
Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. (1998). Collaborative Strategic Reading
during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. The
Elementary School Journal, 99, 3-22. doi: 10.1086/461914
continued on page 6
continued from page 4
Collaborative Strategic Reading – ALERT 26
• 6 •
About the Alert Series
©2017 Division for Learning Disabilities and the Division
for Research. The copyright holders grant permission to copy for
personal and educational purposes, provided that any and all copies
provide the entire document without modification.
Contact Research@TeachingLD.org regarding copying for resale,
including inclusion within other products that are to be sold.
Current Practice Alerts is a joint publication of the Division
for Learning Disabilities and the Division for Research of
the Council for Exceptional Children. The series is intended
to provide an authoritative resource concerning the effectiveness
of current practices intended for individuals with specific learning
disabilities.
Each Alerts issue focuses on a single practice or family of practices
that is widely used or discussed in the LD field. The Alert describes
the target practice and provides a critical overview of the existing data
regarding its effectiveness for individuals with learning disabilities.
Practices judged by the Alerts Editorial Committee to be well validated
and reliably used are featured under the rubric of Go For It. Those
practices judged to have insufficient evidence of effectiveness are
featured as Use Caution.
For more information about the Alerts series and a cumulative
list of past Alerts topics, visit the Alerts page on the DLD
website: TeachingLD.org/alerts
References
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-
fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and
Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P., Gaskins, I., Shuder, T., Bergman, J., Almasi, J. &
Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction
of reading comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal,
92, 513-555. doi: 10.1086/461705
Saenz, L., Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for
English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 71, 231-247. doi: 10.1177/001440290507100302
Vaughn, S., Chard, D., Bryant, D., Coleman, M., Tyler, B., Linan-Thompson, S.,
& Kouzekanani, K. (2000). Fluency and comprehension interventions
for third-grade students. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 325-335.
doi: 10.1177/074193250002100602
Vaughn, S., Klingner, J., Swanson, E., Boardman, A., Roberts, G., Mohammed, S.,
& Stillman-Spisak, S. (2011). Efficacy of Collaborative Strategic Reading
with middle school students. American Educational Research Journal,
48, 938-964. doi: 10.3102/0002831211410305
Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Klingner, J., Swanson, E., Boardman, A., Stillman-
Spisak, S., Mohammad, S., & Leroux, A. (2013). Collaborative strategic
reading: Findings from experienced implementers. Journal of Research
on Educational Effectiveness, 6, 137-163.
doi: 10.1080/19345747.2012.741661
Zoghi, M., Mustapha, R., & Maasum, T. (2010). Collaborative Strategic Reading
with university EFL learners. Journal of College Reading and Learning,
41, 67-94. doi: 10.1080/10790195.2010.10850336
continued from page 5
