An Intervention Study for Students with Learning

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:34 PM

Page i

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal Editorial Board Co–Editors GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS

Production Editor KIRSTEN MCBRIDE

Design Editor MARY LAITY

University of Crete

TERESA ALLISSA CITRO Learning Disabilities Worldwide

Consulting Editors MARGARET BEEBE-FRANKENBERGER DORIS JOHNSON University of Montana

ROBERT BROOKS Harvard Medical School

JUDITH CARTA Juniper Gardens Children’s Project

DONALD DESHLER University of Kansas

GEORGE DUPAUL Lehigh University

LINDA ELKSNIN The Citadel

NICK ELKSNIN The Citadel

FRANCO FABBRO University of Udine, Italy

ANGELA FAWCETT University of Sheffield, UK

DOUG FUCHS Vanderbilt University

RUSSELL GERSTEN Instructional Research Group

DOUGLAS GLASSNAP University of Kansas

STEVEN GRAHAM Vanderbilt University

CHARLES GREENWOOD Juniper Gardens Children’s Project

NOEL GREGG University of Georgia

ELENA GRIGORENKO Yale University

CHERI HOY University of Georgia

Northwestern University

JAMES LEFFERT University of Massachusetts, Boston

DANIELA LUCANGELI University of Padua, Italy

LARRY MAHEADY SUNY at Fredonia

HOWARD MARGOLIS CUNY/Queens College

MARGO MASTROPIERI George Mason University

NANCY MATHER University of Arizona

PETER MCDONALD Eagle Hill School

TIM MILES University of Wales, UK

MARJORIE MONTAGUE University of Miami

PAUL MORGAN Pennsylvania State College

SUSAN MORTWEET VANSCOYOC Children’s Mercy Hospital

JOHN NEZLEK College of William & Mary

FESTUS OBIAKOR University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

ANTHONY J. ONWUEGBUZIE University of South Florida

SUSANA PADELIADU University of Thessaly, Greece

PETE PETERSON

EDWARD POLLOWAY Lynchburg College

DEANNA SANDS University of Colorado at Denver

DAVID SCANLON Boston College

BENNETT A. SHAYWITZ Yale University, Child Study Center

SALLY E. SHAYWITZ Yale University, Child Study Center

RITA SHERBENOU ETS RW Educational Group

MARGARET SNOWLING University of York, UK

GARY SIPERSTEIN University of Massachusetts, Boston

KEITH STANOVICH University of Toronto, Canada

LEE SWANSON University of California, Riverside

HARVEY SWITZKY University of Northern Illinois

MELODY TANKERSLEY Kent State University

GARY A. TROIA Michigan State University

CHERYL UTLEY Juniper Gardens Children’s Project

SHARON VAUGHN University of Texas

MARJA VAURAS University of Turku, Finland

MARIA ZAFEIROPOULOU

Johnson County Community College University of Thessaly, Greece

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:34 PM

Page ii

Dress for Success.

Landmark School is recognized internationally as a leader in the field of language-based learning disabilities, and our students find success. In fact, 90% of our high school graduates go on to college.

A coed boarding and day school for grades 2-12, we

emphasize the development of language and learning skills through our individualized approach and daily one-to-one tutorials.

ACADEMIC YEAR PROGRAM Boarding and Day • Daily 1:1 Tutorials • Grades 2-12

SUMMER PROGRAM Six-week Boarding & Day • Daily 1:1 Tutorials • Grades 1-12

OUTREACH PROGRAM Professional Development • Publications • Online Courses

Landmark School Embracing Potential. Empowering Lives. Educating students with language-based learning disabilities. Post Office Box 227 • Prides Crossing, Massachusetts 01965-0227 • 978.236.3000 • fax 978.927.7268

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:34 PM

Page iii

Contents Research Paper

Self-Regulated Strategy Development: A Validated Model to Support Students Who Struggle with Writing — 1 Tanya Santangelo & Karen R. Harris and Steve Graham

Research Paper

Place Value and Mathematics for Students with Mild Disabilities: Data and Suggested Practices— 21 John F. Cawley, Rene S. Parmar, Lynn M. Lucas-Fusco, Joy D. Kilian & Teresa E. Foley

Research Paper

Strategy Instruction in Reading Comprehension: An Intervention Study for Students with Learning Disabilities Faye Antoniou and Elmar Souvignier — 41

Research Paper

The Effect of Asymmetry on the 2x2 Kappa Coefficient: Application to the Study of Learning Disabilities — 59 Teresa Rivas-Moya & María-José González-Valenzuela

Research Paper

Story Mapping and Its Effects on the Writing Fluency and Word Diversity of Students with Learning Disabilities — 77 Daqi Li

Mission Statement Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal (LDCJ) is a forum for research, practice, and opinion regarding learning disabilities (LD) and associated disorders. The mission of the journal is to provide the most up-to-date information on diagnosis and identification, assessment, interventions, policy, and other related issues on LD. The journal intends to inform and challenge researchers, practitioners, and individuals who are involved with learning disabilities.

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:34 PM

Page v

Publisher Learning Disabilities Worldwide (LDW) P. O. Box 142, Weston, MA 02493

LDW WEBSITE: http://www.ldworldwide.org

Subscription Rates—bi-annual publication—US currency only—includes shipping and handling Membership Type *Regular US LDW Members $35 US Non-Members $55 Int’l Canada, Europe, S. America members $55 Int’l Canada, Europe, S. America non-members $75 Int’l all others members $75 Int’l all others non-members $95 US Institutional $135 Institutional Canada, Europe, S. America $150 Institutional all others $170

*Online $30 $50 $30 $50 $30 $50 $100 $100 $100

* Regular subscription receives hard copies of Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal (LDCJ). Online subscription will access the LDCJ via the Internet

Editorial Policy Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal (LDCJ) is a forum for research, practice and opinion papers in the area of learning disabilities (LD) and related disorders. The following types of articles are appropriate for submission to LDCJ. 1. Empirical Studies. Research studies using experimental or non-experimental designs and descriptive works are appropriate as long as there is a relevance to learning disabilities. Studies that include samples of students at risk of learning problems and in general underachievement are also appropriate. Comparative works that include other disorders such as mental retardation and low incidence disabilities may also be considered for publication (as long as there is relevance to low achievement and/or LD). The size of the submissions must be between 15-25 typewritten, double-spaced pages (including tables, figures, references, appendices and/or other supplements). References must be used judiciously. Figures and pictures must be camera-ready. 2. Review Papers. Reviews of issues related to LD are appropriate for the journal. The size of the submissions must be between 15–25 typewritten, double-spaced pages. 3. Brief Research Reports. Brief research works maybe accepted in the journal if space permits and if there are substantial reasons to suggest that the full report should not be published. Such special cases may be preliminary findings and pilot works, replication studies, etc. The length of brief reports must be between 8–12 typewritten, double-spaced pages. 4. Special Issues. Authors may submit a proposal for a special thematic issue in a particular area, relevant to LD. Initially, authors must submit a proposal of 4-8 typewritten double-spaced pages that provides an outline of the area, and describes the goals and importance of the issue for the field of LD, along with the suggested contributions. The author(s) will act as Guest Editor(s) and will be responsible for inviting other works and for regulating the review process. They will also work closely with one of the co-editors in this process. Authors are encouraged to consult the co-editors, prior to submitting their proposal, in order to verify appropriateness and relevance of the topic to the LD field. 5. Practice Papers. These are reports of practical nature that have relevance and importance to educators, practitioners, and researchers. They may describe innovative instructional practices, behavior modification programs, etc. The length of these reports must be between 8-15 typewritten, double-spaced pages. 6. Opinion Papers. These papers may address issues of policy, legislation, mandates and laws relevant to the LD population, etc. They may be the basis for a forum for discussion by other members of the field of LD. 7. Research Methodology Reports. The purpose of these reports is to convey methodological and/or data analytic advances that have particular relevance for the LD field. The length of these reports must be between 8–15 typewritten, double-spaced pages. Manuscript Preparation Authors must adhere to the writing guidelines described in the 5th Edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001). For sample guidelines authors may visit APA at http://www.apastyle.org. With their submission, authors must send a cover letter indicating the title and length of the paper and must state that their work is not currently under review in another journal. Authors should include two title pages (one with title only) and the other with full author information. Manuscripts will be sent for a blind review to 2–3 members of the editorial board. Authors will be notified of the editorial decision with a formal letter from one of the co-editors. If the manuscript is accepted, authors will be asked to send it electronically as a document in Word—Figures and diagrams should be individual black & white PDF files (both PC and Mac formats are acceptable) and they will also need to fill in a copyright waiver form. Submission (4 copies) may be sent via regular mail to either Georgios D. Sideridis, Ph.D., or to Teresa Citro, at Learning Disabilities Worldwide, PO Box 142 Weston, MA 02493. Authors are also encouraged to send their contributions electronically to: [email protected]. The editors reserve the right to make final editorial changes to the manuscripts (without, however, altering the content of the original submission).

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page vi

Education Professionals and Parents Join us on Cape Cod this August for a series of informative professional development courses! All courses earn Massachusetts Professional Development Points.

Summer 2007 Professional Development Courses Holiday Inn, Falmouth August 20, 2007, 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM • What is Orton-Gillingham?

August 21-22, 2007, 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM Choose one course: • Nancibell® Visualizing and Verbalizing® Program • Educational Evaluations

August 23, 2007 Choose one or both courses: • Reinforcing Reading and Spelling Concepts through Games, 9:00AM - 12:00 PM • Reinforcing Math Concepts through Games, 1:00 - 5:00 PM Please check our website www.commlearn.com for course descriptions and prices. Call 800-461-6671 to register. Commonwealth Learning Center admits students of any race, color, national and ethnic origin. The Commonwealth Learning Center is an independent, non-profit teaching facility and is not affiliated with Lindamood-Bell Learning Process, Inc., Pat Lindamood, Phyllis Lindamood, or Nanci Bell

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE NEEDHAM •

S U D B U RY

•

DANVERS

w w w. c o m m l e a r n . c o m

vi

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 1

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 5(1), 1–20, 2007

Copyright @ by LDW 2007

Self-Regulated Strategy Development: A Validated Model to Support Students Who Struggle with Writing Tanya Santangelo1 Rowan University

Karen R. Harris and Steve Graham Vanderbilt University

Many students find writing extremely difficult and frustrating because they are not able to learn and apply the strategies used by skilled writers. Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is a comprehensive, flexible model that explicitly helps students learn to manage the writing process. An extensive body of research has documented that SRSD consistently increases content knowledge, writing quality, strategic behavior, self-regulation skills, self-efficacy, and motivation among students of varying ages and ability levels, but especially those with learning disabilities. Further, these improvements are maintained over time and generalized across settings, genres, people, and media. In this article, common challenges with writing are reviewed, the SRSD model is presented, and an illustration of how a persuasive writing strategy was taught to a small group of fifth- and sixth-grade students is offered.

Key Words: Inclusive Practices, Strategy Instruction, Writing Instruction, Learning Disabilities, Self-Regulation riting is an extremely powerful tool in our culture because it facilitates communication across distance and time, makes it possible to gather and preserve information, allows knowledge about a topic to be refined and extended, and provides a flexible medium for artistic, political, spiritual, and self-expression (Applebee, 1984; Diamond, 1999; Durst & Newell, 1989; Graham & Harris, 2000a). However, even expert writers frequently lament the difficult and complex aspects of planning, composing, evaluating, and revising (Zimmerman & Reisemberg, 1997) that are necessary for effective communication. Therefore, it is not surprising that many students, especially those with learning disabilities, experience difficulty with writing (Graham, 1990; McCutchen, 1988; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986; Thomas, Englert, & Gregg, 1987). For example, results of recent evaluations conducted as part of the National Assessment of Education suggest that only one out of every five high school seniors acquired the required writing knowledge and skills (Greenwald, Persky, Ambell, & Mazzeo, 1999; Persky, Daane, & Jin, 2003).

W

1. Please address correspondence to: Tanya Santangelo, Rowan University, Department of Special Education, 201 Mullica Hill Road, Glassboro, NJ 08028; E-mail: [email protected]

1

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 2


Clearly, many students would benefit from high-quality instruction that explicitly teaches the strategies used by highly skilled writers. Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is an evidence-based model that has been shown to consistently achieve that goal (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). Over the last 20 years, more than 25 studies have documented that SRSD improves writing knowledge, strategic behaviors, self-regulation skills, and motivation with many different populations of students, including those with learning disabilities (Danoff, Harris, & Graham, 1993; De La Paz, 1999; Graham & Harris, 1989a). In this article, an overview of SRSD is presented. First, the basic definition of a strategy is offered. Then, the most common difficulties students experience with writing are reviewed. Next, the stages and components of SRSD instruction are described, and a classroom illustration is provided. (Expanded descriptions of these topics and other writing strategies may be found in Writing Better: Effective Strategies for Teaching Students with Learning Difficulties Graham & Harris, 2005 and at http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/casl/srsd.html)

AN INTRODUCTION TO WRITING STRATEGIES A strategy can be generically defined as a set of operations or actions that a person consciously undertakes to accomplish a desired goal (Alexander, Graham, & Harris, 1998). Central to that definition are the tenants that a strategy involves (a) purposeful behavior, including a conscious decision about a plan of action; (b) procedural knowledge required to implement the plan; and (c) willingness, effort, and persistence to achieve the desired goal. All these elements contribute to the power and benefit of utilizing strategies within the context of writing (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). First, writing strategies, such as those taught with the SRSD model, help simplify and organize the myriad complex tasks required throughout the writing process. Second, they define a course of action for successfully completing all, or part, of a writing assignment. Third, they make the mental operations that occur during planning, composing, evaluating, and revising visible and concrete. This is particularly salient because contemporary approaches to writing instruction (e.g., Writer’s Workshop) encourage students to plan, draft, edit, revise, and publish their written work, yet surprisingly little attention is devoted to explicitly teaching these processes (Graham & Harris, 1997a). Finally, strategies effectively enhance students’ knowledge about writing genres and devices, the writing process, and their capabilities as writers (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). To fully understand the necessity of and rationale underlying the use and benefit of SRSD instruction, it is critical to first understand why writing is such a difficult task for many students.

COMMON CHALLENGES WITH WRITING Writing is an extremely challenging process for many students, especially those with learning disabilities. In most cases, this is due to difficulties acquiring, utilizing, and managing the strategies that are used by skilled writers (De La Paz, Swanson, & Graham, 1998; Graham & Harris, 1996, 2000b; Harris & Graham, 1999; Zimmerman & Reisemberg, 1997). Specifically, many students (a) have limited knowledge of writing, (b) utilize an ineffective writing approach, (c) do not engage

2

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 3


in advance planning, (d) have difficulty generating content, (e) rarely make meaningful revisions, (f) struggle with transcription, (g) evidence minimal persistence, and (h) have an unrealistic sense of self efficacy (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). In the next section, each of these challenges will be discussed. Knowledge of Writing Skilled writers have extensive knowledge about writing genres, devices, and conventions, and they are intimately familiar with the elements and characteristics associated with good writing (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). In contrast, many students who struggle with writing, especially those with learning disabilities, lack contextual knowledge and believe good writing is related to form and mechanics, rather than substance or process (Englert, Raphael, Fear, & Anderson, 1988; Graham, Schwartz, & MacArthur, 1993; Wong, Wong, & Blenkinsop, 1989). For example, when asked to describe good writing, students with learning disabilities responded, “Spell every word right,” “Write as neat as you can,” “Put your date and name on there,” and “Be sure to hold your pencil right.” When asked to describe what should be included in a story, a typical response is, “... Main character, a subject, predicate, and main idea.” Unfortunately, this incomplete knowledge is directly reflected in students’ writing, as basic story elements are frequently omitted (Graham & Harris, 1989a). This pattern is illustrated by one student who took great care and effort to neatly rewrite her essay about summer vacation, but clearly did not understand how to logically or completely describe her experiences. One day, I was running in the field. It was very hot and leaves was falling. There are lots of hills and nice green grass. There are huge trees that are full of leaves. There were lots of flowers in the garden. It was a bit of shade. Lots of bushes that has leaves on it. And the summer was nice. Approach to Writing Skilled writers apply a multidimensional writing approach that involves planning, composing, evaluating, and revising (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). In contrast, many students who struggle with writing, especially those with learning disabilities, focus solely on generating content (Graham, 1990; Thomas et al., 1987). Such a unidimensional approach, aptly named “knowledgetelling,” involves writing down all information that is perceived to be somewhat topic-related. Each preceding phrase of a sentence is used to spawn the next and minimal attempts are made to evaluate ideas, reorganize the text, or consider constraints imposed by the topic or audience (McCutchen, 1988). Consequently, students’ papers typically contain of a list of ideas, rather than a well-organized, comprehensive discussion of the topic. The following two examples illustrate the “knowledge-telling” approach. Lack of vitamin A is not as bad as lack of vitamin B which in turn will not have so many bad effects as will the lack of vitamin C and so on down the alphabet. People are composed of girls and boys, also men and women. Boys are no good at all until they grow up and get married. Men who don’t get married are no good either. Boys are an awful brother. They want everything they see except soap.

3

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 4


Planning in Advance Prior to creating a draft, skilled writers devote a significant amount of time to planning and developing goals that subsequently guide what they say and do. In contrast, students who struggle with writing, especially those with learning disabilities, rarely utilize advance planning strategies (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). Even when specifically directed to plan in advance, they devote little time or effort to this phase of the writing process (MacArthur & Graham, 1987). Instead, their thought processes are spontaneously episodic, with each preceding idea serving as the stimulus for the following (Graham & Harris, 1989b). The plans they develop often resemble a first draft, consisting of a series of sentences that are just rewritten in subsequent phases of the writing process. The approach of a fifthgrade student to writing a report on forest fires clearly illustrates this pattern. Even after being instructed to “take your time to gather information and plan your paper,” the student quickly glanced through one book and did not make any notes related to organization or content. Within just a few minutes she created the following draft that included two facts she happened to remember (i.e., “Some forest fires were good... Yellow Stone Park was a place where lots of fires occurred”). What I know about forest fires is that they began by lightning or by somebody throwing match and forget to put it out. Sometimes because they throw cigarettes or they forget to put the camping fire out. And I thought that forest fires were all bad for forest. What I didn’t know was that some forest fires were good for the forest and that Yellow Stone Park was a place where lots of forest fires occurred. Generating Content During the initial phases of writing, skilled writers frequently generate more content than they need and then eliminate superfluous ideas or information through the revision process (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). In contrast, students who struggle with writing, especially those with learning disabilities, frequently produce inordinately short stories that contain little elaboration or detail (Graham, Harris, MacArthur, & Schwartz, 1991). Most likely, this occurs because students have difficulty retrieving information from memory, utilizing outside sources, and translating their ideas into written form (Graham, 1990). The note an 11th-grade student with a learning disability left on the desk of a special education teacher poignantly illustrates this challenge (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Note written by an 11th-grade student with a learning disability.

4

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 5


Revising Skilled writers engage in extensive evaluation and revision processes that iteratively improve their compositions (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). In contrast, many students who struggle with writing, especially those with learning disabilities, experience difficulty evaluating and revising their text (Fitzgerald, 1987; MacArthur, Graham, & Harris, 2004). Specifically, less than 20% of the revisions made by struggling writers represent substantive changes to the original text; they primarily involve making word substitutions, correcting spelling and usage errors, and rewriting the paper to make it look neater (MacArthur & Graham, 1987; MacArthur, Graham, & Schwartz, 1991). Furthermore, although many students can articulate appropriate and beneficial revisions, approximately two thirds of the changes that do alter the text have a neutral or negative effect (Graham, 1997; MacArthur et al., 1991; MacArthur & Graham, 1987). The following “revised” paragraph illustrates how seemingly evident errors remain unnoticed. George Washington is one of my favorites like when he didn’t let the British know he was out of bulits [sic] and kept firing. I read many things on him in a book. It was a brown one for 14 days. I am glad he comes but once a year. Transcription Skills Many students who struggle with writing, especially those with learning disabilities, have difficulty transcribing their thoughts into written form (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). They routinely misspell words, have difficulty with capitalization and punctuation, and produce letters very slowly (Graham et al., 1991). This leads to fluency rates that are nearly half those of their peers who are successful writers (Weintraub & Graham, 1998). Because students devote so much attention and effort to transcription, writing content becomes minimized or forgotten, and many aspects of the writing process are compromised (Graham, 1999; Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Goleman, 1982). Transcription difficulties also make it challenging for anyone, including the author, to read the paper. Persistence Whereas skilled writers devote significant time and effort to composing, many students who struggle with writing, especially those with learning disabilities, put minimal time and effort into the writing process (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). For example, when 10- to 12-year-old students with learning disabilities were asked to write an essay expressing their opinions on a topic, they typically spent 6 minutes or less writing their papers (Graham, 1990). Their compositions began with either “yes” or “no,” included one or two brief reasons, and abruptly ended without a resolution or concluding statement. This pattern is illustrated by one student’s response to the essay prompt, “Should children have to go to school in the summer?” No because it will be too hot. And you will miss fun things and going swimming. Because students with learning disabilities also evidence difficulty producing multiple statements about familiar subjects, the absence of content should not be solely attributed to a lack of motivation (Graham & Harris, 2005).

5

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 6


Self-Efficacy Research suggests that some students with learning disabilities are overly confident about their writing abilities (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). For example, Graham et al. (1993) found that students with and without learning disabilities were equally confident about their ability to get and organize ideas for writing, transcribe ideas into sentences, sustain their writing effort, and correct mistakes on their papers. This level of confidence may reflect the fact that students had not developed the skills necessary to accurately assess their abilities. It may also be the result of their desire to project a sense of confidence to cover up embarrassment about their difficulties with writing (Alvarez & Adelman, 1986; Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005). In one respect, unrealistically high self-assessments may protect students’ self-esteem. However, there is also the risk that students will fail to allocate the necessary time and effort to improve their writing skills; they believe good writers, like themselves, do not need to plan or exert much effort to write well (Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992).

TEACHING WRITING STRATEGIES The remainder of this article will focus on how to effectively teach writing strategies. First, the SRSD model will be introduced and the six instructional stages will be briefly described. Next, considerations related to maintenance, generalization, and evaluation will be presented. Then, the essential characteristics related to instructional practices and environments will be discussed. Following that, an example of how a strategy for planning and writing a persuasive essay was taught to fifthand sixth-grade students is presented. The ancient Chinese proverb “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember, I do and I understand” eloquently characterizes the ideal process for teaching writing strategies (Graham & Harris, 2005). Describing how to use a strategy and discussing why it is effective is essential, but it is only the start. Students need to have the strategy modeled and they need to be provided with supported opportunities to practice using the strategy. This systematic and structured approach is especially important for students with learning disabilities, who typically require more intense and explicit instruction to successfully master strategy usage (Brown & Campione, 1990; Reeve & Brown, 1985; Wong, 1994). It is also critical to consider issues related to motivation and attitude. For example, students who have relied on a knowledge-telling writing approach must be convinced that the new strategy is beneficial. Achieving this goal can be especially challenging if students have previously experienced some success using the knowledge-telling approach to complete certain types of writing assignments (e.g., a personal narrative) (Ellis, 1986). However, this incongruence should be directly addressed to ensure students enter instruction believing the new strategy is both valuable and realistic for them to learn and use (Salomon & Globerson, 1987).

THE SRSD INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL Self-Regulated Strategy Development is a flexible instructional model used to teach writing strategies and a variety of self-regulation techniques (e.g., goal setting, progress monitoring, self-instructions, self-statements) (Graham & Harris,

6

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 7


2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). SRSD can be effectively implemented by one teacher, but is adaptable enough to be implemented by multiple adults in a variety of instructional environments (e.g., small group, whole class). Research on nearly 20 different strategies targeting various writing processes and genres has shown that SRSD consistently increases content knowledge, strategic behaviors, self-regulation skills, self-efficacy, and motivation among students of varying ages and ability levels (Graham & Harris, 2003; Harris & Graham, 1999). In addition, SRSD has been found to be especially effective for students with learning disabilities because the instructional procedures and writing strategies specifically target the most common difficulties experienced by this population of students (Ellis, 1986; Graham & Harris, 1997b, 2003; Harris, Graham, & Deshler, 1998; Wong, 1994). Instructional Stages The SRSD instructional framework includes six stages that guide students’ acquisition and application of a writing strategy and the corresponding self-regulation procedures (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). The stages provide general guidelines for teaching writing strategies, but can (and should) be reordered, combined, modified, and repeated to meet the needs of teachers(s) and student(s). Table 1 provides an overview of the six SRSD stages. Table 1 Stages of Instruction in the Self-Regulated Strategy Development Model (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996) Stage 1. Develop Background Knowledge

Description Students are taught any background knowledge or skills needed to use the strategy successfully. 2. Discuss It Students examine their current writing performance and discuss the purpose and benefits of the new strategy. 3. Model It The teacher models how to use the strategy and self-regulation techniques. 4. Memorize It Students memorize the steps of the strategy. 5. Support It Students practice using the strategy with fading levels of teacher support and scaffolding. 6. Independent Performance Students use the strategy with little or no support. Note. These stages are designed to be flexible and should be combined, repeated, or reordered, as needed.

Stage one: Develop background knowledge. The focus during the introductory stage is on ensuring that students have the knowledge and skills to successfully understand, learn, and apply the strategy and self-regulation techniques. Underlying this goal is the teacher’s ability to identify and assess these prerequisites. Stage two: Discuss it. During the beginning of this stage, the teacher and students examine and discuss current writing performance, any existing strategies being used, and students’ perceptions of the writing process. Next, the new strategy is introduced and its purpose, benefit, and use are explored. Students are then asked to make a commitment to learn the strategy and act as collaborative partners in this

7

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 8


endeavor. Throughout this stage, special attention should be given to examining students’ maladaptive beliefs and behaviors and ways to reverse those negative effects should be introduced. This is also the perfect time to introduce the concept of progress monitoring and begin discussing the techniques that will be used to evaluate the strategy. Stage three: Model it. This stage focuses on demonstrating how to effectively use the strategy and accompanying self-regulation procedures. “Think-aloud” techniques and visual aids have been found to enhance the modeling process. It is also critical to explicitly highlight the benefits of using self-instructions (e.g., “Okay, now I need to ask myself ...”) and self-talk (e.g., “I’m doing a great job with listing my reasons ...”). After the teacher has modeled how to use the strategy, the benefits and challenges should be discussed and suggestions about how the strategy might be modified to make it more appropriate, effective, or efficient can be considered. This is also an ideal time for each student to develop and record the personal self-statements he or she plans to use to regulate strategy use, the writing task, or other interfering behavior (e.g., “I can do this!”). Finally, the concept of goal setting should be introduced, and each student should develop individual performance goals for improving his or her writing (e.g., “I will include all the story parts”). Depending on how quickly students grasp the key concepts, teachers may choose to provide additional models of how to use the strategy and self-regulation techniques. Stage four: Memorize it. During this stage, students memorize the steps of the strategy, relevant mnemonic devices, and their personalized self-statements. Within that context, it is acceptable for students to paraphrase the information, as long as the original meaning is maintained. If necessary, instructional aids may be used to help students memorize the strategy and self-regulation procedures (e.g., a poster with the strategy steps or index cards that list self-statements). Stage five: Support it. During this stage, students practice using the new strategy and self-regulatory techniques that were introduced (e.g., progress monitoring, goal setting, self-statements, and self-instructions). To meet the needs of individual students, teachers should offer scaffolded assistance. Examples of support students might require include direct instruction that targets how to use one step in a strategy, remodeling, reminders to use self-regulation techniques, additional opportunities to practice and receive corrective feedback, or extra positive reinforcement and praise. During this stage, students should be encouraged to work cooperatively, because peer support is a helpful way to initially learn and apply a strategy. The ultimate goal of this stage is to develop students’ skill in applying the strategy, such that they no longer require assistance from the teacher, support from their peers, or instructional aids. Stage six: Independent performance. During this stage, students independently use the writing strategy. After students demonstrate they can consistently use the strategy and self-regulation techniques, the teacher can consider whether it is appropriate to fade the use of goal-setting and progress monitoring processes. Maintenance and Generalization Ultimately, the goal of SRSD is for students to appropriately apply strategies over time, across settings, and with a variety of tasks. To promote generalization and maintenance, it is critical that teachers help students see exactly how the strate-

8

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 9


gy improves their writing and then use that context to prompt them to apply it over time. Similarly, students should be encouraged to identify other settings and tasks where the strategy would be beneficial and to consider ways to modify the strategy to increase its utility. Goal setting and progress monitoring can then be used. Evaluation Although there is a substantial research base documenting that the SRSD instructional model and strategies improve students’ writing knowledge, performance, and self-efficacy, it is important to understand that there is never a one-sizefits-all answer in education (Graham & Harris, 2005). Strategies that are highly effective with some students may not be as effective with others. Strategies that are highly endorsed and successfully taught by one teacher may not be equally successful when taught by another teacher. Additionally, in some cases strategy instruction may have unintended consequences. For example, one teacher noticed that after she introduced the SCAN revision strategy, one student’s first drafts became considerably shorter than they were prior to instruction (Graham & Harris, 2005). When questioned about the situation, the student explained, “SCAN makes me add more ideas later, so why write a lot the first time?” Fortunately, the teacher recognized this pattern and was able to understand and appropriately address the student’s decision. For these reasons, comprehensive evaluation is a critical component of strategy instruction. Not only does evaluation provide evidence that a particular writing strategy is successful, but it also gives teachers insight about the instructional process in order to make modifications that maximize student growth. This reflective practice is especially important because when teachers do not change ineffective practices, students tend to either devalue the strategy or interpret their lack of progress as a reflection of incompetence. The following six principles highlight ways to ensure that evaluation is comprehensive and effective. Principle one: Evaluation reflects established efficacy. The breadth and depth of evaluation should directly reflect the established effectiveness of the strategy. In other words, an untested strategy or instructional technique requires more thorough and formal evaluation than strategies that have been documented as effective. Conversely, strategies and teaching methods that have been previously validated need less scrutiny. Teachers’ levels of experience and effectiveness with strategy instruction should also be used to determine how much data to collect. Principle two: Evaluation is a collaborative process. It is essential that students and teachers collaboratively evaluate writing strategies and the procedures used to teach them. For students, high levels of engagement provide concrete evidence that a strategy is beneficial and that their efforts are worthwhile. Active participation also increases students’ levels of self-awareness and sense of ownership. For teachers, collaborative evaluation represents a practical way to reduce the amount of work involved in the evaluation process. One technique that helps achieve this goal is to have students assess changes to their written products. For example, after being taught a strategy to increase the number of revisions they make, students can count and record these data before, during, and after strategy instruction. Students should also be encouraged to share their perceptions about a strategy and the instructional methods used to teach it. For example, at critical points in the writing process, they can complete a journal entry that reflects on top-

9

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 10


ics such as: Do you think the strategy is helpful? Are there parts of the strategy that you find difficult to use? and, Do you need help using the strategy? Similar topics may also be explored during a class discussion, if appropriate. Either way, the information can be used in conjunction with other data sources to help teachers determine appropriate levels of support and necessary instructional adaptations. After students gain experience using a strategy, they can reflect again on the process and outcomes. Relevant questions at this point might include: What did you like about the strategy that you learned? What did you not like about the strategy you learned? In what ways did the strategy help you write better? Will you continue to use the strategy? What did you like about the teaching procedures used to learn the strategy? and How could we change the teaching procedures to make them better? However, because students’ evaluations are not always accurate, the information should be synthesized with data from other sources to understand the overall efficacy of the strategy. Principle three: Evaluation is multidimensional. Clearly, evaluation should target changes in students’ writing performance. However, there are two other areas that should also be assessed. First, it is important to evaluate students’ strategic behaviors during each of the writing processes (e.g., Has the amount of time devoted to planning increased? and Are they making more meaningful revisions?). Second, it is critical to monitor students’ levels of confidence as writers, their attitude during writing tasks, and their perceptions about the writing process. Principle four: Evaluation is a continuous process. Evaluation should occur throughout the instructional process so responsive adjustments can be made based on students’ day-to-day progress. One technique that helps teachers achieve this goal is to maintain a running record of informal observations. Such notes might reflect on the following: What went well during instruction? What aspects were problematic? and Which students have difficulty independently applying the strategy? Another technique is to have students keep the work they do during strategy instruction in a writing folder. Then, by reviewing each student’s work, teachers can easily monitor student progress, identify areas of need, and determine which students have mastered the criteria necessary to move to the next stage of instruction. Principle five: Evaluation targets how strategies are being used. It is also important to evaluate whether students are effectively using the strategies that they have been taught. Over time, some students intentionally modify a strategy or how they use it. For example, they might decide to eliminate a step that they deem to be too hard, too easy, or not beneficial. Other students may make unintentional changes, such as reordering steps or incorrectly using self-regulation techniques. Although some modifications may be useful and can be permitted, others are potentially counterproductive and must be addressed because they render the strategy ineffective. The most direct way to monitor how students use a strategy is to carefully and frequently observe what they do as they write. Principle six: Evaluation promotes maintenance and generalization. It is also critical to evaluate whether students are successfully applying strategies over time and in new situations. For example, to assess if knowledge about a strategy is maintained, periodically ask students to explain the purpose of the strategy and reiterate its basic steps. If they cannot do this, it is unlikely they are using the strategy

10

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 11


effectively. Students can also be given a log and asked to document each time they use a strategy and record ways they modified it for new tasks. When students are taught a writing strategy that can be applied in several different content areas or classrooms, it is also extremely beneficial to involve other teachers in the evaluation process to determine if the strategy is being successfully generalized. Ultimately, the goal is to offer additional support to students who need it (e.g., discussions about the purpose and importance of a strategy, targeted reminders to use a strategy with certain tasks and in certain situations). Essential Characteristics The six instructional stages, the strategies for maintenance and generalization, and the principles that guide evaluation are all important elements of the SRSD model. However, eight essential characteristics related to instructional processes and environments significantly influence success with SRSD. These include (a) enthusiasm, (b) active collaboration, (c) individualization, (d) criterion-based instruction, (e) authentic writing tasks, (f) a supportive environment, (g) constructive feedback, and (h) predictability (Graham & Harris, 2005). Each of these essential characteristics will be briefly discussed. Enthusiasm. Prior to SRSD instruction, many students who struggle with writing, especially those with learning disabilities, view the process as irrelevant, arduous, and frustrating (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). To help such students overcome these negative perceptions and reconceptualize writing as a powerful and essential form of communication, teachers should strive to be “contagiously enthusiastic” throughout all stages of SRSD instruction. Specifically, it is important to emphasize the value of writing and to focus on helping students see how their efforts will help them become good writers. Active collaboration. Students should be actively involved during all stages of SRSD instruction (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). By assuming an active role in learning and applying the strategy being taught, students’ motivation and sense of ownership in the writing process is increased, and they understand how effort and dedication improve writing performance. It is also essential that students have meaningful opportunities to collaborate with teachers and their peers. Individualization. The SRSD instructional framework is specifically designed to be responsive to students’ unique needs (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). Although the model consists of six stages, they are intended to be used as flexible guidelines and should be adjusted to ensure that every student’s writing is improved. As previously noted, many students with learning disabilities require more intense, explicit, and individualized instruction to master strategy usage (Brown & Campione, 1990; Reeve & Brown, 1985; Wong, 1994). Examples of ways to meet students’ unique needs include reteaching the prerequisite skills and processes needed to use the strategy effectively; offering additional explanations about the strategy; remodeling how to apply all, or part, of the strategy; developing instructional aids to help students remember the strategy steps and self-regulation techniques; and providing extended feedback and support while students practice using the strategy.

11

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 12


Criterion-based instruction. Effective SRSD instruction is based on performance criteria, rather than time (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). Students need to progress through each instructional stage at their own pace, advancing to the next stage only when they have met the criteria for doing so. In some instances, it will also be necessary to reorder, combine, or repeat stages to help students master the key concepts. Authentic writing tasks. Involving students in authentic writing tasks that are aimed at real audiences is another effective way to increase motivation and strategy usage (Graham & Harris, 1997a, 1997b). For example, the writing performance, self-regulation skills, and attitudes among fourth-grade students were significantly improved when they assumed responsibility for cleaning up a local stream. As part of this project, students used SRSD planning and revising strategies as they learned to write letters to local politicians and influential citizens, to write an article in the local newspaper, and to write a grant that ultimately helped fund their project. Because the tasks were authentic, meaningful, and relevant, students’ levels of interest flourished and their writing abilities improved dramatically. Supportive environment. Classroom environments that are supportive, pleasant, and non-threatening develop students’ passion for writing, and they also increase the likelihood that students will apply the strategies they have learned (Graham & Harris, 1994). This is particularly important for students who struggle with writing, many of whom need to overcome the lingering effects of previous experiences when they felt unsuccessful and frustrated throughout the writing process. Examples of strategies that help create an enjoyable and inspiring environment include establishing an exciting mood during writing time; encouraging students to take risks when writing; developing writing assignments that are compatible with students’ interests; allowing students to select their own writing topics or modify assigned topics; providing opportunities for students to arrange their own writing space; encouraging students to help each other as they plan, write, revise, and edit their work; holding conferences with students about goals, advances, and setbacks on current projects; asking students to share works in progress and completed papers with each other; praising students for their accomplishments, effort, and use of writing strategies; reinforcing students’ efforts and accomplishments by “showcasing” work in prominent places; and consistently modeling and promoting an “I can do this” attitude. Constructive feedback. It is also critical to understand that placing too much attention on students’ writing errors can negatively impact performance, perceptions, and motivation (Graham, 1982). Circling every misspelled word and usage error in red pen and writing things such as “AWK” above every clumsy phrase or sentence can make students more aware of their limitations and less willing to write. Similarly, writing should never be used as a punishment because it only reinforces students’ negative attitudes about the process (Graham & Harris, 2005). Predictability. Finally, the role of predictability in successfully promoting the use of writing strategies should not be overlooked, nor underestimated (Graham & Harris, 2005). Establishing a consistent writing routine where students plan, draft, revise, edit, and publish their work is a very powerful technique for three reasons. First, it provides students with plenty of opportunities to apply the various strategies

12

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 13


they have been taught. Second, it creates the flexibility needed for teachers to individualize and differentiate instruction. Finally, a predictable writing routine continually reminds students that writing is a highly prioritized, meaningful activity.

TEACHING THE THREE-STEP STRATEGY WITH TREE To illustrate one of the many ways SRSD can be implemented, a description of how a special education teacher taught a persuasive writing strategy to a small group of fifth- and sixth-grade students with learning disabilities is now offered (Sexton, Harris, & Graham, 1998). The three-step strategy with TREE is designed to help students identify what they want to accomplish, generate an outline that includes all the basic parts of an essay, consider the quality of their evidence, and modify their outline as they draft (see Table 2). In Step 1, students establish their purpose for writing by identifying their audience and their goal for writing the paper. In Step 2, they use a series of genre-specific prompts to generate, evaluate, and organize reasons that support their argument. The mnemonic TREE reminds them to outline ideas related to each essay element (i.e., a topic sentence that states your opinion, supporting reasons for that opinion, and ending). It also encourages them to freely brainstorm ideas and then “examine each reason;” crossing out those that would be less convincing to a reader. Next, they organize their notes by numbering which idea they plan to introduce first, second, third, and so forth. Finally, in Step 3, students use this plan as a guide to “write and say more.” Table 2 Three-Step Strategy with TREE (as Presented in Graham & Harris, 2005) Step 1:

Step 2:

Step 3:

Think. Who will read my paper? Why am I writing this paper? Plan what to say using TREE. Note Topic Sentence Note Reasons Examine Each Reason- Will My Reader Buy It? Note Ending Number which idea will go first, second, third, and so on. Write and say more.

The six students who will be highlighted in this example were members of a combined fifth- and sixth-grade classroom in an inclusive school. Their writing class was team taught by Marva, a special education teacher, and John, a general education teacher. Students in this class were familiar with working in small groups led by either Marva or John because they were frequently regrouped for different periods, subjects, and topics. Marva and John collaboratively selected these six students for SRSD instruction because each had difficulties with persuasive writing, displayed a low level of motivation, and had maladaptive beliefs about the causes of writing success and failure. While receiving small-group instruction with Marva, the students continued to participate in the classroom’s primary writing program, Writers’ Workshop (Atwell, 1987).

13

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 14


Stage One: Develop Background Knowledge Marva began SRSD instruction by having the students discuss what they already knew about writing persuasive essays. Because they were not familiar with the three basic elements required in an opinion paper (i.e., topic sentence, supporting reasons, and conclusion), she explicitly highlighted and explained each one. The students then located and discussed examples using books they had previously read and essays they had written. To further reinforce these concepts, Marva posed a number of hypothetical topics (e.g., “Do you think teachers should assign homework?”) and had students collaboratively brainstorm ideas for each essay element. This was an especially important aspect of developing background knowledge because these concepts serve as prompts for generating content during Step 2 of the strategy. Stage Two: Discuss It Following that initial lesson, Marva held individual conferences to talk about each student’s approach to writing and to introduce the new strategy they would be learning. They discussed how using the three-step strategy with TREE would help them improve their persuasive writing skills and established an overarching goal (e.g., “To write a better paper by having all the parts and using really, really convincing reasons.”). Next, Marva introduced students to the concept of progress monitoring with self-assessment, by explaining they would be monitoring whether the strategy helped them write better essays. Each student selected at least two previously written essays from their portfolios and determined how many of the required elements were included. Marva demonstrated how to graph this information using an essay she had written, and then made sure each student was able to correctly locate and graph their own data. This self-regulation procedure not only helps students monitor the completeness of their stories, but also visually reinforces the benefits of using the strategy. Throughout these individual conferences, Marva emphasized how each student would actively collaborate with the teacher and his or her peers to learn the strategy and then practice using it to write opinion essays on “cool topics.” Marva then reconvened the small group and asked students to expand their previous discussion about what makes a good persuasive essay. Here again, she explicitly focused on the importance of including all elements of an essay and evaluating the relevance of reasons used to support an opinion. She then introduced the three-step strategy with TREE and gave each student a colorful index card that listed the steps and the mnemonic. She prompted them to explain why each step of the strategy would be important and rearticulate why and how the strategy could be used (e.g., “Any time you want to tell someone your opinion, like when you write a letter to the newspaper,” “If you want someone, like your parents or teacher, to believe you have a good idea.”). Building on what was discussed during the individual conferences, Marva reemphasized that successfully learning the strategy and improving their writing depended students’ effort and active collaboration. Stage Three: Model It During the third lesson, Marva shared her own opinion on a topic and used the “think aloud” technique to model how to use the strategy to develop this idea into an essay. Students participated in this activity by helping her identify goals (i.e.,

14

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 15


“Write a great essay that includes all the parts and convinces my reader”), make a plan that includes notes reflecting each element, consider (and then accept or reject) possible ideas to support the premise, and write a first draft on large chart paper. Working together, the students accepted and rejected possible ideas to support Marva’s premise. To emphasize the importance of allowing an essay to evolve and to improve it with new ideas, Marva purposefully had students help her make several changes to her initial plan as she wrote. Once the first draft was completed, Marva modeled how to make sure all the elements were included and had students collaboratively improve and elaborate on each of her ideas. While modeling how to use the strategy, Marva explicitly used a variety of self-statements to guide her through the writing process. These included the following: “What do I need to do first?” (Problem definition); “First, I need to think of my topic sentence” (Planning); “Let my mind be free and take my time; good ideas will come to me” (Brainstorming); “Does this idea make sense?” (Self-evaluation); “What a great ending” (Self-reinforcement); and “I can do this!” (Coping). She also frequently verbalized attributions that associated success with writing to effort and using the strategy (e.g., “If I work hard and follow the steps, I’ll write a great essay!”). After creating a final draft, Marva graphed the results and praised herself for achieving her goal by saying, “I included each story part because I worked hard and followed the strategy!” She also used this opportunity to have the students talk about how self-statements impact writing. They volunteered examples of positive and negative phrases they used before the strategy was introduced and they identified the ones Marva modeled. She listed all of the positive ideas on the board and each student recorded the ones they planned to use on another colorful index card (e.g., “How am I doing so far?,” “I can do this if I try!,” “Work hard-Write better!,” and “Slow down and take my time.”). Stage Four: Memorize It In the next mini-lesson, Marva explained that using the strategy would be easier if each student memorized the three steps, the mnemonic TREE, and his or her personalized self-statements. They accomplished this task by rehearsing the information individually and with partners, and then quizzing one another. Memorization was easy for most of the students, but Marva found she had to provide some students with extra practice opportunities and support. Stage Five: Support It Students then began practicing using the strategy, self-statements, and progress monitoring procedures to write opinion essays. Based on her previous experience, Marva anticipated that writing an outline (Step 2 of the strategy) would be the most difficult task for the students in her small group. Consequently, she assumed the role of lead collaborator when they began their first essay. As they planned together, Marva intentionally made a few errors (e.g., forgetting a strategy step) because it allowed students to identify and discuss the cause and impact of her mistakes. Marva also modeled how to make corrections and avoid frustration by using positive self-statements (e.g., “I need to try to follow all of the strategy steps, so I can write a good essay. I know I can do it!”). As students continued practicing with the strategy, Marva encouraged them to set a goal before writing each essay (i.e., include all the parts of TREE) and then monitor their progress by counting and

15

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 16


graphing the elements they included in their final draft. Students reviewed each other’s papers and provided feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments. As students became comfortable using the strategy, Marva provided less intrusive, individualized assistance. For example, a few students needed help to effectively use their self-statements, some required additional modeling about how to carry out a process (e.g., generate more possible supporting reasons), some needed to revisit the underlying rationale for a particular step, and others were encouraged to expand and enhance the information they included in their first drafts. Reliance on the index cards listing the strategies and self-statements diminished over time. Stage Six: Independent Performance All six students were able to independently use the three-step strategy with TREE and the self-regulation procedures effectively after writing three or four essays. As students continued to use the strategy with new assignments, Marva provided positive and constructive feedback as needed. Marva also told students that they were no longer required to set goals or graph their progress, but encouraged them to do so as a way to ensure they continued to write persuasive essays that were interesting, convincing, and complete. At this time, Marva held a small-group conference to discuss and evaluate strategy use. All six students said they were glad they learned the three-step strategy with TREE because it significantly improved their persuasive writing skills and their perceptions of the writing process. For example, one student explained that he now told himself “to try harder” when writing, and that allowed him to write essays that were longer and more convincing. Another said she learned how to improve her papers by asking herself, “Is my paper good enough?” This student’s positive perceptions are validated by comparing writing samples completed before and after SRSD instruction. Prior to learning the three-step strategy with TREE, she was given the prompt, “Should students have to go to school during the summer?,” and wrote “No, because we went to for 180 and we need to have fun in the summer, and rest our brains before we start school again.” After only a few sessions of SRSD instruction, she was given the prompt “Should there be rules in school?,” and used the three-step strategy with TREE to produce the following paragraph. I think school rules are necessary. If there were no rules, people would be doing whatever they want. Not listening to the teacher and eating gum, and screaming, and jumping on furniture. That is why we have rules. So the kids can obey them and we will have a nice school. So that is why I think rules are necessary.

FINAL THOUGHTS SRSD leads to significant and meaningful improvements in writing knowledge and skills because students learn strategies that help manage the writing process (Graham & Harris, 2003; Harris & Graham, 1999). SRSD also leads to increased motivation and self-regulation (Harris, Graham, Reid, McElroy, & Hamby, 1994; Sexton et al., 1998). This occurs for several reasons. First, students’ active collaboration throughout instruction enhances their sense of ownership over the strategy and allows them to understand why strategy use is beneficial. Second, infusing

16

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 17


self-regulation techniques into instruction helps students see how their efforts and attitudes influence learning. Finally, enthusiastic teaching, promoting an “I can do this...” attitude, and offering frequent praise foster students’ belief in their ability to improve (Graham & Harris, 2005). Achieving positive outcomes with SRSD requires teachers to devote time and effort to learning the model and implementing it with integrity. This investment is consistently described as worthwhile (De La Paz, Owen, Harris, & Graham, 2000; Graham, Harris, & Troia, 1998; Mason, Harris, & Graham, 2002; Sexton et al., 1998). For example, a fifth-grade special education teacher explained that she saw “light bulbs going on” after she co-taught a story grammar strategy in an inclusive classroom. Similarly, a seventh-grade teacher reflected, “I think this is a good example of what strategy instruction can do for a student who would otherwise be overwhelmed and reluctant to tackle a five-paragraph essay assignment.” SRSD also receives social validation from students who offer comments such as “[this writing] strategy really builds up your resources,” “Now, this writing stuff makes sense,” and “[SRSD] should be taught to all schools in the country.”

REFERENCES Alexander, P., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospect. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129-154. Alvarez, V., & Adelman, H. (1996). Over-statements of self-evaluation by students with psychoeducational problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 567-571. Applebee, A. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54, 577-596. Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1990). Interactive learning environments and the teaching of science and mathematics. In M. Garner, J. Green, F. Reif, A. Schenfield, A. DiSessa, & E. Stage (Eds.), Towards a scientific practice of science education (pp. 112-139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Danoff, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1993). Incorporating strategy instruction within the writing process in the regular classroom: Effects on the writing of students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 304-311. De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy instruction in regular education settings: Improving outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 92-106. De La Paz, S., Owen, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2000). Riding Elvis’ motorcycle: Using Self-Regulated Strategy Development to PLAN and WRITE for a state writing exam. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 101-109. De La Paz, S., Swanson, P., & Graham, S. (1998). The contribution of executive control to the revising by student with writing and learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 448-460. Diamond, J. (1999). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: Norton. Durst, R., & Newell, G. (1989). The uses of function: James Britton’s category system and research on writing. Review of Educational Research, 59, 375-394. Ellis, E. (1986). The role of motivation and pedagogy on the generalization of cognitive training by the mildly handicapped. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 66-70. Englert, C., Raphael, T., Fear, K., & Anderson, L. (1988). Students’ metacognitive knowledge about how to write informational text. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 18-46.

17

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 18


Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57, 481-506. Graham, S. (1982). Composition research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 14, 1-16. Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students’ compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781-791. Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223-234. Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78-98. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989a). A component analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353-361. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989b). Cognitive training implications in written language. In J. Hughes & R. Hall (Eds.), Cognitive-behavioral psychology in the schools: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 247-279). New York: Guilford Press. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1994). The role and development of self-regulation in the writing process. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational implications (pp. 203-228). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1996). Self regulation and strategy instruction for students who find writing and learning challenging. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 347-360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997a). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally: Myths and realities in writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 26, 414-424. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997b). Self-regulation and writing: Where do we go from here? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 170-182. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000a). Writing development: Introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychologist, 35, 1. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000b). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3-12. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323-344). New York: Guilford Press. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better. Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. Baltimore: Paul. H. Brookes Publishing Co. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing and writing instruction with students with learning disabilities: A review of a program of research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89-114. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207-241. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Troia, G. (1998). Writing and self-regulation: Cases from the Self-Regulated Strategy Development model. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Developing self-regulated learners: From teaching to self-reflective practices (pp. 20-41). New York: Guilford Press. Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude towards writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237-249.

18

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 19


Greenwald, E., Persky, H., Ambell, J., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). National assessment of educational progress: 1998 report card for the nation and states. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Problematic intervention research: Illustrations from the evolution of self-regulated strategy development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 251-262. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Deshler, D. (1998). Teaching every child every day: Learning in diverse schools and classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Reid, R., McElroy, K., & Hamby, R. (1994). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of performance: Replication and cross-task comparison studies. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 17, 121-139. MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing with three methods: Handwriting, dictation, and word processing. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22-42. MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2004). Insights from instructional research on revision with struggling writers. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 125-137). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revision behavior among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 61-74. Mason, L., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2002). Every child has a story to tell: Self-Regulated Strategy Development for story writing. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 496506. McCutchen, D. (1988). “Functional automaticity” in children’s writing: A problem of metacognitive control. Written Communication, 5, 306-324. Persky, H., Daane, M., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Reeve, R., & Brown, A. (1985). Metacognition reconsidered: Implications for intervention research. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 343-356. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1987). Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness in learning and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 623-637. Sawyer, R., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition skills and self-efficacy of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 340-352. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778-803). New York: Macmillan. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goleman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse (pp. 173-210). New York: Academic Press. Sexton, M., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1998). Self-Regulated Strategy Development and the writing process: Effects on essay writing and attributions. Exceptional Children, 43, 295-311. Thomas, C., Englert, C., & Gregg, S. (1987). An analysis of errors and strategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 2130.

19

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 20


Weintraub, N., & Graham, S. (1998). Writing legibly and quickly: A study of children’s ability to adjust their handwriting to meet common classroom demands. Learning Disability Research & Practice, 13, 146-152. Wong, B. (1994). Instructional parameters promoting the transfer of learned strategies in students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 73-101. Wong, B., Wong, R., & Blenkinsop, J. (1989). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of learning disabled adolescents’ composing problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 310323. Zimmerman, B., & Reisemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73-101. Received May 1, 2006 Revised September 2, 2006 Accepted September 3, 2006

20

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 21

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 5(1), 21-39, 2007


Place Value and Mathematics for Students with Mild Disabilities: Data and Suggested Practices John F. Cawley Storrs, Connecticut

Rene S. Parmar1 St. John’s University

Lynn M. Lucas-Fusco Alden Central School District

Joy D. Kilian Buffalo Public School System

Teresa E. Foley Manchester, Connecticut

Place value is a phenomenon that has ominous implications for developing number sense and meaning and for using alternative algorithms and alternative representations within whole number arithmetic. For the most part, school programs examine place value at a surface level, with a primary focus on having the student identify or state a number value according to its positional setting. For example, in 146 the student is asked to state the value of the “4” as 40 or as four 10’s. Seldom is place value examined for its deep structure potential by incorporating, for example, expanded notation to complete an item such as 2 100 + 40 + 6 . Our interest is in the deep structure view of place value models (e.g., Ross, 1986, 1989, 1990), which delved more deeply into selected meanings of place value and their implications. In modeling the work of Ross with a sample of students with mild disabilities, the tasks were constructed from her model and the data are presented following her procedure. This paper presents data from a developmental inquiry of the place value performance of 126 students with mild disabilities on six place value tasks. A discussion of the multiplicity of meanings and activities related to knowing and doing arithmetic with an emphasis on place value is presented.

Key Words: Arithmetic, Elementary, Learning Disabilities, Instructional Strategies udging from the paucity of literature on the topic, the concepts and meanings of place value are among the least stressed in mathematics with all students, including those with disabilities. Place value is presented at a surface level in most situations, and generally involves little more than having students name the place value of a column in a written number. That is, a student is shown a number such as 325, in which the 2 is highlighted and the student is expected to say “tens” or “twenty.”

J

1. Please address correspondence to: Rene Parmar, St. John’s University, 8000 Utopia Pkwy., Queens, NY 11439; E-mail: [email protected]

21

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 22


However, experts (e.g., Baroody, 1990; Fuson, 1990) view place value as a higherorder concept because it formulates our system of number notation and the algorithms that comprise arithmetic. There is a near total neglect of effort to assist the student in developing a variety of conceptualizations of place value as: 1. the basis of our number system and our arithmetic, 2. the basis for estimation and rounding, 3. a way to construct meaning of alternative representations through the use of symbolic forms of expanded notation, 4. the foundation of alternative algorithms, 5. a foundation of our base-ten system with both whole numbers and decimals, 6. a ratio expressing relationships (e.g., between 10 pennies and one dime, to 100 pennies and one dollar), 7. the conservation of number embedded within alternative representations of a number as would be indicated if the student was shown 56 in the form of five 10s and six 1s and then shown 56 in the form of four 10s and sixteen 1s, 8. the potential to explain decimal relationships relative to the 1’s column, 9. a way to interpret the oral and written number system. Place value is difficult for many students to comprehend until they reach the middle grades (Ross, 1986, 1989, 1990). For example, Jesson (1983) examined the performance of 800 primary-grade through middle-school students’ development of place value and found slow, but gradual development to the upper grades. The literature has long suggested that children who have a poor concept of place value tend to experience difficulties with algorithmic procedures (Ashlock, 1986; Reisman, 1977). Traditional place value instruction that occurs before doublecolumn addition is introduced is not sufficient to help these children. The gap widens as more complex algorithms requiring more conceptual understanding of base-ten numeration systems are introduced. Ross (1990) researched several tasks to determine student understanding about place value. Based on her findings, Ross suggested that teachers need to focus more on two-digit numeration, during which time must be allowed for children to think and create their own number sense. Ross also recommended using problem solving, estimation, and alternative algorithms to teach place value rather than teaching it as an isolated topic. The primary concerns relative to place value involve its relationship to the operations of arithmetic and the extent to which place value should be taught directly (e.g., Baroody, 1990; Fuson, 1990; Fuson & Briars, 1990; Peterson, Mercer, & O’Shea, 1988) or left to develop intuitively (e.g., Kamii, Lewis, & Livingston, 1993). In their studies of first- and second-grade classrooms in which students were learning about place value, Heibert and Wearne (1992, 1993) contrasted a meanings approach with the conventional textbook approach. At each level, the students in the concept-based classroom performed better than those in the textbook-based program. In part, this may be a function of the textbooks themselves; for example, Fuson (1990) has cited numerous limitations to the textbook treatment of place

22

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 23


value. The textbooks give short shrift to place value and fail to give it enough attention to take students beyond the rudimentary levels described by Ross (1990), in which the students simply name the value of a column. Kamii et al. (1993) compared two groups of students instructed in place value using two different programs. The first group was traditionally instructed; the second group was instructed using a pupil-centered program. The fundamental difference between the two programs was that the pupil-centered program allowed students to invent their own procedures for solving computational and story problems, whereas the students in the traditional group were taught specific rules to solve the computation and story problems. The results indicated that the students in the pupil-centered program had a greater understanding of place value and regrouping in double-column addition. The authors also examined the extent to which students invented their own algorithms and found evidence of place value utilization. Kari and Anderson (2003) described a classroom approach to place value meanings through the use of problem-solving experiences in which the teacher presented a problem and asked the students to offer a variety of solutions. For example, with a problem such as 11+9, the students offered a variety of solutions as to the relationships between the numbers. Hindy (2003) discussed a variety of ways to develop a sense of place value by presenting fifth-grade students with a problem in which two students each have an amount of money, and the students are asked to state this amount as a multiplication sentence (e.g., each has 3, 2x3). She expanded this to each student having 30, 2x30, 300, 2x200 and 3000, 2x3000. Ultimately, the students developed a number of means by which computational principles are mastered (see Table 1 in Hindy, 2003). A detailed analysis of student participation in a classroom-focused topic, the candy factory, described procedures, outcomes, and alternatives in the development of third-grade students’ meanings of place value (Bowers, Cobb, & McLain,1999). The students participated in this single-classroom activity for a period of nine weeks. The activities centered on making packages of candy or repackaging candies. The data consisted of analysis of videotapes, field notes, and interviews prior to and after participation. Students were engaged in simulation activities such as using Unifix cubes as well as computer-based simulations. The arithmetical emphasis was on counting ones, tens, and hundreds to represent place value and incorporating addition and subtraction. Considerable importance was given to student dialogue. Five mathematical practices, ranging from counting to addition and subtraction, comprised the mathematics of the project. Perhaps the most relevant outcome was the differences among individual students as they interpreted and implemented place value meanings. Knowledge of place in base-ten numeration is necessary for understanding of and success in computation algorithms (Ashlock, 1986; Fuson, 1990; Reisman, 1977; Ross, 1986, 1989, 1990). School-taught procedures encourage children to memorize the digits to nine. Then by adding one more, children continue to count by rote beyond 10 without any concept of the base ten numeration system (Reisman, 1977). In the base-ten numeration system the position of each common digit has an expressed value and its value is relative to other digits (i.e., tens times as great or one tenth the value for each common number in 333).

23

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 24


In a general sense, the power of place value has not been fully explored. For example, an understanding of place value is a necessary foundation for estimation, of which three components seem essential. First is an understanding of estimation. Next is an understanding of multi-digit numerals. And, third is an understanding of the relationship between the words used to express place value and their meaning and physical and symbolic representations. Estimation is more than guesswork; it is a calculated procedure in which students identify the maximum place value representation in one or more numbers (e.g., the 300 and the 200 in 324+213); identify the relational value sought for those numbers (e.g., do they involve addition, subtraction); and perform mental calculations that are completed from left to right (Lee, 1991), and then, depending on the preciseness of the estimation, round off in columns adjacent to the stipulated place value. Many students with disabilities do not understand that estimation goes beyond guesswork, nor do they understand that it is a calculated procedure. As education moves more toward technology, especially with the hand-held calculator and microcomputer-based computation, the role of estimation will become more paramount as the insertion of data is a left-to-right procedure. It is important to concentrate on the meaning of multi-digit numerals before focusing on computations with algorithmic processes (Ashlock, 1986). Children must have a concept of the digits “1” to “9” and understand the value of each position in a multi-digit numeral as in a power of 10, 100, or 1000, as the case may be. According to Ashlock, children who have difficulty in mathematics can identify and name place value but generally learn the positions by rote. They cannot combine the digit’s face value and its place value. Fuson (1990) suggested that young children need to construct relationships between words for a numeral and the marks they represent. She advocated using physical materials for understanding the base-ten system to illustrate the positional factors of multi-digit numerals, and that the focus be understanding, not just the procedures of algorithms. Jordan and her colleagues (e.g., Hanich, Jordan, Kaplan, & Dick, 2001; Jordan & Hanich, 2000) assessed the mathematical thinking of second-grade students with and without learning disabilities. A component of these studies included place value, one segment of which was constructed based upon the work of Ross (1989). The Jordan and Hanich (2000) study included seven place value items, which consisted of a correspondence activity in which students were asked to count a set of 16 chips and then asked to read the number 16, which was printed on a card. The examiner then pointed to the 6 on the card and asked students to show what that part of the number means using chips. A chip-trading task was also included. Students were given a container of yellow chips and a container of red chips and shown a number written on a card and asked to show the same number with chips. In a general sense, the students were able to count 16, read 16, and specify the meaning of 6 in 16. However, they were less specific in stating the meaning of 1 in 16 and in their performance with the chip-trading activity.

24

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 25


The study by Hanich and colleagues (2001) included (a) a counting and number identification task, (b) a positional knowledge activity, and (c) a digit correspondence activity. In the counting task, the student was provided with 16 chips and asked to count the chips; in the number identification task, the student was shown a number (e.g., 415) and asked to read the number aloud. In the positional knowledge task, the student read a number aloud (e.g., 415) and was then queried about which digits were in the hundreds, ones, and tens place, respectively. There were also two digit-correspondence tasks. In the first, the examiner showed the student a card with the number 16 and then asked the student to use chips to show the value of a part of the number that was circled (e.g., 6, and the student was to show 6 chips); the second task consisted of a standard place-value activity and a nonstandard place-value activity. In the former, the student was shown a card with a number (e.g., 43) along with a picture of 43 squares arranged in a format of four sets of 10 and a set of 3 ones. The examiner indicated there were 43 squares on the paper, circled the 3 and asked the student to draw a circle around the number of squares corresponding to the 3. A second task showed the circles in a format as three sets of 10 and a set of ones. For the final activity, the examiner showed a card with a number (e.g., 26) along with a picture of six groups of 4 stars and one group of 2 stars. The examiner drew a picture around the number 6 and instructed the student to draw a circle around the number of stars representing this number (e.g., 6). Results showed that students had an adequate grasp of counting and number identification but a decided lack of proficiency with digit correspondence in standard and nonstandard formats. Assuming digit correspondence is the basis for understanding the relationship among alternative representations between combinations of symbolic forms (e.g., listening and reading) and nonsymbolic forms (e.g., manipulative and pictorial), it is likely the students will be unable to utilize varying formats of alternative representations or meaningfully utilize the base-ten system. When provided the results of the outcomes of the inquiry reported in this paper, a sample of both general education and special education teachers in a special project were polled on their responses to the data, as it was their students who participated. They were surprised and confused by the results. Some did not realize that their students did not have an understanding of digit correspondence or positional knowledge even though they could perform rote computational tasks. This reinforces the notion that students often learn mathematics as rote memory tasks, rather than with understanding, particularly the tasks of digit correspondence. Students could count, identify two-digit numerals, and count to 100 by tens, but did not know the value of each digit relative to its position in the numeral. Why should one ask a student to perform operations on these numbers when they have no concept of the value of the number itself? Further, none of the teachers had considered assessing place value to the depths undertaken in this inquiry.

METHOD Subjects The sample consisted of 128 students with mild disabilities enrolled in selfcontained special education classrooms and mainstreamed for selected activities. The students were grouped noncategorically according to level of achievement. The

25

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 26


students were from primary (N=56), intermediate (N=44), and junior high (N=26) grades. Students were selected from 15 different classrooms in five urban schools in a school district with an enrollment of 44,000 students. The district does not service students by disability type. Rather, students are cross-categorically grouped by level of academic achievement. The district does not permit student data to be extracted from student files. Procedures Each student was individually interviewed by a trained examiner. The examiners worked in pairs in performing the alternating functions of recorder and interviewer. Instrumentation The instrumentation was influenced by the hierarchical framework of Ross (Ross, 1986, 1989, 1990). It consisted of six primary tasks, each with a range of scoring. The instrument is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Task description for Ross tasks. Task A: Count Orally by Tens – The students were asked to count by tens as high as they could. If they stopped at one hundred, the examiners asked them if they could count any further. Level 1: Unable to count orally by tens. Level 2: Can count orally by tens but only to one hundred. Level 3: Can count orally beyond one hundred. Level 4: Not applicable. Task B: Count 48 Beans Efficiently – The examiner asked the students to count a collection of beans that was partitioned into 10 beans in four cups and 8 loose beans.The examiner told the students that there were 10 beans in each cup and some on the table. The examiner then asked the students, “How many beans are there?” Level 1: Unable to determine the quantity of beans. Level 2: Used counting by ones. Level 3: Used some efficient method of counting such as repeated addition, or multiplication. Level 4: Not applicable. Task C: Digit Correspondence of the Beans – After the students counted the number of beans in the above task, the examiner wrote down the number 48 on a sheet of paper.The students were asked first the meanings of the 8 (which was indicated by the examiner pointing to the numeral 8) and then the meaning of the 4 (which again was pointed to by the examiner). Level 1:The digits had no numerical meaning. Level 2:The student invented meaning not related to the grouping of tens and ones. Level 3:The student understood that the whole number represented the whole quantity, but confused or reversed the meaning of the digits. Level 4:The whole numeral must equal the sum of the quantities of the parts of the objects.

26

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 27


Figure 1. continued Task D: Conservation of Grouped Numbers – Using the same beans and cups as in the previous tasks, the examiner spilled one of the cups and asked if there were more beans now than there were before. Level 1:The students did not conserve; they thought that the value of the collection of beans had been changed. Level 2:The students had to recount the collection to be sure that the amount had not changed. Level 3:The students knew that the quantity of the group had not changed. Level 4: Not Applicable. Task E: Knowledge of Correspondence between Individual Digits and a Collection of Ungrouped Numbers – The examiner laid down 25 tongue depressors before the student.The student was asked to count and then write how many tongue depressors were on the table. If the student wrote the correct number the examiner circled the 5, and asked the student, “Does this the part of the 25 have anything to do with how many sticks you have?” Then the examiner circled the 2 and asked the same question. Level 1:The digits had no numerical meanings. Level 2:The student invented meaning not related to the grouping of tens and ones. Level 3:The student understood that the whole number represented the whole quantity but confused or reversed the meanings of the digits. Level 4:Whole numeral represents whole quantities of objects.The whole must equal the sum of the parts. Task F:The Position of the Digits Determines the Value of the Number – The examiner wrote the number 37 on a piece of paper and asked the student to read the number.The examiner then asked the student to point to the tens place and then the ones place. Next the examiner wrote down 84 and asked the student to read this number and asked how many tens. Level 1:The student could not distinguish between individual digits in a two-digit numeral with respect to the ones digit and tens digit. Level 2:The student knew that the digits are called ones and tens, but the left/right orientation is not firmly established and may make reversal errors. Level 3:The student can distinguish between ones and tens, but does not know that the tens digit represents how many tens are in the whole quantity. Level 4:The student can distinguish which digit is the tens and which is ones, and can determine how many tens are in a two-digit number by inspecting the tens digit.

Results The results are presented following the procedures of Ross (1989). Percentage of students attaining each level on the six tasks is reported by grade group in Table 1. The table is to be read vertically so the percentages listed for the primary sample under Task A, 32, 48 and 19 round to 100%. Student performance increased with age, indicating a developmental trend. Greater percentages of junior high students performed at the highest level of competency for each task, as 54% of this group attained the highest level in contrast to 17% of the primary level students. The lowest percentage of students performing at

27

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 28


the highest level was found at the primary level. Percentages of highest-order performance increased to the intermediate-level students, with the junior high students performing with the highest percentage. There were two exceptions to this developmental trend, in Tasks B and D. At the intermediate level a greater percentage of students performed at the highest level than the junior high school students on these two tasks. Table 1 Percent of Students Performing at Each Level Grade Performance Level A B Primary 0 0 7 (N=56) 1 32 53 2 48 5 3 19 35 4 NA NA Intermediate 0 0 0 1 2 21 (N=44) 2 32 0 3 66 80 4 NA NA Junior High 0 0 0 1 4 8 (N=26) 2 12 19 3 85 73 4 NA NA

Task C 33 38 3 12 13 0 27 2 27 43 0 23 0 4 73

D 31 40 10 19 NA 0 41 2 57 NA 0 31 15 54 NA

E 34 59 12 14 12 0 27 14 23 36 0 15 19 27 39

F 10 28 27 17 17 5 4 32 18 41 0 8 35 4 54

A further examination of the levels of performance on Tasks B and D by the intermediate- and junior high-level students shows that a lower percentage of students in the intermediate group responded at a Level 2 than those in the junior high group (intermediates responding at Level 2 was 0% as opposed to 19.2% at the junior high level on task B and on task D 2.3% of the intermediate-level students responded at Level 2 compared to 15.4% of the junior high students). The percentage of students performing at the highest level for most tasks seldom reached 50%. On the whole, these results paralleled those of Ross (1989), who studied general education students. That is, higher levels of performance were associated with age and grade level, but even at the upper levels, only a modest percentage of the students attained the highest level of proficiency.

DISCUSSION Important Considerations Place value involves several important and underutilized considerations for arithmetic. Among these are (a) the role place value plays in assisting students to enhance their ways of knowing and doing arithmetic; (b) the use of place value with alternative representations; (c) the role of place value in the development and use of

28

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 29


alternative algorithms; and (d) the role of place value in the development and conduct of “hands-on” and other forms of assessment. Each of these will be discussed below. Ways of knowing and doing arithmetic. The most common approach to teaching arithmetic to students with learning disabilities is to present a traditional algorithm accompanied by a set of rules, and to instruct the students to follow an example and complete each item as illustrated in an explicit and rote manner. The result is that the students do not develop knowledge of substantive meanings of the similarities and differences among the operations, nor do they learn that there are many ways of doing the operations. For example, using subtraction as an illustration, students are generally taught that subtraction is “take away.” If so, how do students deal with: Jim has 3 apples in his pail. Nancy has 7 apples in her pail. How many apples must Jim add to his pail to have as many apples as Nancy? or Jim has 7 apples in his pail. This is 3 more than he started with. How many apples did Jim start with? Actually, subtraction is a search for the difference between two numbers. Sometimes this involves “take away;” at other times this involves other conceptualizations. Also, subtraction is generally taught as a right-to-left operation. whereas the reality is that there are many algorithms for the teaching of subtraction (Cawley & Foley, 2002). For example a left-to-right algorithm is appropriate in the following example where we see the power of the understanding of place value. 45 - 14 30 + 1 31 Place value and alternative algorithms. Arithmetic is typically presented to students with learning disabilities via traditional algorithms. That is, the rule for addition, subtraction, and multiplication is to “start with the column on the right.” However, that is only one rule! Another strategy may start addition or multiplication in any column as shown below, and clearly going from left-to-right with subtraction has many advantageous (Cawley & Foley, 2002). Addition. It is time for the Friday Quiz. The students have been working on items such as 235+134=_______. One teacher has prepared a quiz comprised of six items as follows: 1. 321 2. 441 3. 512 + 142 + 355 + 345

4.

125 +532

5.

414 + 333

6.

253 + 115

The students are instructed to provide the correct answer.

29

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 30


A second teacher has also prepared a quiz of six items. ABC ABC ABC 1. 321 2. 321 3. 321 + 345 + 345 + 345

4.

ABC 321 + 345

5.

ABC 321 + 345

6.

ABC 321 + 345

The instructions are for the students to follow the sequence for each item and to provide the correct answer. Question #1. Start with A, go to B, and then do C. Question #2. Start with B, got to C, and then do A. Question #3. Start with C, go to B, and then do A. Question #4. Start with A, go to C, and then do B. Question #5. Start with B, go to A, and then do B. Question #6. Start with C, go to A, and then do B. Note that the first teacher provided six different items and instructed the students to do them all the same way, whereas the second teacher provided her students with the same item six times and then instructed them to do the item six different ways. The quiz prepared by Teacher A is illustrative of one likely to have been prepared by 99% of teachers and 99% of persons conducting research, where the primary concern is number correct. The quiz prepared by Teacher B is rare and likely to be directed to determining the extent to which the students can demonstrate alternative ways of doing addition and the utilization of place value. Which of these teachers do you believe had a greater interest in higher levels of understanding of addition and place value? Multiplication. Multiplication is one of the more rotely taught and performed operations of arithmetic, and a key component of this is the emphasis on teaching the tables. We prefer to seek competency in multiplication through array models (Cawley, 2002), where the stress is on meaning rather than memory. This enhances students’ capability to utilize alternative algorithms and to stress meaning. The students are presented with the following multiplication problem and asked to complete the item using the procedure that has been commonly taught. 321 x 2 642

30

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 31


After doing so, the instructor presents the students with the following problem and asks them to describe the ways in which the original item and the new item are similar and different. 300+20+1 x 2 2 40 + 600 642 The students ought to say something to the effect that, “They are the same in that the new one shows the same item except that it is written in the long way.” “The big difference between them is the way they are written.” The teacher might then refer to the original problem and go through the steps the students used to complete the item in a manner similar to the approach illustrated in the addition problem. The teacher might say, “You did this by starting here [point to 1s]. Look at this item; see the letters at the top [point to A, B and C]. Can you do this by starting with the number shown by the letter?” ABC 321 x 2 And saying, “Watch me, I can start here” and begin with the 10s as marked by the B. ABC 321 x 2 40 And finally go to the 100s as marked by the A ABC 321 x 2 40 600 and then ask a student if he/she could finish the item by doing C ABC 321 x 2 40 600 + 2 to show ABC 321 x 2 40 600 + 2 642

31

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 32


With the use of other combinations involving multiplication of three-digit numbers by two-digit numbers (e.g., 321x12, ) with or without renaming, the student is able to explore the interrelationships represented by the place value and to ultimately demonstrate and explain what place value does for our understanding of arithmetic, which in this instance is that multiplication can begin and end in many places. This encourages the student to think about mathematics and to develop a sense of number beyond the rote routines typically found in school. The authors visited a fourth-grade class taught by a general education teacher in a special project. The students were doing lattice multiplication, and one student remarked, “We use different algorithms in this room.” Knowing they were using different algorithms was a highly conscious indication of the manner in which meaning was evident in the room. The teacher suggested to the class that the authors might know a different algorithm. The authors presented the problem 321x12 described above. It took no more than 15 minutes for each of the six groups of students to take an individual item and complete it using the A, B, C combinations. The authors explained that the preferred way of doing items was the one they generally used in class, but that the use of different algorithms provided different ways of thinking about math. Thus, the role of place value was stressed. A special education teacher in this same school and in the same project worked with a self-contained class of 12 students with learning disabilities. The following anecdote was taken from a video of one class session. The students were working with combinations of two- and three-digit addition and subtraction problems where they were encouraged to work both from right to left and left to right. The teacher instructed the students to go beyond the items they were working with in class and to think up items of their own. The teacher then asked various students to go to the board, put an item on the board, and discuss the item. A student put the following two items on the board: 44 44,000 - 23,000 - 23 The teacher asked the student if one item (i.e., 44,000-23,000) was harder than the other. The student responded, “No it is not any harder. It is just longer, because you can forget the zeros.” This expression of place value sense is common throughout the lessons and prominent when the lesson encourages students to use their own thinking and item development. Within the community of students with learning disabilities it is common to find students who can say “hundred” or “three hundred” when asked to tell what the 3 in 325 shows. But these same students, when shown three 100s, three 10s, and three1s in a number, such as 333, are not able to affix significant meanings to the item if written as 300+3+3 or explain the comparative value of the 100s, 10s, and 1s, or how to trade one for the other. For example, in one teaching situation involving the authors, a group of eight elementary school-age students with mild disabilities were engaged in a place value activity. The students were shown three cups of different colors (green, blue, and yellow). Each cup had a sticker identifying it as the 100s, 10, or 1s. A number (i.e., 426) was presented to the students, and they were asked to make a representation of the number by putting the proper number of sticks in each

32

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 33


cup (4 sticks were placed in the 100s cup, etc.). The students consistently placed the correct number of sticks in the correct cup. The order of the cups was then changed so that the green cup with the 100s sticker was moved to the middle position and the blue cup with the 10s sticker and the yellow cup with the 1s sticker were placed on the extremes. Next, the cups were put in their original positions and the stickers were changed to different cups (e.g., the blue cup, instead of the green cup now had the 100s sticker). The students were totally baffled. Only one out of the eight students was able to relate the actual value of the number to the correct cup or the correct sticker. Yet, all continued to tell what “place value” was represented by a number when it was presented in written format. One must wonder how students with competence with place value could allow anyone to tell them the “3 does not go into 2” in 3 246 , “so we move over.” It would seem that students would say something to the effect that the “2 represents 200 and surely 3 goes into 200.” Better yet, it seems impossible that teachers continue to tell students that “3 does not go into 2.” If the goal is for students with disabilities to develop a “sense about numbers,” it seems that greater priority must be given to place value (Foley & Cawley, 2003). Understanding conservation about numbers is important for both forward (carrying) and backward (borrowing) processing. When students “carry” or “borrow,” it is important that they recognize that there is no change in the value represented in the original item, as shown below: 43 = 40 + 3 52 = 50 + 2 -9 = - 9 +9 = + 9 52 = 50 + 2 43 = 40 + 3 The value of 43+9 has not changed when represented by 52, nor has the value of 52-9 changed when represented by 43. Students who lack “number sense” are not aware that 40+3+9 and 50+2 represent a common value in that the 1s and the 10s have been renamed, not revalued. For the most part, our work with place value utilizes a format that is more similar to that of Baroody (1990) than that of Jordan and Hanich (2000), in that we make explicit the depiction of hundred, tens, and ones with sticks or blocks. We wrap 10 popsicle sticks to make a 10, 10 tens to make 100, and so forth. This minimizes the need for students to interpret ratios as in the case of a chip being so much and a number of those chips “ratioed” out to another relationship. Alternative representations and place value. Within the realm of place value and much of other mathematics is a prevailing concern about manipulatives and other forms of representations (e.g., Kamii et al., 1993; Peterson et al., 1988). The general perspective is that the use of blocks and other materials is helpful in learning about place value, but just how much help is gained from their use is not clear. For example, a research synthesis of mathematics instruction stipulates that “time should not be wasted” (Dixon, n.d., p. 23), and that the use of manipulatives requires more time with larger numbers and, hence, is inefficient. The view of the present authors is that the significance of the use of objects and related materials associated with manipulation is not clear. For example, some work (e.g., Cawley, Fitzmaurice-Hayes, & Shaw, 1988) makes a clear distinction

33

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 34


between the act of manipulation with pictures or objects and the fixed display of pictures or objects. This perspective stipulates that the act of manipulation is an active process in which two-dimensional or three-dimensional items are moved or rearranged. The display is a fixed representation of two-dimensional or threedimensional items. Manipulation and spoken language are parallel, in that the message conveyed by each is done sequentially (i.e., the acts of manipulation are observed in sequence in much the same manner that words spoken by one person are conveyed to the other in sequence). Also, in both manipulative and spoken language the message fades immediately. An important feature of manipulative and spoken language is that both can be easily reframed or restated. The message in the fixed display remains stable and may be viewed in a holistic or searching form that is not rooted in a specific sequence. Manipulative and spoken messages are memory dependent, and the student must capture and remember the message as it is transmitted. This is not so for display or written symbolic forms, because either can be reviewed exactly as it was originally presented. At the same time, pictorial and written symbolic messages are difficult to modify. Thus, there are important trade-offs in using varying message formats. This tends to have implications for students who must transpose the spoken value to a written value or vice versa (Fuson, 1990). In the teens, we state a value such as 14 by stating the “four” first and the “teen” second; in the thirties, we state a value such as 34 with the “thirty” first and the “four” second. Larger numbers such as 6,534 are stated largely by value, “Six thousand, five hundred, thirty-four,” but must be written by positional value. When students are requested to read two numbers composed of three or more digits (i.e., 324+241), they are expected to read from the hundreds to the ones. When writing a number, the students write the number from the highest place value position to the least. The same is true when entering numbers into a calculator or a computer. Peterson and colleagues (1988) conducted a study of place value learning with a sample of 24 students with learning disabilities. The focus was the use of alternative representations in which one sample used a concrete-semi-concrete-abstract sequence (CSA) and the other sample used only abstract materials. Students in the CSA intervention attained significantly higher scores than those in the abstract intervention. One limitation of the effort was that the terminal objective only asked the students to identify the number of ones or tens in a double-digit number. This is the lowest level of place value use in Ross’ hierarchy (Ross, 1990). Our general sense is that one of the reasons for student difficulty with the use of alternative representations is a lack of comprehensive experiences with them. For example, given 3 246 , how many students could represent that number with manipulatives? The term alternative representations encompasses a variety of constructs related to the use of three-dimensional (e.g., blocks, sticks) and two-dimensional (e.g., pictorial forms) and spoken and written formats by which number sense is represented and meanings and skills developed. Bruner (1968) used the terms enactive, iconic, and symbolic, and Peterson and colleagues (Peterson et al., 1988) used concrete, semi-concrete, and abstract as forms of depicting alternative representations. Each of these associates a term with material representations in that enactive and concrete are associated with three-dimensional representations and iconic or semi-concrete are related to two-dimensional representations. One missing factor in

34

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 35


each is that of differentiating between spoken and written forms of representations. In our own work (e.g., Cawley, Fitzmaurice-Hayes, & Foley, 2006; Cawley & Reines, 1996), we found it necessary to expand upon the forms of alternative representations and to encompass them into a format that would accentuate their coverage and their reliability. This format is referred to as the Interactive Unit (IU), see Figure 2. Figure 2. Interactive unit (IU) input and output combinations. Input

Output

Manipulate Identify State Write

Manipulate X X X X

Display X X X X

State X X X X

Write X X X X

The IU consists of four channels of input and four channels of output, resulting in a system of 16 interactions by which alternative representations can take place. The four forms of input are manipulate, display, state and write. The four means of output are manipulate, identify, state and write. The term manipulate is associated with movements such as arranging, piling, or sequencing. The term display stipulates a fixed representation. Either may use three-dimensional or twodimensional type of materials. If blocks or pictures are moved, this is manipulation. If blocks or pictures are presented in a fixed format, this is display. State refers to spoken language and write refers to the use of letters, numerals, or other forms of symbolic representations of mathematics. Manipulation and state have common elements, in that both require the student to attend to sequence and, in both instances, the message fades as it is presented. The representation presented by manipulation does not remain before the student, so the student must attend to the action. When manipulation is used, the materials are removed from the view of the student within one or two seconds, and this forces the student to attend to the sequence of steps represented in the manipulation. Both manipulation and state invoke an element of short-term memory. An important feature of manipulation and state is that both can be revised quickly by the presenter. Such is not the case with display or write. The write and display options remain fixed before the student and there is an opportunity for the student to review the representations. Table 2 displays the percent correct for students with mild disabilities performing place value tasks in the write/manipulate interactions. The participating students were from classrooms different from those receiving the Ross tasks. However, they were students in special education from classrooms where the teachers were engaged in a project that stressed the use of alternative representations, alternative algorithms, and meanings. The patterns of response were similar across items, in that the older students performed with greater accuracy than the younger students, except for the first two items on which all students did equally well.

35

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 36


Table 2 Percent of Students Performing at Alternative Representations Utilizing the Interactive Unit Interaction of Write/Manipulate Problem No.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Problem

27 356 240 39+18 87-46 306+18

9 (N=24) 95 83 54 62 58 45

Chronological Age 10 11 12 (N=22) (N=22) (N=28) 100 100 100 90 100 100 86 90 96 77 95 92 68 95 92 59 90 67

13 (N=21) 90 90 85 90 90 76

Figure 3 describes the tasks performed by the students referenced in Table 2.

Figure 3. Task descriptions for alternative representations. Administrative directions Say, “See this” [Show flashcard with 6]. Say, “Watch me. I am going to make a representation of six.” [Place 6 sticks on table] Say, “See, I made a representation six.” Say, “Now, let me see you do one.” Say, “See this” [Show flashcard with 9]. Say, “Take these sticks and make what it shows on the flashcard.” Correct as needed. Place a set of sticks consisting of units of 1, units of 10 as ten 1s and units of 100 as ten 10s and say, “I want you to use the sticks and make a representation of ...” continue with the following sequence of problems 27, 356, 240, 39+18, 87-46, and 306-180. Many students are unable to create manipulative representations of simple arithmetic as would be found in 12 264 and as shown below. The student is presented with a set of popsicle sticks previously grouped into sets of 100s with each 100 comprised of 10 sets of 10; each set of 10 is comprised of ten 1s; a set of 1s is also included. 12 264 The student begins by selecting the correct number of 100s, 10s, and 1s and displaying them as 12 xxyyyyyyzzzz with x = 100, y = 10, z = 1. (For a more detailed illustration see Foley & Cawley, 2003.) Once the student has completed the item and illustrated 12 264 , the student is instructed to transpose the manipulative representation to the write format and show the item in expanded notation form.The student shows 12 200 + 60 + 4 . Another student is requested to show the expanded notation format in the traditional form, 12 264 and to explain the similarities between expanded notation and the traditional form.

36

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 37


To illustrate what tasks in other operations would resemble, we provide an example of the Interactive Unit with a display input across four output combinations in Figure 4.

Figure 4. An example of the interactive unit (IU) with a display input and four output options. Input Display Teacher uses a pictorial format to present a representation of 233 as: xx yyy zzz where x = 100, y = 10, z = 1

Output Manipulate Student uses a set of sticks to create a representation of 233 as: xx yyy zzz where x = 100, y = 10, z = 1 Identify Student selects from two or more choices a representation of 233 that corresponds to that displayed by the teacher, such as: A B xx yyy zzz xx yyy zzz State Student examines the standard presented by the teacher and states the value of the corresponding numbers (i.e., 2 = “200;” 3 = “30;” 3 = “3”). Write Student examines the standard presented by the teacher and writes the numeral sequence (i.e., 233).

Place value is also important in assisting students to make the transfer from manipulative or pictorial representations to the traditional symbolic representations. Assume students are presented with a pictorial representation of (e.g., these might be dollar bills of different denominations) in the following form: xx yyy zz + xx + yy + z where x = 100, y = 10, z = 1 and requested to write that number as it is represented in expanded notation (i.e., the long way). The response ought to show: 200 30 2 + 200 + 20 + 1 Assume the student is next asked to write it the short way: 233 + 221

37

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 38


The transposition from pictorial representations is most commonly undertaken by presenting the pictorial form and then moving directly to the “short form.” However, many students do not make the transition to the “short form” because they lose the meaning between the three hundreds when represented pictorially and when written symbolically. The transposition can be made more understandable with the assistance of expanded notation. Understanding place value is fundamental in making the transposition from manipulative or pictorial representations to expanded notation and then to the “short form.” It is also essential for reversing the procedure when going from the short form to expanded notation to a manipulative or pictorial representation to assess student performance. It is also important to consider output as an equivalent partner in the exchange of information. In some of our work (Foley, Parmar, & Cawley, 2004) we have stressed the role of manipulative outputs such as would be the case in the actual construction of an aircraft carrier following the written and pictorial specifications of architects and engineers. At a simpler level, alternative representations apply mathematics activities to daily life, such as when one goes shopping. The person reads the shopping list and finds the product (e.g., a can of peas), which is then taken from the shelf and placed in the shopping cart (i.e., write/manipulate). The procedure is reversed as the cashier takes the product and scans it to determine a symbolic price. In summary, the role of place value has numerous implications beyond positional knowledge. Program and material development specialists should extend the role of place value in their work. Teachers should expand upon the many dimensions of place value and interpret its value within the context of “number sense” and go beyond positional knowledge.

REFERENCES Ashlock, R. (1986). Error patterns in computation: A semi-programmed approach (4th ed.). New York: Charles E. Merrill. Baroody, A. (1990). How and when should place-value skills be taught? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 281-286. Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McLain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematics practices: A case study. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 25-64. Bruner, J. (1968). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cawley, J. F. (2002). Perspectives: Mathematics interventions and students with high-incidence disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 23(1), 2-6. Cawley, J. F., Fitzmaurice-Hayes, A. M., & Shaw, R. A. (1988). Mathematics for the mildly handicapped. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc. Cawley, J. F., & Foley, T. E. (2002). Enhancing the quality of mathematics for students with learning disabilities: Illustrations from subtraction. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(2), 47-59. Cawley, J. F., Fitzmaurice-Hayes, A. M., & Foley, T. E. (2006). The arithmetic of whole numbers: Implications for students with difficulties in mathematics. Unpublished manuscript. Cawley, J. F., & Reines, R. (1996). Mathematics as communication: Using the interactive unit. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(2) ,29-34. Dixon, R. (n.d.). Research synthesis on mathematics instruction, executive summary of example synthesis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon, Eugene. Foley, T. E., & Cawley, J. F. (2003). About the mathematics of division: Implications for students with disabilities. Exceptionality, 11(3), 131-150.

38

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 39


Foley, T. E., Parmar, R. S., & Cawley, J. F. (2004). Expanding the agenda in mathematics problem solving for students with mild disabilities: Alternative representations. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(1), 7-16. Fuson, K. (1990). Issues in place value and multi-digit addition and subtraction learning and teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 273-280. Fuson, K., & Briars, D. (1990). Using a base-ten blocks learning/teaching approach for first and second grade place-value and multi-digit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(3), 180-206. Hanich, L., Jordan, N., Kaplan, D., & Dick, J. (2001). Performance across different levels of mathematical cognition in children with learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 615-626. Heibert, J., & Wearne, D. (1992). Links between teaching and learning place value in first grade. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 98-122. Heibert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393-425. Hindy, S. (2003). Setting the stage for computational fluency with “Arithmetic Tricks.” Teaching Children Mathematics, 10(1) 46-50. Jesson, D. St. John. (1983). The development of place value skills in primary and middle school children. Research in Education, 29, 69-79. Jordan, N., & Hanich, L. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(6), 567-578. Kamii, C., Lewis, B. A., & Livingston, S. (1993). Primary arithmetic: Children inventing their own procedures. Arithmetic Teacher, 41(4), 200-203. Kari, A., & Anderson, C. (2003). A teacher’s journal: Opportunities to develop place value through student dialogue. Teaching Children Mathematics, 10(2), 78-82. Lee, K. (1991). Left-to-right computation and estimation. School Science and Mathematics, 91, 199-201. Peterson, S., Mercer, C., & O’Shea, L. (1988). Teaching learning disabled students place value using the concrete to abstract sequence. Learning Disabilities Research, 4(1), 52-56. Reisman, F. K (1977). Diagnostic teaching of elementary school mathematics. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company. Ross, S. (1986, April). The development of children’s place value numeration concepts in grades two through five. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Ross, S. (1989). Parts, wholes and place value: A developmental view. Arithmetic Teacher, 36(6), 47-51. Ross, S. (1990). Children’s acquisition of place-value numeration concepts: The roles of cognitive development and instruction. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 12(1), 1-17. Received June 5, 2006 Revised September 9, 2006 Accepted September 11, 2006

39

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 40

40

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 41



Strategy Instruction in Reading Comprehension: An Intervention Study for Students with Learning Disabilities Faye Antoniou1 and Elmar Souvignier J. W. Goethe University, Frankfurt

Teaching reading strategies and guiding students towards self-regulated reading routines are promising approaches to fostering reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities. The aim of this study was to evaluate in a sample of 73 fifth to eighth graders with learning disabilities (IQ higher than 85 and reading skills below expectation) a reading-strategy program containing reading and self-regulation strategies. The program was taught to the experimental group by their general or special education teachers, whereas the control group received traditional reading instruction. A pre-, post- and followup design was used during an entire academic year assessing reading-strategy knowledge, reading comprehension, and reading self-efficacy. Immediately after completion of the program only effects on reading strategy knowledge were significant; however, followup measures yielded meaningful gains in the experimental group for reading comprehension (d = .80), reading-strategy knowledge (d = .62), and reading self-efficacy (d = .78).

Key Words: Reading Comprehension, Strategy Instruction, Learning Disabilities, Explicit Teaching large number of studies have shown that most students (80%) with learning disabilities (LD) manifest with difficulties in reading acquisition, particularly comprehension of written material (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Joseph, 2002). Students with identified LD constituted 2% of the school-aged population in the early 1970s (Powell, 1994); however, the number of students has profoundly increased, reaching levels of up to 20% in 1992 (Calhoon, 2005) with about 40% of them having reading difficulties (Hitschcock, Prater, & Dowrick, 2004). Unfortunately, identification of students as having learning disabilities comes at a cost: labeling and exclusion (Jenkins, Jewell, Leicester, O’Conner, Jenkins, & Troutner, 1991; Padeliadu, 2004). Due to the difficulty students with LD face in becoming academically and socially competent, they often (approximately 38% of them) quit school (Calhoon, 2005). It is a main goal of instruction to support the learning of students with LD, toward a broader goal of successful integration in society (Deshler et al., 2004).

A

1. Please address correspondence to: Faye Antoniou, Department of Special Education, University of Thessaly at Argonauton & Fillelinon, 38221 Volos, Greece; E-mail: [email protected], or Elmar Souvignier Department of Educational Psychology, J.W.Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, 60325, Germany; E-mail: [email protected]

41

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 42


Although word decoding and fluency are major components of reading, reading comprehension is the element that is most tightly linked to the LD students’ academic and professional success (Baumert et al., 2001). Successful understanding of written text involves certain prerequisite skills (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2002). Briefly, the main prerequisites for successful reading comprehension include the ability to decode words and to read fluently, as well as the use of active strategies to understand the meaning of printed text (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Reading comprehension is, therefore, a combination of knowledge- and text-oriented constructions. In other words, it is the result of a systematical reading process that integrates basic as well as higher-order reading skills (Kintsch, 1998). Students with LD face great difficulties in comprehending text due to a number of deficits that affect their reading skills and competence (Gersten et al., 2001). First of all, they fail to recall strategies needed for comprehension, they do not control their progress, nor do they adjust or regulate specific behaviors associated with successful comprehension. Students with LD have deficits in implementing and monitoring effective learning strategies spontaneously (Botsas & Padeliadu, 2003). They also apply insufficient text-comprehension strategies, use few monitoring procedures, and show little sensitivity to a text’s structure (Gajria & Salvia, 1992). As a result, they often develop negative or self-depreciative thoughts (Sideridis, 2005; Souvignier, 2003). These negative thoughts and cognitions, in turn, are associated with low levels of self-efficacy, reading interest (Schiefele, 1996), and motivation to read (Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox, 1999; Sideridis, 2003, 2006). Over the last few years a broad range of strategy-driven interventions and instructional programs have been developed to help enhance the reading comprehension of students with LD (Graham & Harris, 1997). Also, an emphasis on using cognitive and metacognitive strategies has proven to be effective for reading comprehension purposes (Gersten et al., 2001; Pressley, 2000; Swanson, 1999b). However, although the literature shows that students with LD can learn cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Gersten et al., 2001; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997; Swanson, 1999b), some researchers have reported that it is only possible for a limited time (Chan, 1991). Others have shown that students with LD can learn strategies and apply them in various situations, thus achieving generalizability (Jenkins, Barksdale, & Clinton, 1978). Specifically, when self-instructional techniques are the main construct of strategy instruction, students attain internalization and self-regulation of strategy use (Chan, 1991). Boekaerts (1999) suggested a three-layered model for supporting self-regulated learning, including (a) students’ use of strategies, (b) students’ use of special skills to direct their learning, and (c) students’ motivational-emotional competence and control (see also Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006). Specifically, students with LD use reading strategies (Wong, 1985) under explicit teaching, instruction on monitoring strategies, explicit generalization training (changing, set, material, cues, etc.), and attributional training (Chan, 1991). While it seems that these students are able to maintain and spontaneously use and generalize concrete reading strategies (Gajria & Salvia, 1992), this is only possible when the instructed strategies are categorized in a simple schema that can be easily learned and remembered (Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006).

42

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 43


Beyond strategy knowledge, the ability to regulate one’s own learning is equally important for reading comprehension (Boekaerts, 1999). Self-regulation is achieved when students adapt reading strategies to a specific reading situation by use of a pre-planned procedure, “which gives an external structure to the process of cognitive (self-)regulation and divides cognitive abilities into those used before, during and after reading” (Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006, p. 59). Similarly important for increased reading comprehension is enhancement of self-efficacy by prompting motivational aspects of self-regulation (goal setting, attributions of success and failure, self-monitoring and judgements, etc.) (see Gaskil & Murphy, 2004; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Schunk & Zimmermann, 2003). It seems that self-efficacy does not increase without the simultaneous presence of adaptive cognitive and motivational mechanisms; thus, in their absence, students with LD may become less interested in the text (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). However, the belief that a task can easily be achieved by activating a reader’s cognitive resources holds only when accompanied by adaptive motivational schemas (Pintrich, 2003). Thus, when self-efficacy and motivational beliefs are at high levels, the reading strategies taught for text comprehension are maintained and generalized (Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr, 1988; Guthrie et al., 1999; Nelson & Manset-Williamson, 2006). As stated above, effective reading requires the use of strategies that are explicitly taught (Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007). Explicit teaching in this context implies the use of small steps in which students are guided through initial practice, lots of practice with reinforcement (Rosenshine, 1997), modeling (Duffy et al., 1986), and corrective feedback and reinforcement (Morgan & Sideridis, 2006). Thus, programs that are based on explicit instruction have proven effective for enhancing reading comprehension (Ross, Smith, Casey, & Slavin, 1995; Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Hodge, 1995). Multicomponent Strategy Programs – where strategies to foster reading comprehension and strategies to accelerate self-monitoring are taught in a way that starts with (explicit) modeling by the intervener and aims at transferring the responsibility for choice and application of strategies to the student – seem to be one approach that can enhance reading comprehension in students with LD (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, & Whedon, 1996; Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007; Swanson, 1999a). Instructional Approaches for Enhancing Reading Comprehension The increased prevalence of learning disabilities has led to the construction of a number of interventions to accelerate reading competence in both general and special education settings (Jenkins, Jewell, Leicester, O’Connor et al., 1994). However, even if most of these programs improve reading skills, the gap between students with LD and typical students does not seem to close (Calhoon, 2005). Due to the importance of reading comprehension, LD students’ text understanding should be prompted through well-designed reading programs. However, not all programs are equally effective. The following description may shed light on treatment characteristics and which ones enhance or do not enhance reading comprehension. Several researchers have shown that sensory, oralographic, or reinforcement interventions do not yield positive results (Carte, Morrison, Sublerr, Uemura, & Setrakian,1984; Ratekin, 1979). On the other hand, interventions based on reciprocal instruction have yielded positive effects for the enhancement of reading com-

43

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 44


prehension in students with LD (Aarnoutse, Brand-Gruwel, & Oduber, 1997; Brailsford, Snart, & Das, 1984; Klinger & Vaughn, 1996; Lysynchuk, Pressley, & Vye, 1990; Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Positive outcome have also been reported when using a variety of strategies under a particular instructional approach. These “multicomponent” reading programs are based on reciprocal instruction of self-regulation strategies (Pressley, 2001) or meta-memory and metacognitive training (Lucangeli, Galderisi, & Cornoldi, 1995). Furthermore, treatments consisting of oral reading and word recognition (Sindelar, 1982), paradigmatic language (Cartelli, 1978), or phonics (Jenkins, Peyton, Sanders, & Vadasy, 2004) have also proven effective for remediation of reading comprehension in students with LD. In addition, several important findings have resulted from meta-analyses on the subject (e.g., Gersten et al., 2001; Mastropieri et al., 1996; Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007; Swanson, 1999a; Talbot, Lloyd, & Tankersley, 1994). Specifically, a combination of direct instruction of self-instruction and self-monitoring strategies has been associated with promising results in reading comprehension (Swanson, 1999a). Similarly, a combination of self-questioning plus self-monitoring (Mastropieri et al., 1996) or teaching of multiple strategies (Gersten et al., 2001) has been successful. In a recent meta-analysis, Souvignier and Antoniou (2007) reported that the most effective treatment packages to support reading comprehension in students with LD involved Summarization, Main Idea Strategies, Self-Monitoring, and Explicit Teaching. Thus, the integration of specific components of different intervention packages may prove to be highly effective for increasing reading comprehension in students with LD. Purpose of the Study and Research Questions The aim of the present study was to apply an instructional program that involves explicit teaching of reading enriched with the use of self-regulation strategies to improve the reading comprehension of students with LD. It was expected that the enriched program would have collateral effects on students’ strategy knowledge and self-efficacy. The specific research questions posed for this sample of students with learning disabilities were: 1. Can reading comprehension be enhanced by use of explicit teaching and self-regulatory strategies? 2. Can reading-strategy knowledge be improved by use of explicit teaching and self-regulatory strategies? 3. Can reading self-efficacy be increased after implementation of a readingstrategy program?

METHOD Participants Seventy-three students with LD from special and integrative schools of the Rhein-Main area in Hessen, Germany, took part in the study. The participant students were in the fifth to eighth grade and attended 27 classes. Fourteen classrooms were randomly assigned to the treatment group and 13 to the control group. It is important to note that students attend special schools in Germany because they exhibit learning disabilities, mild mental retardation (IQ 55-85), emo-

44

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 45


tional and behavioral problems, language deficits or environmental disadvantages (poverty, immigration or lack of German language); and, thus, are generally identified as students with special educational needs (Powell, 1994). For placement purposes, participating students had to go through a series of achievement-ability tests, a medical test, and were occasionally screened by school psychologists. However, these were not the sole criteria that led to identification of students as having LD. The principles employed to define the LD sample in the present study were based on the relevant research literature on LD diagnosis (Fletcher, Morris, & Lyon, 2003; Hallahan & Mock, 2003). Thus, to be involved in the study, students must have (a) adequate intelligence (IQ > 85); (b) reading deficits, with grade equivalent scores at or below two to three grades; (c) no physical handicaps; and (d) low reading achievement compared to expectation based on their IQ scores. Students’ reading grade level was estimated by comparing their reading comprehension scores to those of a sample of fourth graders. Out of 268 students, 73 met all criteria for inclusion. As Table 1 shows, 45 students with LD formed the treatment group and 28 students were assigned to a control group. Students’ ages ranged between 12 years, 8 months for the treatment group and 12 years, 6 months for the control group at entry. Most students (n = 29) spoke a language other than German at home, 19 spoke German only, and the remaining 25 spoke German and another language. Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Participating Students Group

Age

Gender

M

Language Other N = 54 German & Other 15 10 25 = Male, F = Female.

German N = 19 German

F

12,8 (.97) 22 23 11 TG (N = 45) CG (N = 28) 12,6 (.98) 17 11 8 Total (N = 73) 12,7 (.97) 39 34 19 Note. TG = Treatment Group, CG = Control Group, M

No German 19 10 29

As Table 2 shows, students of both groups were comparable across several characteristics, such as intelligence (IQ), vocabulary knowledge (VK), and decoding speed (DS). Table 2 Learning Characteristics of Participating Students IQ

Vocabulary Decoding Speed Knowledge TG 94.71 (6.83) 12.80 (5.11) 56.49 (16.71) 93.89 (6.89) 11.46 (4.47 62.07 (18.08) CG t(71) = 0.50, p>.10 t(71) = 1.14, p>.10 t(71) = 1,35, p>.10 Total 94.40 (6.82) 12.29 (4.89) 58.63 (17.34) Note. TG = Treatment Group, CG = Control Group, IQ = Intelligence Quotient.

45

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 46


Description of Intervention Program Participating teachers received a detailed handbook on how to apply the program, and students received a corresponding workbook and notebook. The handbook was designed in such a way that it would help teachers thoroughly implement the modified program in their classes. The main concept was that the teachers would teach explicitly cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies as well as selfregulation techniques. The program included four concrete reading strategies: Thinking About the Headline, Clarification of Text Difficulties, SummarizationNarrative Texts, and Summarization-Expository texts, as well as a self-regulation strategy in the form of a reading plan accompanied by a checklist. The main concept of the program was a story, where students pretended that they were detectives assigned to unravel a mystery by deriving the relevant information from a situation (“text-detectives”). In that way students realized how essential it was to proceed with a systematic and planned method to comprehend a case/situation. The purpose of this background story at the beginning of the program was to familiarize the students with the specifics of the procedure. Students had, as cognitive organizers in their workbook, explanatory and auxiliary symbols, which helped categorize the strategies and other important aspects of the program. The second unit included a cognitive strategy, Thinking About the Headline, which led to activation of students’ prior knowledge. The teachers asked students what they already knew about themes related to the topic before they proceeded to read the passage and delivery of information about the passage. During this unit, the teachers familiarized the students with the structure of different texts and helped them discriminate between narrative and expository passages. After predicting what would follow in the text, students had to show that the content of the passage corresponded to their prediction of the content, when first reading the title of the passage. The third unit incorporated a metacognitive strategy, Clarification of Text Difficulties. Here students had to read the text and monitor their understanding by finding unknown words. Each time they found a difficult word, they had to pause and mark it. They would then ask for help or find the meaning of the word on their own. Finally, the teachers asked students if they had identified the meaning of the unknown words and were ready to move on to the next unit. The third and fourth units were based on the cognitive strategy of Summarization. Using this strategy, students acted like detectives by finding the most important pieces of information in a passage and putting them together in a brief form to better understand the main concepts of the passage. The most important issue was to distinguish the text’s genre since that would indicate how the students would approach and comprehend the text. This was also the main difference between the third and fourth units. More specifically, during the third unit, the teachers taught the characteristics and structure of a narrative passage; namely, the main character, the character’s goal, a problem, and its solution. Teachers also guided students to form and generate questions based on the passages. Then the students answered the questions that they had written, and their answers in turn guided the formation of their summaries.

46

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 47


By the fourth unit, summarization of an expository text, teachers had taught the students to transform the important sentences into questions and attempt to answer them as a way of summarizing the expository passage. At the end of each summary, the students monitored their script and controlled if every important piece of information was included in the text. The last unit included a self-regulation strategy consisting of a reading plan accompanied by a checklist. This plan provided a graphical illustration of the reading procedure and indicated to students how to systematically use their strategies. According to this plan, students thought about the headline and made predictions about the text’s outcome. Then they read the passage once and clarified parts of the text that were unknown. After a second reading, students summarized the passage. Last, students monitored their scripts to make sure they were comprehensible and to the point. Using this metacognitive strategy, the teachers aimed to direct students to plan independently their reading and use of strategies and to monitor correct application of reading strategies. Material and instructional principles. The materials for the teachers and students guided the instructional procedure. First, the detailed handbook, which was developed to help teachers implement the reading strategies in their classrooms, was based on the above principles. It included clear and precise information to help teachers adopt and implement the strategies in their classroom. There were also elaborate examples for the lesson’s sequence and guidance for the function of every strategy. Four cards, each presenting one of the four strategies, served as guides for the students to remember and apply the recommended strategies while reading. Last, a bookmark listing all the important steps of the reading-strategy procedure was designed to help students to orient themselves while working on texts. Students with LD were explicitly instructed on how to apply reading and self-monitoring strategies in order to better comprehend a text. First, the teachers introduced an easy-to-understand text as a way to model the way that the readingstrategy program could be used and implemented. During the introductory step, the teachers provided students successively with the four cards corresponding to the first four strategies. The students practiced using the strategies reciprocally and “interacted” with the text with supportive feedback from the teacher. At the end of each unit, students monitored their achievement and demonstrated the correct application of each strategy. This consisted of two steps, where students first had to demonstrate that they understood the strategy (in the form of a classroom discussion and by completing a questionnaire). This was included in their workbook and served as a feedback form where students could monitor and control their progress. Teachers repeated the function and use of a reading strategy before introducing a new one. The purpose was to enhance strategy maintenance and stabilization. At the end, teachers gave students assignments on which they had to apply the learned strategies in order to ensure independent use. Intervention process. The study began in September 2004 and lasted for an academic year. The reading-strategy program was introduced to the teachers in an informal meeting, and all students were assessed in all control and criterion variables prior to the commencement of the program and two times afterwards (i.e., postand followup). Each testing lasted for approximately 45 minutes. After the pretest

47

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 48


assessment, teachers received the lesson material (teacher’s handbook, students’ workbook, cards, and checklist), in order to be able to implement the reading-strategy program. The program was designed to be in place for 29 academic hours, with the teachers designing the final schedule of when units would take place. During the implementation of the program by the experimental group, the control group students received traditional reading instruction. Posttests took place for all classes in April of 2005. The followup tests took place on July 2005. At both testing times, the teachers filled in questionnaires reporting their willingness to implement the reading strategies after completion of the program. Students’ learning characteristics. Before the start of the program students were assessed on intelligence, vocabulary knowledge, and decoding speed. Then classrooms were assigned to experimental and control groups to make sure students were “equivalent” on those measures. Measures Intelligence. Intelligence was assessed using the Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFT 20; Cattell, Weiss, & Osterland, 1987). The CFT 20 consists of 46 items divided into four subtests: rank procedure, classifications, matrices, and topological closures. Students were asked to form figural relationships and solve formal rational thought problems with different levels of complexity, all within a specified time. All items were constructed in a multiple-choice format with four response categories (cf. Weiss, 1998). The internal consistency of the test was Cronbach’s α = .90. Vocabulary knowledge. The vocabulary knowledge measure was a subtest of the CFT 20. After a modification made for the purposes of this study, the test included 28 (out of 30) words of the basal German language and aimed to identify the status of students’ vocabulary abilities. Two words were excluded since they were not compatible with this study’s sample knowledge. Students had to find the meaning of a word by choosing among five alternatives with the same or similar meaning. Students could earn a maximum of 28 points. The measure had ample levels of internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .81). Decoding speed. The decoding speed test Wuerzburger Leise LeseProbe Test (WLLP) by Kuespert and Schneider (1998) was used to assess students’ decoding ability. The students were required to match single words to one of four pictures (multiple-choice format). The words were phonologically similar, and the exercise had to be completed within a limited time period (4 minutes). Reading accuracy was not measured because the German orthography enables a distinction between poor and good readers by the speed of reading (Kuespert & Schneider, 1998). In other words, German is an “orthographically shallow” language that has an absolute grapheme-phoneme correspondence, and its pronunciation is of a high consistency (Jenkins, 2002). The WLLP was developed for use with primary-school children (grades 1-4) within 5 minutes. Because the study’s sample involved students who attended grades 5 through 8, time constraints were imposed (testing time was reduced from 5 to 4 minutes). Students could accumulate a maximum of 140 points. The decoding speed test’s retest reliability was r = .82. Reading comprehension. Reading comprehension was assessed using a modified version of the reading comprehension test designed by Souvignier and Ruehl

48

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 49


(2005; based on the diagnostic test of Nauck & Otte, 1980). Modifications involved word alterations. Students were asked to read a 250-word text and answer seven multiple-choice and five open-ended questions corresponding to the text. Parallel versions of this test were used at the different testing points. Five of the seven multiplechoice questions referred to concrete text details, whereas the last two required the reader’s total appraisal of the content of the text, which could prove a deep understanding of the text’s meaning. The open-ended questions dealt with the main character, his/her aims, a problem emerging in the story, and the solution to the problem. Students could earn up to 17 points, and there was no time limit for completion of the test. The texts implemented had been previously used in experimental studies (Antoniou, 2006; Souvignier & Ruehl, 2005) and were age-appropriate. Reading-strategy knowledge. In order to assess the extent to which students retrieved and used reading strategies, they were introduced to a reading-strategy knowledge test that was based on the metacognition questionnaire of Schlagmueller and Schneider (1999), and further modified by Souvignier and Ruehl (2005). The inventory included three short passages presenting a problematic situation regarding reading. For example, the text presented a student whose goal was to understand an interesting text that included a number of difficult words. Students were asked which were the best of six suggested strategies to accomplish the task (a. He/she has to read the text until the end; b. He/she has to look up the difficult words in a dictionary; c. He/she has to look over the text, see if the difficult words are explained later on; d. He/she has to write somewhere else the difficult words and ask his teacher for help; e. He/she has to circle the difficult words; f. He/she has to learn the story by heart, because then he/she will understand it better). Students had to give grades, pretending to be teachers, on every choice. The grades that students gave ranged from 1, for the best strategy, to 6, for the worst. The range of points, however, that the students could achieve at the end varied between 0 and 34. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of the test was α = .76. Reading self-efficacy. The measure of reading self-efficacy was constructed by Jerusalem and Satow (1999). The scale contains 11 statements, such as “If I make an effort, I can also understand difficult texts” or “If I have to work on my own a difficult text, I believe that I can make it.” The available choices were “I absolutely agree,” “I partially agree,” “I disagree,” or “I absolutely disagree,” and students could achieve between 11 and 44 points on the test. The internal consistency estimate (Cronbach’s α) of the test was α) = .75.

RESULTS T-tests were computed in order to assess the effectiveness of the reading strategy program in a pre-, post-, and followup design with reading comprehension, reading strategy knowledge, and reading self-efficacy as the dependent variables. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of all variables are shown in Table 3.

49

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 50


Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations of the Treatment Control Groups Across the Three Variables. Reading Comprehension

PrePostFollowup Reading-Strategy PreKnowledge PostFollowup Reading PreSelf-Efficacy PostFollowup Note. TG = Treatment Group, CG =

TG (N = 45) M SD 5.64 (2.06) 11.18 (2.95) 11.58 (2.84) 16.27 (6.00) 19.42 (6.87) 19.69 (4.75) 30.64 (6.14) 28.76 (7.34) 33.84 (6.35) Control Group.

CG (N = 28) M SD 5.32 (2.14) 9.36 (3.06) 8.75 (3.13) 16.32 (4.49) 15.93 (4.46) 16.96 (3.96) 32.79 (3.85) 31.21 (5.08) 31.57 (5.10)

Reading Comprehension Table 4 summarizes the outcome of the reading comprehension measurement. The difference in score change between the pre- and posttests revealed that there was a trend for the treatment group to demonstrate greater gain scores than the control group after the program’s implementation, t(71) = 1.72, p < .10. Even if the finding was not significant, it confirmed that the LD students in the treatment group attained and maintained the program’s content with regard to the strategies that enhance reading comprehension. The significant effect shown by the long-term difference of the change scores (between the pre- and followup performance) revealed that the treatment group outperformed the control group on the reading comprehension measure, t(71) = 3.19, p = .002. The treatment group showed great comprehension skills and competence in the long-term (d = .80), although the short-term effect was small to medium in Cohen’s (1992) terms d = .45 in the short term. Table 4 Results for Reading Comprehension in Post- and Followup Tests Difference SD TG-CG Reading Post1.50 .87 Comprehension Followup 2.51 .79 Note. TG = Treatment Group, CG = Control Group.

t (df =71) 1.72 3.19

p

d

.089 .002

0.45 0.80

Reading-Strategy Knowledge As illustrated in Table 5, LD students in the treatment group showed a significant improvement in strategy knowledge in the short term, t(71) = 2.77, p = .007. This sizeable transfer of strategy knowledge was not evident in the control group, t(71) = 2.16, p = 0.34. With an effect size of .62 (medium to large, according to Cohen’s conventions), the effectiveness of the program on the strategic knowledge of the students proved to be stable over time.

50

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 51


Table 5 Results for Reading Strategy Knowledge Difference TG-CG 3.55

SD

Reading Post1.28 Strategy Knowledge Followup 2.78 1.29 Note. TG = Treatment Group, CG = Control Group.

t (df =71) 2.77

p

d

.007

0.59

2.16

.034

0.62

Reading Self-Efficacy The difference in reading self-efficacy between the treatment and control groups’ growth scores was not significant between pre- and posttest, t(71) = .18, p> .10. Thus, implementation of the program did not seem to influence students’ selfefficacy (small effect size, d = .02). However, an interesting outcome emerged in the long-term results obtained from the difference of progress scores between the preand followup tests: Students with LD in the treatment group demonstrated greater gains than the control group, t(71) = 3.36, p = .001. Table 6 Results for Reading Self-Efficacy in Post- and Followup Tests Difference SD TG-CG Reading Post.32 1.81 self-efficacy Followup 4.41 1.31 Note. TG = Treatment Group, CG = Control Group.

t (df =71) .18 3.36

p

d

.861 .001

0.02 0.78

DISCUSSION The aim of this study was to enhance the reading comprehension, readingstrategy knowledge, and reading self-efficacy of students with LD through an explicit instruction program enriched with self-regulation strategies. Results showed that the students with LD benefited from implementation of the reading-strategy program in the long term. That is, immediately after completion of the program, the treatment group students’ progress was significant only on reading-strategy knowledge; however, their followup gains in reading comprehension, reading-strategy knowledge, and reading self-efficacy were significant. Since the effect sizes were rather large for all variables, it was concluded that the students with LD achieve significant long-term effects from implementation of a reading-strategy program in the classroom. Specifically, the results revealed a trend for the students in the treatment group to perform better than those in the control group. Even if the results were not significant in the short term, the long-term results demonstrated that the reading comprehension gains of the students in the training group were significantly higher than the gains of control group students. This finding replicates the outcome of several meta-analytical studies, which demonstrated that students with LD are likely to enhance their reading comprehension competence by the usage of reading and selfregulation strategies, and are able to generalize them to new academic situations (Gersten et al., 2001; Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007; Swanson, 1999b).

51

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 52


The nonsignificant short-term results may be explained as follows. Besides having a need for direct and explicit teaching and self-monitoring, students with LD may also require more time to practice what they have learned in order to be able to implement the strategies (Souvignier, 2003). Further, there is a strong correlation between a program’s duration and the setting where it is conducted. Thus, it seems that reading interventions for LD students that are conducted in general education classrooms are effective mostly when carried out over a larger number of sessions over time (Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007). The exact number of sessions required should be regulated by the teacher, because factors such as the intensity of the program or the teachers’ flexibility and support may influence the efficiency of the intervention (Aarnoutse et al., 1997). However, it is not only the external factors that affect the outcome of a reading intervention; internal parameters play an equally important role. In line with that, it has been shown that students with LD require more time while working on texts than their peers without LD to internalize the new knowledge and to make the learned strategies a part of their own self/cognitive system (Aarnoutse et al., 1997). Concerning reading-strategy knowledge outcomes, students in the treatment group showed significant improvements after the program’s implementation. The gains were significant, while the long-term outcomes yielded medium effect sizes. This finding confirmed that students with LD can expand their knowledge of reading strategies and are able to make use of these higher-order skills to improve their reading comprehension (Gersten et al., 2001; Pressley, 2000; Swanson, 1999b). This outcome replicated the findings of a number of earlier studies (Adams, 1990; Mercer, Lane, Jordan, Allsopp, & Eisele, 1996; Rosenshine, 1997; Siegel, 1992; Souvignier & Ruehl, 2005; Wilder & Williams, 2001; Williams, 2003) in that students with LD are likely to learn and use cognitive and metacognitive comprehension skills that also generalize to new subject matter or over time. Regarding reading efficacy, students in the training group did not demonstrate significantly greater gains than control group students in the immediate future. However, although there were no significant differences between the two groups in the short term, the long-term outcomes showed great benefits for the treatment group. This finding may reflect the fact that students with LD may need more time to realize their abilities (especially when they change). Nevertheless, high self-efficacy beliefs are necessary to develop competence (Lackaye & Margalit, 2006; Souvignier, 2003). Implications for Research and Practice The results of our study have both theoretical and practical value. Theoretically, this study’s findings replicate those of previous studies (Gersten et al., 2001; Mastropieri et al., 1996; Swanson, 1999a) that strategic reading is adaptive for the reading comprehension ability of students with LD. Furthermore, they appear to support the focal finding of a recent meta-analysis (Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007) that explicit teaching and strategy use promote reading comprehension in students with LD. The study has also important implications for practice. It demonstrates that students with LD can benefit from an intensive reading intervention that enriches explicit teaching with the use of strategies. The implications are the development of self-regulated learning and competence (in the long term).

52

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 53


Limitations and Future Prospects The intervention reported in this study is limited by the fact that there were no significant effects in (a) reading comprehension and (b) reading efficacy in the short term, although a large number of intervention programs have yield immediate effects (see Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007, for a review). Recent advances in the field of learning disabilities suggest that the creation of classroom environments that are conducive to learning may yield enhanced learning outcomes (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2003; Sideridis, in press; Urdan & Midgley, 2003). Given the apparent inefficiency of the present intervention package to yield immediate positive effects on students’ learning, one can explore the use of other learning methods. One such approach is peer tutoring, which has proven effective for increasing reading comprehension, almost as much as explicit teaching (Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007). Peer tutoring has been found to be effective for instruction not only of typical students (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982) but also of students with LD (Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997). Therefore, it would be interesting to explore whether explicit teaching methods can be implemented within a framework of cooperative learning techniques. Moving towards more complex and integrative ways of teaching (by combining effective teaching components), educators may be able to enhance the learning of all students, which should be the goal of education.

REFERENCES Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Antoniou, F. (2006). Improving reading comprehension in students with special educational needs. Aachen: Shaker Verlag. Aarnoutse, C., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Oduber, R. (1997). Improving reading comprehension strategies through listening. Educational Studies, 23, 209-227. Barron, K., & Harackiewicz, J. (2003). Revisiting the benefits of performance approach goals in the college classroom: Exploring the role of goals in advanced college courses. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 357-374. Baumert, J., Klieme, E., Neubrand, M., Prenzel, M., Schiefele, U., Schneider, W., Stanat, P., Tillmann, K.-J. & Weiss, M. (2001). PISA 2000. Basiskompetenzen von Schuelerinnen und Schuelern im internationalen Vergleich. Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich. Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445-457. Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 46-53. Brailsford, A., Snart, F., & Das, J. P. (1984). Strategy training and reading comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 287-290. Botsas, G., & Padeliadu, S. (2003). Goal orientation and reading comprehension strategy use among students with and without reading difficulties. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 477-495. Calhoon, M. B. (2005). Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program on reading skill acquisition for middle school students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 424-433. Carte, E., Morisson, D., Sublerr, J., Uemura, A., & Setrakian, W. (1984). Sensory Integration theory: A trial of a specific neurodevelopmental therapy for the remediation of learning disabilities. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 5, 189-194.

53

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 54


Cattell, R. B., Weiss, R. H., & Osterland, J. (1987). Grundintelligenztest - Skala 1, (Kinder von 5-9 Jahren; Sonderschueler bis zur 4. Klasse). Goettingen, Germany: Westermann Hogrefe. Cartelli, L. M. (1978). Paradigmatic language training for learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 313-318. Chan, L.K.S. (1991). Promoting strategy generalization through self-instructional training in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 427-433. Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A metaanalysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237-248. Deshler, D., Lenz, K. B., Bulgren, J. Schumaker, J. B., Davis, B., Grossen, B., & Marquis, J. (2004). Adolescents with disabilities in high school setting: Student characteristics and setting dynamics. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2, 30-48. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C., Putnam, J., & Wesselman, R. (1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill instruction and students’ awareness and achievement: A study of reading teacher effects. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 237-252. Fletcher, J. M., Morris, R. D., & Lyon, G. R. (2003). Classification and definition of learning disabilities: An integrative perspective. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris & S. Graham, (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 30-56). New York: Guilford Press. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206. Gajria, M., & Salvia, J. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehension. Exceptional Children, 58, 508-526. Gaskill, P. J., & Murphy, K. P. (2004). Effects of a memory strategy on second graders’ performance and self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 27-49. Gersten, R., Fuchs, S. L., Williams, P. J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320. Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1997). Self-regulation and writing: Where do we go from here? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 102-114. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Camill, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231-256. Hallahan, D. P., & Mock, D. R. (2003). A brief history of the field of learning disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 16-29). New York: The Guilford Press. Hitschcock, C. H., Prater, M. A., & Dowrick, P. W. (2004). Reading comprehension and fluency: Examining the effects of tutoring and video self-modeling on first-grade students with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 89-103. Jacobson, C., & Lundberg, I. (2000). Early prediction of individual growth in reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13, 273-296. Jenkins, J. R. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: research to practice (pp. 99-149). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

54

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 55


Jenkins, J. R., Barksdale, A., & Clinton, L. (1978). Improving reading comprehension and oral reading: Generalization across behaviors, settings, and time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 607-617. Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., Jenkins, L., & Troutner, N. M. (1991). Development of a school building model for educating students with handicaps and at-risk students in general education classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 311320. Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., O’Conner, R. E., Jenkins, L. M., & Troutner, N. M. (1994). Accommodations for individual differences without classroom ability groups: An experiment in school restructuring. Exceptional Children, 60, 344-358. Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 53-85. Jerusalem, M., & Satow, L. (1999). Schulbezogene Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen. In R. Schwarzer & M. Jerusalem (Hrsg.), Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schuelermerkmalen. Dokumentation des psychometrischen Verfahrens im Rahmen der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs „Selbstwirksame Schulen“ (S. 15-16). Berlin: Freie Universitaet Berlin. Joseph, L. M. (2002). Best practices in planning interventions for students with reading problems. Best Practices in School Psychology, IV, 803-816. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: University Press. Klinger, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. Elementary School Journal, 96, 275-293. Kuespert, P., & Schneider, W. (1998). Wuerzburger Leise Probe (WLLP). Goettingen. Germany: Hogrefe. Lackaye, T. D., & Margalit, M. (2006). Comparisons of achievement, effort, and self perceptions among students with learning disabilities and their peers from different achievement groups. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 432-446. Lodewyk, K. R., & Winne, P. W. (2005). Relations among the structure of learning tasks, achievement and changes in self-efficacy in secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 3-12. Lucangeli, D., Galderisi, D., & Cornoldi, C. (1995). Specific and general transfer effects following metamemory training. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 11-21. Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 469-484. Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with Learning Disabilities: 1976-1996. Remedial & Special Education, 18, 197-213. Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. E. (2002). Reading. In M. Mastropieri & T. E. Scruggs (Eds.), Effective instruction for special education (pp. 97-128). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc. Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. (1996). Reading comprehension: A synthesis of research in learning disabilities. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 10b, 201-227. Mercer, C. D., Lane, H. B., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D. H., & Eisele, M. R. (1996). Empowering teachers and students with instructional choices in inclusive settings. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 226-236. Morgan, P., & Sideridis, G. D. (2006). Contrasting the effectiveness of fluency interventions for students with or at risk for learning disabilities: A multilevel random coefficient modeling meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 191210.

55

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 56


Nauck, J. & Otte, R. (1980). Diagnostischer Test Deutsch (DTD 4-6). Braunschweig, Germany: Westermann. Nelson, J. N., & Manset-Williamson, G. (2006). The impact of explicit, self-regulatory reading comprehension strategy instruction on the reading-specific self-efficacy, attributions, and affect of students with reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 213-230. Padeliadu, S. (2004). Learning disabilities: What and why (in Greek). Athens: Ellinika Grammata. Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2002). Students’ self-efficacy in their self-regulated learning strategies: A developmental perspective. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 45, 211-221. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension – fostering and comprehension- monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Motivation and classroom learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 103-122). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. Powell, J. J. W. (1994). Special education and the risk of becoming less educated in Germany and the United States. Center for European studies. (Program for the study of Germany and Europe, working paper No. 05.1). Retrieved January 16, 2006, from www.mpib-berlin.de. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Pressley, M. (2001). Effective beginning reading instruction. Executive summary and paper commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Ratekin, N. (1979). Reading achievement of disabled learners. Exceptional Children, 45, 454458. Rosenshine, B. (1997). Advances in research on instruction. In J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 197-220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Increasing the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of alternative early intervention program. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 773-800. Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text presentation and quality of experience. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 3-18. Schlagmueller, M., & Schneider, W. (1999). Metacognitiveknowledge about test processing: A questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wuerzburg, Germany. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2003). Self-regulation and learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 59-78). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sideridis, G. D. (2003). On the origins of helpless behavior in students with learning disabilities: Avoidance motivation? International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 497517. Sideridis, G. D. (2005). Attitudes and motivation of poor and good spellers: Broadening planned behavior theory. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 87-103. Sideridis, G. D. (2006). Achievement goal orientations, “oughts,” and self-regulation in students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 116.

56

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 57


Sideridis, G. D. (in press). Goal orientations and classroom goal structures as predictors of classroom student behaviors for Greek students with and without learning difficulties. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities. Siegel, L. S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 618-629. Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P., & Hodge, J. P. (1995). Effects of explicit teaching and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of learning-disabled and low-performing students in regular classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 387-408. Sindelar, P. T. (1982). The effects of cross-aged tutoring on the comprehension skills of remedial reading students. Journal of Special Education, 16, 199-206. Souvignier, E. (2003). Instruktion bei lernschwierigkeiten. In G. Ricken, A. Fritz, & C. Hofmann (Eds.), Diagnose: Sonderpaedagogischer Foerderbedarf (pp. 402-415). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst. Souvignier, E., & Antoniou, F. (2007). Foerderung des Leseverstaendnisses bei Schuelerinnen und Schuelern mit Lernschwierigkeiten — eine Metaanalyse. Vierteljahresschrift fuer Heilpaedagogik und ihre Nachbargebiete, 76, 46-62. Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy-instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 16, 57-71. Souvignier, E., & Ruehl, K. (2005). Foerderung des Leseverstaendnisses, Lesestrategiewissens und Leseinteresses von Schuelern mit Lernbehinderungen durch strategieorientierten Unterricht. Heilpaedagogische Forschung, 31, 2-11. Swanson, H. L. (1999a). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: The Guilford Press. Swanson, H. L. (1999b). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504-532. Talbott, E., Lloyd, J. W., & Tankersley, M. (1994). Effects of reading comprehension interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 223232. Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes in the perceived classroom goal structure and pattern of adaptive learning during early adolescence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 524-551. Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. S. (2003). Reading instruction for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. Journal of Special Education, 36, 2-13. Weiss, R. H. (1998). Wortsatztest (WS) und Zahlenfplgentest (ZF). Ergaenzungstests zum Grundintelligenztest CFT 20. Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Wilder, A. A., & Williams, J. (2001). Students with severe learning disabilities can learn higher order comprehension skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 268-278. Williams, J. P. (2003). Teaching text structure to improve reading comprehension. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 293-305). New York: Guilford Press. Wong, B. Y. (1985). Issues in cognitive-behavioral interventions in academic skill areas. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 425-442.

Received December 3, 2006 Revised February 2, 2007 Accepted February 3, 2007

57

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 58

For more than 20 years, Landmark College in Putney, VT has been the leader in the creation of successful learning strategies exclusively for students with learning disabilities and AD/HD. More than eight of every 10 of our graduates go on to pursue bachelor’s degree studies at the college of their choice.

Learn More at Our 2007 Spring Open Houses Saturday, March 24 • Friday, April 27 For information and to register, contact us at PHONE 802-387-6718 E-MAIL [email protected]

www.landmark.edu

AMERICA’S LEADING COLLEGE FOR STUDENTS With

Learning Disabilities and AD/HD

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 59



The Effect of Asymmetry on the 2x2 Kappa Coefficient: Application to the Study of Learning Disabilities Teresa Rivas-Moya1 and María-José González-Valenzuela Malaga University, Spain

In educational practice, for the evaluation and diagnosis of learning disabilities (LD), it is advisable to use standardized tests together with observation questionnaires. When observation questionnaires are used in the study of LD, Cohen’s (1960) kappa coefficient (κ) is frequently applied as a measure of agreement between two raters when they independently classify a sample of subjects in several categories. In practice, a good interpretation cannot be made if the conditions surrounding the calculation are not taken into consideration. This investigation presents a study of asymmetry and its effect on the κ interpretation. In Study 1, the importance of symmetry is highlighted by means of several examples that show agreement between two raters when classifying 60 subjects in one of two categories. From these examples the interpretation of κ is complemented with the information given by (a) asymmetry analyzed by descriptive and graphical methods and hypothesis tests; and (b) other values, such as maximum observed agreement, maximum reachable agreement, and maximum unreachable agreement. In Study 2, the concepts of Study 1 are applied to examples of LD.

Key Words: Agreement, Kappa, Symmetry, Learning Disabilities mong the oldest and most persistent questions in the field of learning difficulties (LD) are its definition and assessment. The definition of LD is a complex task for educators and researchers alike, due in large part to the plurality of its historical roots, perspectives, and theoretical models. The debate surrounding the definition of LD means that its research and assessment must be re-examined, for various reasons. One reason worth noting is the advisability of defining (a) the properties of the measures, methods, and requirements to optimize the diagnostic process; and (b) the type of instruments, strategies, or assessment approach suitable for applying information in the treatment and determining its needs (Jiménez, 1999). Thus, if the models and assessment measures are reliable, they may serve to throw light on the definition of LD and its connection with instruction in an effort to prevent or improve LD. In educational practice, the most suitable assessment model is one that combines a static or standardized assessment with a dynamic or observational assessment (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1996). The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD, 2006) defines LD as a general term referring to a heterogeneous group of disorders mani-

A

1. Please address correspondence to: Teresa Rivas Moya, Department of Psychobiology and Methodology, Psychology Faculty. Málaga University, Campus de Teatinos s.n. 29071 Málaga; E-mail:[email protected]

59

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 60


fested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical skills. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual, presumably due to a central nervous system dysfunction, which may occur at any time in life. Problems in self-regulatory behaviors, social perception, and social interaction may exist in individuals with LD, but do not by themselves constitute a LD. Although LD may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (e.g., sensory impairment, mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance) or with extrinsic factors such as cultural differences, inappropriate or insufficient educational instruction), they are not the result of such influences or conditions. This definition agrees with the definitions proposed by other associations, such as NACHC (National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children), ACLD (Adults and Children with Learning and Developmental Disabilities), ICLD (Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities), and also with that given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (Pichot, Lopez-Ibor, & Valdés, 1995). Besides, it is widely accepted among professionals and researchers in the field of LD. This definition is based on the acquisition of skills (in reading, writing, mathematics, etc.) implicit within a model of assessment centered on abilities and the product (i.e., a static assessment). Static assessment is characterized as being a standard assessment of psychological abilities or diagnostic procedures. This makes it possible to detect individuals with LD and distinguish their condition from other pathologies. However, to a great extent, it is disconnected from educational intervention (Hammill & Larsen, 1978). The work of Shapiro, Buckhalt, and Herod (1995) is an example of static assessment. The authors examined the performance characteristics of school-identified students with LD using the DAS battery (The Differential Ability Scales; Elliot, 1990) by individual measure of aptitude and achievement levels (verbal, space, reasoning, spelling, reading of words, memory, etc., subtests) defined for individuals ranging in age from 2 years 6 months to 17 years 11 months. The study of Reynolds (1998) is also worthy of mention, in which the TOMAL (Test of Memory and Learning; Reynolds & Bigler, 1994) was applied to a sample of adolescents with LD to assess their performance in memory and learning; TOMAL is a standardized test administered to children ages 5-19 years old. Another definition of LD is upheld by the National Information Center for Children and Youth Disabilities (NICHY, 2000) and the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA, 2006). Here LD is defined as a neurological disorder that affects one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using of the spoken or written language. The disability may manifest itself in difficulties related to listening, thinking, speaking, reading, writing, spelling, or doing mathematical calculations (LDA, 2006). This definition is closer to the first definitions favored by some authors, pioneers in the study of LD (Bateman, 1965), and comes closer to an assessment model based on the psycho-educational process (González, 1997); that is, dynamic assessment. Dynamic assessment, less used in the study of LD, is based more on observational assessment (of teachers and/or parents) of the processes involved in children’s learning. This type of assessment facilitates differentiation between LD and other disorders. Further, it links the diagnosis to intervention and instruction by facilitating the detection of the needs of students with LD (Kavale & Forness,

60

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 61


61

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 62


62

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 63


63

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 64


64

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 65


65

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 66


66

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 67


67

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 68


68

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 69


69

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 70


70

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 71


71

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 72


72

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 73


73

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 74


74

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 75


REFERENCES Adults and Children with Learning and Developmental Disabilities. (2006). Retrieved March, 2006, from www.acldd.org Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical data analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons Bateman, B. (1965). An educator´s view of a diagnostic approach to learning disorders. In F. Hellmount (Ed.), Learning disorders (pp. 219-239). Seattle, WA: Special Child Publications. Bennett, E. M., Alpert, R., & Goldstein, A. C. (1954). Communications through limited response questioning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 18, 303-308. Bishop, Y.M.M., Fienberg, S. E., & Holland P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brennan, R. L., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 4, 687-699. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1, 37-46. Elliot, C. D. (1990). Differential ability scales: Introductory and technical handbook. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Everitt, B. S. (1977). The analysis of contingency tables. London: Chapman & Hall Fleiss, J. L., & Everitt, B.S. (1971). Comparing the marginal totals of square contingency tables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 24, 117-123. Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs. S. D. (1996). Combining performance assessment and curriculum based measurement to strengthen instructional planning. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 183-192. González, M. J. (1997). Las dificultades de aprendizaje desde una perspectiva psicoeducativa. Málaga, Spain: Servicios de publicaciones de la Universidad de Málaga. Gwet, K. (2001). Handbook of inter-rater reliability. Gaithersburg, MD: Stataxis Publishing Company. Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1978). The effectiveness of psycholinguistic training. A reaffirmation of position. Exceptional Children, 44, 402-414. Holley, W., & Guilford, J. P. (1964). A note on the G-index of agreement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24,749-753. Hutchinson, T. P. (1982). Some theories of performance in multiple-choice test, and their implications for variants of the task. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 35, 71-89. Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2006). Definition. Retrieved March, 2006 from www.kidsource.com Janson, S., & Vegelius, J. (1979). On generalization of the G index and the phi coefficient to nominal scales. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 255-269. Jimenez, J. E. (1999). Psicología de las dificultades de aprendizaje. Madrid,Spain: Síntesis. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1984). A meta-analysis assessing the validity of Wechsler Scale profiles and recategorization: Patterns or parodies? Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 136-156. Krauth, J. (1990). Distribution-free statistics: An application-oriented approach. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Learning Disabilities Association of America. (2006). Learning disabilities: signs, symptoms and strategies. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://www.ldaamerica.org Levy, P. S., & Lemeshow, S. (1991). Sampling of populations: Methods and applications. New York: Wiley and Sons. Maclure, M., & Willett, W. (1987). Misinterpretation and misuse of the statistic kappa. American Journal of Epidemiology, 126, 161-169. Martín-Andrés, A., & Femia-Marzo, P. (2004). Delta: A new measure of agreement between two raters. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57, 1-19. Martín-Andrés, A., & Femia-Marzo, P. (2005). Chance-corrected measures of reliability and validity in KxK tables. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 14, 473-492.

75

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 76


Maxwell A. E. (1970). Comparing the classification of subjects by two independent judges. British Journal of Psychiatry, 116, 651-655. Maxwell A. E. (1977). Coefficients of agreement between observers and their interpretation. British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 79-83. National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children (2006). Retrieved March, 2006, from www.nach.com Pichot, P., Lopez-Ibor, J. J., Valdés, M. (1995). DSM-IV. Criterios diagnósticos. Barcelona, Spain: Masson. Raghavan, R., Marshall, M., Lockwood, A., & Duggan, L. (2004). Assessing the needs of people with learning disabilities and mental illness: Development of the learning disability version of the Cardinal Needs Schedule. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 48, 25-36. Reynolds, C. R. (1998). Reliability of performance on the test of memory and learning (TOMAL) by an adolescent learning disability sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(5), 832-835. Reynolds, C. R., & Bigler, E. D. (1994). Test of memory and learning. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Rivas, T. (2005, September). The 2x2 kappa coefficient and the condition of symmetry marginal distributions. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference on Psychological Assessment, Budapest. Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-325. Shapiro. S. K., Buckhalt, J. A., & Herod, L. A. (1995). Evaluating of learning-disabled students with the differential ability scales (DAS). Journal of School Psychology, 33(3), 247263. The National Information Center for Children and Youths with Disabilities. (2000). Learning disabilities. Retrieved March, 1, 2000, from http://www.NICHCY.org The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2006). What is a learning disability? Retrieved April, 25, 2006, from http://www.ldonline.org/ Uebersax, J. (2000). MH program. Retrieved May 26, 2004, from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax Uebersax, J. (2003a). Kappa coefficients. In J. Uebersax (Ed.), Statistical methods for rater agreement (pp. 1:10, 10:10). Retrieved May 26, 2004, from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/agree.htm Uebersax, J. (2003b). Tests of marginal homogeneity. In J. Uebersax (Ed.), Statistical methods for rater agreement (pp. 1:6, 6:6). Retrieved May 26, 2004, from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/agree.htm Uebersax, J. (2003c). McNemar Tests of marginal homogeneity. In J. Uebersax (Ed.), Statistical methods for rater agreement (pp. 1:8, 8:8). Retrieved May 26, 2004, from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/agree.htm Xenitidis, K., Thornicroft, G., Leese, M., & Slade, M. (2000). Reliability and validity of the CANDID – A needs assessment instrument for adults with learning disabilities and mental health problems. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 473-478. Zwick, R. (1988). Another look at interrater agreement. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 374378. Received December 3, 2006 Revised February 2, 2007 Accepted February 3, 2007

Author’s Note This research was partially funded by grants from the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología. (Project Ref:BSO2001-1945) and Consejería de Educación y Ciencia de la Junta de Andalucía (Research Group CTS-278)

76

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 77



Story Mapping and Its Effects on the Writing Fluency and Word Diversity of Students with Learning Disabilities Daqi Li State University of New York, College at Oneonta

Students with learning disabilities (LD) often experience difficulties in writing fluently and using a diversity of words. To help these students, specific and effective writing strategies must be incorporated into instruction and demonstrated to them through modeling. This study examined the effectiveness of using a story map and story map questions to improve the story writing fluency and word usage diversity of four students with LD using a multiple-probe design. Results showed that three of the four students improved their writing fluency. Regarding the diversity of word usage, no considerable changes were found in the students’ writing performance. This finding supports the use of the story mapping strategy by teachers who are looking for ways to improve the writing fluency of students with LD. For students who struggle with the diversity of word usage in story writing, it is suggested this strategy be used in combination with other strategies that focus on improving word usage.

Key Words: Learning Disabilities, Story Map, Story Writing, Writing Fluency, Word Diversity ue to the challenging nature of writing, many students with learning disabilities (LD) experience difficulty when having to complete writing assignments (Houck & Billingsley, 1989; Newcomer & Barenbaum, 1991; Thomas, Englert, & Gregg, 1987). Much of the literature suggests that students with LD are less fluent in writing than those without disabilities (Montague, Maddux, & Dereshiwsky, 1990; Nodine, Barenbaum, & Newcomer, 1985; Poplin, Gray, Larsen, Banikowski, & Mehring, 1980). Students with LD tend to have problems in vocabulary use as well. In writing, their use of vocabulary often suffers from lack of variety (Morris & Crump, 1982) and sophistication (Houck & Billingsley, 1989). Furthermore, their choice of words is rather limited, and they use fewer words that are specific and rich in meaning. In narrative writing, students with LD may have difficulty in grasping the text structures and controlling the logical development of story events (Newcomer & Barenbaum, 1991; Nodine et al., 1985). Story writing becomes more complex when students have to incorporate story elements, such as characters, settings, goals, problems, solutions, and outcomes, into the writing (Bain, Bailet, & Moats, 1991). The stories written by students with LD are often rated as being of low quality as evi-

D

1. Please address correspondence to: Daqi Li, Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, State University of New York, College at Oneonta, Oneonta, NY 13820. E-mail: [email protected]

77

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 78


denced in story length, organization, structure, linking ideas, and ordering story elements with components related temporarily and logically (MacArthur & Graham, 1987). Barenbaum, Newcomer and Nodine (1987) also noted that students with LD had difficulty generating stories. Compared with low achievers and typical achievers, they were the least fluent writers, producing the fewest number of words. Further, these students do not know how to frame their stories so that all the basic story elements can be included. For example, Laughton and Morris (1989) found that most students with LD in their study included fewer components of stories than peers without disabilities. Various strategies have been invented to facilitate students’ learning of story structures, including story mapping. A story map is a graphic technique designed specifically to facilitate story organization. This technique uses a diagram (called a story map) to depict visually the settings or the sequence of events and actions of story characters. Based on schema theory (Anderson, 1977), which emphasizes linking previous knowledge structures (schemas) with the learning of new materials for effective learning, story mapping is intended to help students develop a story schema by providing them with a bird’s eye view of the basic story structure and the relationship between story elements. It enables students to visualize the basic story structure and story elements and helps them perceive the sequence of story development. Thus, by using a story map, students can realize that the settings, events, and characters of a story are interrelated. Because of the visual characteristics of story mapping, students may also find it helpful in planning their story writing. Research finds that story mapping may be effective in helping students with LD to comprehend stories and recall story information (Gardill & Jitendra, 1999; Idol & Croll, 1987; Vallecorsa & deBettencourt, 1997). Zipprich (1995) showed that a pre-structured story web could increase students’ planning time and improve writing quality. However, her students showed inconsistent gains in terms of the number of words and the number of thought units included in their writing. Vallecorsa and deBettencourt (1997) investigated a mapping procedure for teaching elements of the story form to middle-grade students with LD. The results of the study suggested that the mapping procedure positively affected the number of story elements included in students’ recall of stories. However, there was limited transfer of this skill to the students’ writing performance. Only when the students received direct instruction in the use of the mapping procedure for writing did they show improvement. Story cues refer to the facilitative hints, usually in the form of a checklist, used to prompt students’ attention, memory, and accuracy (Graves & Hauge, 1993). Graves and Hauge (1993) recommended that story cues be used with students who can identify story elements and can write simple stories but have difficulty creating complete and well-organized stories. Story cues can be conveniently used together with other instructional strategies, such as story maps. For example, they can be questions developed around a story map reminding students of the story components and procedures. As both story mapping and story map questions are relatively easy to manipulate, this approach has great instructional value. Story mapping and story map questions are instructional strategies that may hold promise for many students who are struggling with narrative writing.

78

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 79


However, few of the studies about story mapping or story map questions have explored the effect of these strategies on writing fluency and word usage. Specifically, the following questions remain to be answered: Will instruction of these strategies positively affect students’ writing by increasing their story production and fluency? Will these strategies help improve and expand the variety of word usage in students’ story writing? This study was an attempt to explore this area and these unanswered questions. In particular, the purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the story mapping strategy and the facilitative story map questions. The research questions were (a) What are the effects of the instructional strategy of using story maps and story map questions on the fluency of story writing by students with learning disabilities? and (b) What are the effects of this strategy on the word usage by students with learning disabilities?

METHOD Participants Participants were four 4th- and/or 5th-grade students with LD from two suburban elementary schools in the southwest United States. Three participants (Jim, Stanley, and Kathy) were White and one (Freda) was Hispanic. Selection of participants was based on the recommendation of general educators, special educators, or other qualified persons who had worked closely with the participants and were well acquainted with their academic performances and skills in writing. The Learning Disabilities Diagnostic Inventory (LDDI) (Hammill & Bryant, 1998) was used to identify students with processing problems in written language. Profiles of the participants’ scores on the LDDI scales and their performance on the Subtest of Written Expression of the WIAT are shown on Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Jim was 10 years, 11 months old when the study started. A fifth grader, Jim was identified by his school as having LD and was included in the general education programs. Jim had problems with reading and writing. To help him in these content areas, his general education teachers referred him to the Content Mastery class of the school 1-2 hours a week to receive remedial instruction. Stanley was an 11 years, 10 months-old fifth grader. He was particularly weak in mathematics and writing. As a result, he was pulled out of the general education program for about two hours each week to receive remedial instruction in the resource room. Stanley’s ratings on the LDDI scales indicated that he had potential problems in writing and math. Freda was 10 years and 6 months old at the onset of the study. She was also a fifth grader. Born in the United States to Spanish-speaking parents, Freda’s primary language was English. Freda had disabilities in reading and writing. Her general education teacher often provided extra help to her both in class and out of class. Freda’s parents were concerned about her learning disabilities and were planning to take her to see some language specialists. On Sundays Freda went to a learning center where she received remedial instruction in reading. Kathy was 9 years, 3 months old and was enrolled in the fourth grade. She was recently transferred from another school where her LD was first identified. She had difficulties in listening, speaking, and writing, and she needed constant help

79

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 80


from her teacher both in class and out of class. Her teacher’s evaluation of her performance using the LDDI scales confirmed her weaknesses in these areas. Table 1 Profiles of the Participants’ Scores on the LDDI Scales Scores in Stanine Participants LI SP RD WT M TRE Jim 9 9 6 5 9 9 Stanley 9 9 9 5 5 9 Freda 3 4 6 3 5 7 Kathy 1 4 6 5 9 7 Note. LI = listening; SP = speaking; RD = reading;WT = writing; MT = mathematics; RE = reasoning.

Table 2 Participants’ Performance on the Subtest of Written Expression of the WIAT Elements of Writing Skills Participants I&D OUC VOC SSV G&U C&P Total Jim 2 2 3 1 2 2 12 Stanley 2 2 2 1 2 1 10 Freda 2 2 2 2 3 2 13 Kathy 2 2 3 1 2 1 11 Note. I&D = ideas and development; OUC = organization, utility, and coherence;VOC = vocabulary; SSV = sentence structure and variety; G&U = grammar and usage; C&P = capitalization and punctuation.

Research Design A multiple-probe single-case experimental design was used across the four participants. In a multiple-probe design, a variation of the basic multiple-baseline design, the researcher does not collect baseline data on a continuous basis. Instead, probe trials that are operationally identical to preintervention baseline trials are conducted intermittently on behaviors to be trained (Tawney & Gast, 1984). In the beginning, an initial probe was conducted across all participants. A minimum of three consecutive probe sessions were scheduled for the first participant, Jim. When Jim’s performance level had shown stability, continuous intervention sessions started for him. Following that, a minimum of three consecutive probe sessions were applied to the second participant, Stanley, while the third and fourth participants only received intermittently scheduled probe sessions. When Stanley had exhibited stable baseline performance, intervention initiated for him on a continuous basis. Then consecutive probe sessions were conducted for the third participant, Freda. Such sessions were withheld for the fourth participant until Freda showed stable baseline performance and intervention started for her. Similarly, the fourth participant, Kathy, began to receive intervention only when her performance during the probe sessions became stable.

80

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 81


Independent and Dependent Variables The independent variable was the instructional strategy of using story mapping and the facilitative story map questions. During the intervention as well as the maintenance sessions, the participants were provided with the story map and the story map questions. Two dependent variables were measured objectively to assess participants’ performance in story writing. One of them was their story writing fluency. This was measured by counting the total number of T-units in a story. Another dependent variable was the diversity of word usage; that is, the range of different words used in a story. The diversity of word usage was presented in the type/token ratio. It was calculated as the number of different words used in a story, divided by the total number of words of the story. A ratio of 1.0 indicated no redundancy; a ratio of .5 meant there was frequent repetition (Polloway & Smith, 1992). Intervention Materials A set of training materials were used, which included (a) Picture prompts for generating stories. The pictures were selected from current newspapers, magazines, children’s books, pictorials, and so forth. A picture prompt consisted of a scene with various characters or a single character or object. Before the study, the picture prompts had been presented to two other students of the participants’ age level. These two students (a boy and a girl) were asked to identify the pictures that were interesting and that prompted easy story writing. Pictures that were rated poor by the two students were not used. (b) A story map designed to facilitate generation and organization of narrative content. This story map was adapted from the Outline of Story-Mapping Components developed by Idol and Croll (1987). This generic type of story map was used during the first phase of intervention. (c) A set of story map questions designed for helping participants to explore story ideas and make elaboration. The questions were incorporated into the generic story map. The story map questions combined with the generic story map were presented to the participants during the second and third phases of intervention and the maintenance phase (see Appendix). Procedures Baseline condition. After giving each student a pencil and a sheet of lined paper, I, the researcher, showed them a set of four pictures and asked them to choose one. Then I instructed them to plan and write a story based on the content of the picture within 30 minutes, underscoring that the content was most important and that they would not be penalized for mechanical errors. I did not provide feedback about the content and the quality of their stories. However, I did provide the correct spelling for individual words when requested. I told the students to write on every other line of the sheet of paper so that they could add content or make changes later. I also informed them that they could take dictionaries to their writing sessions if they desired, but none of them did so. Intervention phase 1. Phase 1 involved the researcher modeling the use of the story map. After the participants’ writing performances exhibited acceptable stability in the level of fluency, the intervention was applied. During the first phase, I showed the participants a set of four pictures and asked them to choose one. I then showed them the pre-structured generic story map. I also explained the components of a story and showed the participants how these components were related. Together,

81

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 82


we then worked to generate ideas, brainstorming possible characters, events, problems, solutions, and the outcome of the story. I modeled for the participants by writing the ideas down in the story map and subsequently allowed them 20 minutes to plan and write a story with the help of the generated ideas and the story map. I reminded them that they would not be penalized for mechanical errors. Intervention phase 2. After five sessions of story map modeling, the second phase of intervention began to introduce the story map questions. In addition to the story map, the participants received the story map questions in both written and spoken forms. The written questions were printed in the story map boxes. The questions in spoken forms were provided verbally by me. The questions served to remind the participants of the story elements and possible ideas associated with them. During this phase, I required the students to generate ideas for their stories while I facilitated the process with questions. Guided by the questions, the participants spoke aloud about their ideas for story planning. Then I wrote down the ideas in the story map. The participants referred to these ideas when they wrote their stories. Intervention phase 3. This phase involved researcher guidance and started after five consecutive sessions of the second phase of intervention. During this new phase, I stopped modeling and provided only verbal guidance as necessary. Again, I showed students a set of four pictures and told them to choose one. I gave them a copy of the story map combined with the facilitating story map questions and asked them to generate ideas for a story and fill in the map. I answered their questions concerning the story map and story ideas and reminded them of the important story elements that they had missed. I used story map questions to help the participants develop stories. However, the participants were responsible for generating their own ideas for the stories. Then I allowed them 20 minutes to write a story with the help of the generated ideas and the story map. Maintenance phase. After a participant showed a 50% increase in writing fluency over the average of the baseline phase for seven consecutive sessions during intervention phase 3, intervention was stopped. This margin of improvement was set based on findings of other studies (Graves, Semmel, & Gerber, 1994; Montague & Leavell, 1994; Nodine et al., 1985). However, if the participants failed to demonstrate this 50% increase for seven consecutive sessions during intervention phase 3, the intervention was still terminated and the maintenance phase began. During the maintenance phase, I showed the participants a set of four picture prompts and let them choose one of the prompts. Then I gave the participants a story map with the story map questions printed in it. Unlike during the intervention phases, I did not work together with the participants to generate story ideas, nor did I provide verbal questions. During this phase, I conducted checks once a week instead of every day. Procedural Reliability To ensure that the study followed a consistent and systematic procedure, approximately 20% of all sessions were tape-recorded from beginning to end. Two evaluators subsequently listened to the tapes independently, checking the procedures of the sessions and evaluating the steps that I had taken in administering the sessions. Their evaluation records were then brought together and compared.

82

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 83


Agreement of evaluations was assessed on a point-by-point basis by following the formula recommended by Kazdin (1982, p. 54): A Agreement = ________ x 100 A+D where A = agreement for the trial D = disagreement for the trial The results showed an overall evaluator agreement of 93.5%, which indicated a high level of procedural reliability. Inter-Rater Agreement In order to minimize biases in scoring the stories and to increase the accuracy of ratings, the study used an independent rater to rate some of the stories as a reliability check. The independent rater was a trained professional in education with past experience in writing instruction. I rated all the stories written by the participants. The independent rater conducted reliability checks approximately once every three sessions, about 30% of all the stories. Agreement between the raters was assessed by using the method of frequency ratio (Kazdin, 1982). This method computes agreement when comparisons are made between the totals of two raters who independently record behaviors. In the present study, the two totals of, for example, T-units observed by the two raters in a written story, were put into the following formula to determine the rater agreement: Smaller total Rater Agreement = ___________ x 100. Larger total In a similar manner, the agreement of word diversity was calculated by dividing the smaller percentage by the larger percentage and multiplying by 100. The rater agreement ratio obtained from this formula was the estimated agreement on one particular occasion in which reliability was assessed. After all inter-rater agreement checks had been collected, the individual agreement percentages were tabulated. The acceptable agreement level was set at 90% prior to the start of the study. Assessment results showed that the inter-rater reliability was high for most story evaluations. Except on one of Kathy’s stories, the agreement between the two raters fell below 90% on number of T-units; all other rating agreements fell within the range of 91% to 100%, which satisfied the pre-set criteria.

RESULTS Writing Fluency To measure participants’ fluency in story writing, the number of T-units in each story was counted. Figure 1 shows the four students’ writing fluency judged by counting the number of T-units in each story. Missing data resulted from sessions being interrupted by unpredictable or uncontrollable events, such as when participants were sick or were required to participate in school-organized activities.

83

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 84


Figure 1. Number of T-units in participants’ stories.

Baselline 40

Intervention Story Map

35

Story Map Questions

Maintenance Verball Guidance

Jim

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 40

Stanley

Study Map Questions

35 30 25 20

Number of T-units

15 10 5 0

Freda

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

40

Kathy

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33 1

235 3 37 4

Weeks

Sessions

84

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 85


Jim’s behavior showed variability throughout the three experimental phases. Jim demonstrated a higher level of fluency than the other three during the baseline phase, producing an average of 18.8 T-units per story. During intervention phase 1, in which I modeled the story map for the participants, Jim demonstrated an improvement over the baseline level by increasing the mean number of T-units per story to 24.4. Then in the second phase, facilitation with story map questions, his fluency decreased. Yet, his average number of T-units (21.8) was still higher than during the baseline condition. During the third phase, Jim’s stories varied from a high of 30 to a low of 15 T-units. Because of this extreme variability, intervention was called off after seven consecutive sessions. In this phase of intervention, Jim’s stories averaged 21.7 T-units per story. During maintenance, Jim failed to maintain the limited improvement that he demonstrated during the intervention phases. On average, his stories during maintenance contained only 17.5 T-units per story. Stanley generally demonstrated an upward trend during the intervention phases compared with the baseline condition. During the baseline phase, Stanley wrote stories with very limited fluency; except for the first probe, the three baseline stories contained only four or five T-units each. When story mapping was introduced in the first phase of intervention, Stanley demonstrated a noticeable increase in the number of T-units, which doubled or even tripled compared with those written during the baseline condition. The last story in this phase of intervention contained 27 T-units, much higher than the baseline stories. During the second phase of intervention, more progress was observed. Four out of the five stories contained 20 or more T-units. These stories averaged 24 T-units each. During the third phase of intervention, in which guidance was provided only when requested, Stanley’s fluency rate exhibited a declining trend as compared with phase 2, the average number of T-units dropping to 18.4. In view of this situation, I stopped this intervention condition and renewed the condition of the second phase. When returned to the previous condition, Stanley’s story output increased again, but only for one session. The next two stories showed decrease once more in the number of T-units. Overall, all his intervention stories surpassed his baseline stories in terms of the number of Tunits. During maintenance, Stanley’s stories showed an increasing trend. The average number of T-units in each story in this period was 23.3. Freda demonstrated an increase in her performance throughout the intervention phases and the maintenance phase. In the first phase of intervention, Freda’s stories exhibited continued gains in the number of T-units. Her stories averaged 13 T-units per story during this phase as compared to the average of 9.2 T-units during baseline. As the sessions moved into the second phase of intervention, Freda showed continued gains for three sessions, with a decrease observed in the fourth. Her stories averaged 21.2 T-units during the second phase. Phase 3 showed a variable pattern. However, the general trend was still upward, with an average of 24.9 T-units per story. During the maintenance condition, Freda maintained her progress by writing stories that contained an average of 29.5 T-units per story. Kathy exhibited a general trend of progress during the intervention. Kathy started by producing very short stories averaging 4.83 T-units during the baseline phase. When the story map was introduced to her during intervention phase 1, she demonstrated an increase in fluency. Except for the last story, which showed a

85

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 86


decline, all the other stories surpassed the baseline stories. During phase 1, Kathy produced an average of 9.6 T-units per story. When story map questions were introduced during phase 2, she continued her gains in story output, producing stories with an average of 12.4 T-units per story. Her gains during the third phase of intervention were even more noticeable, her stories averaging 15.7 T-units. Finally, during maintenance, Kathy’s first two stories contained fewer T-units than much of the previous phase. However, this phase showed a consistent upward trend, averaging 16.3 T-units per story. It should be pointed out that during intervention phase 3 and maintenance, Kathy expressed a dislike for filling out the story map on her own. Therefore, I let her vocalize her story plan instead of writing a story map. This yielded a higher level of performance during the latter part of the maintenance phase. Word Diversity In this study, word diversity was represented by the type/token ratio, measured by dividing the number of different words used in a story (type) by the total number of words used in that same story (token). In order to measure accurately the changes in word diversity in the writings of a participant over a period of time, the length of the passage (token) being analyzed had to be held constant. Because the four participants varied greatly in their story output, the length of the passage selected for analyzing the stories was not the same. The length of the passage selected for Jim and Freda was 60 words. For Stanley, whose shortest story contained 44 words, the length of passage selected was 44 words. In the same manner, the selected passage length for Kathy was 34 words. All passages selected for calculating the type/token ratio were counted from the first word of the story up to the 60th (or 44th, or 34th) words. The results of word diversity in story writing for each of the four participants are presented in Figure 2. As illustrated in Figure 2, overall the four participants’ use of words did not show any considerable change in diversity over the different phases. Although the diversity ratio sometimes varied greatly between individual writing sessions, the general trend remained stable. This indicates that the interventions had little effect on the word diversity of the participants’ story writings. Jim’s stories exhibited minimal variability in word diversity ratio throughout the study. The highest ratio was .72, which he demonstrated in the fourth session during baseline, and in the first session during intervention phase 1. However, the overall word diversity ratios during the baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases did not vary considerably. The average ratio for each of the experimental conditions was as follows: baseline, .64, intervention phase 1, .65, intervention phase 2, .67, intervention phase 3, .63, and maintenance, .64 (see Figure 3). As mentioned, Stanley’s passage length selected for analysis was 44 words. His stories showed more variability in word diversity ratio. The highest ratio was .86 (the second session during intervention phase 2). The lowest was .55, which occurred twice (the first and the fourth sessions during intervention phase 3). The low diversity ratio implied that in these two sessions, there were frequent repetitions of word use in the stories. On average, Stanley used noticeably fewer words during intervention phase 3 than during other phases. The average word diversity ratios of other phases did not exhibit big variations.

86

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 87


Figure 2. Word diversity ratios of participants’ stories.

Baseline

Intervention

1

Story Map Questions

Story Map

0 .9

Maintenance Verbal Guidance

Jim

0 .8 0 .7 0 .6 0 .5 0 .4 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0

Story Map Questions

1 0 .9

Stanley

0 .8 0 .7 0 .6 0 .5

Type/Token Ratios

0 .4 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0

1

Freda

0 .9 0 .8 0 .7 0 .6 0 .5 0 .4 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0

1 0 .9

Kathy

0 .8 0 .7 0 .6 0 .5 0 .4 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0 1

3

5

7

9

1 1

1 3

1 5

1 7

Sessions

1 9

2 1

2 3

2 5

2 7

2 9

3 1

3 31 2 3 53

43 7

Weeks

87

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 88


Freda’s profile differed from Jim’s and Stanley’s in that her stories showed improvement over time. Freda began her baseline stories with diversity ratio: either below .60 or in the low .60s (average = .60). When intervention started, her stories increased in the number of different words used. Although there were fluctuations during intervention and maintenance, the overall ratios were higher than for baseline. The averages of the three intervention phases and the maintenance phase were, respectively, .70, .67, .68, and .66. The increase during intervention phase 1 was particularly impressive. The passage length selected for Kathy was 34 words, corresponding to the shortest of her stories. As illustrated in Figure 3, the word diversity ratios in Kathy’s stories showed an irregular pattern with steep rises and falls. The highest ratio was .85, whereas the lowest was .59. However, in terms of the averages, Kathy’s stories showed some improvement. The word diversity ratio averages of the intervention and maintenance phases were .76, .71, .75, and .69, respectively, compared to .68 during baseline. The increases during intervention phases 1 and 3 were especially noticeable. Figure 3. Average word diversity ratios of participants’ stories across experimental phases

DISCUSSION Story Map and Story Writing Fluency Story mapping was found to be effective for improving the story writing fluency of three of the four participants in the current study. The stories written by Stanley, Freda, and Kathy showed improvements after the intervention of the story mapping strategy was introduced. Their stories during intervention and maintenance phases were noticeably longer than those written during the baseline phase. However, the effect of this intervention was not apparent on Jim.

88

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 89


Overall, Jim’s profile did not exhibit the expected improvement. When I first introduced the story map to him during intervention phase 1, he seemed to have increased in story writing fluency. However, after I stopped modeling, he was unable to maintain his improvement. During the second phase of intervention, the story map questions did not prove to be effective in increasing his fluency. His performance did not show improvement in later stages either. The number of T-units in his stories remained at or near the baseline level. There may be several reasons for his lack of improvement. First, Jim seemed to have lost some motivation later in the study. Sometimes he would rush to writing the end of a story without considering if the story was fully developed or not. Second, the restricted time allowed for each writing session (20 minutes) could have affected Jim’s writing fluency. During the baseline, Jim concentrated on writing better than the other participants and spent most of the time writing his stories. During the later phases, the time allowed for writing remained unchanged. This made it difficult for Jim to drastically increase his story output. On several occasions, Jim had more ideas he wanted to write about in his stories, but I stopped him because the time was up. So, even if the story map helped Jim in planning and developing his stories, it was unlikely that he would have made dramatic changes in the quantity of story writing. The improvement in writing fluency of the three other students was remarkable. They all started with baseline stories that were short and poorly developed. However, after the intervention was introduced, their stories were much longer and richer in content. The baseline stories of Stanley and Kathy generally contained four to eight T-units, but their stories written during intervention and maintenance mostly doubled or even tripled compared with the baseline stories. Of the three intervention conditions, the intervention of story maps together with story map questions seemed to work best with Stanley. However, Freda and Kathy seemed to benefit more from the story mapping strategy plus researcher guidance. All three participants showed more improvement during the second and third intervention phases than during the first when I only modeled the use of the story map. The diversity of the participants’ performance suggested that they had different learning styles and preferences. This likely would be true for other students with LD as well. That is, some would benefit more from one intervention condition whereas others would benefit more from another. Generally speaking, in this study the story map did not work as effectively with researcher modeling as it did with facilitative questions or with researcher guidance. Perhaps this was because there was too much researcher intervention in modeling, which might have interfered with the development of the participants’ own ideas. Story mapping may have helped some of the students to think about the story organization, content, development, and outcome. A story map is like a visual aid that can help students in planning stories. Many students with LD do not know how to plan a story. As a result, they experience difficulty in developing stories fully. Often they stop writing abruptly without knowing how to proceed or what to write next. However, with the aid of a story map, students are reminded of what a typical story should consist of and how they should approach the task of story writing. For example, a student may forget to write about the problem that the main character faces in achieving a goal. But with a story map, the student is prompted and thus is

89

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 90


more likely to add this part to the story. With good planning, the student may even elaborate and make the story richer, more interesting, and more comprehensible. So it makes good sense that students with LD will likely improve their writing fluency and increase their story output by using a story mapping strategy. Because of this potential benefit, teachers of students with LD may consider this strategy for those students with problems in writing fluency. Story Map and Word Diversity The findings showed that overall the story mapping strategy did not improve participants’ word usage diversity, although some noticeable increases in the diversity ratio were observed in Freda’s and Kathy’s stories. For both of them, the highest ratio seemed to have occurred in the stories written during intervention phase 1. This may suggest that my involvement in brainstorming for possible story ideas and elements affected their increase of word use in their stories. In discussing the story characters, the setting, the goal, and the events with the participants, I might have used words that could have influenced their choice of words. On average, the stories written by Freda and Kathy during the other two intervention phases were also higher in the type/token ratio than those written during baseline. This may be an indication that for some students with LD, story mapping can increase word diversity when used appropriately. Perhaps this is because a story map can lead students to make more word associations when developing stories. To prove these speculations, more research is necessary. On the other hand, the type/token ratios for Jim’s and Stanley’s stories remained relatively unchanged throughout all experimental conditions. This finding may suggest some inter-participant variations in terms of learning style and need. So while the story mapping strategy may help some students write stories with more diverse vocabulary, this therapeutic effect probably will not be evident in all students with LD. Story mapping focuses on the plan, organization, and story components and the relationships among these components, rather than the variety of vocabulary. Therefore, even if students become more fluent in story production, there is no guarantee word diversity will increase. Limitations of the Study Although the benefits of the intervention were apparent for most participants in the study, a number of limitations of this study should be mentioned. First, each participant was pulled out of his or her general education classroom for 30 minutes every day. This intensive working schedule was not ideal. From my observation, the participants showed great enthusiasm during the beginning writing sessions. As the days passed, some began to show signs of fatigue, and sometimes even loss of interest. Future studies should consider reducing the number of sessions if possible. Second, the four picture prompts for each session were selected specifically for this research. Although they had previously been viewed by two students who were similar to the participants in age, this is no guarantee that they would be interesting to study participants, which in turn could affect writing fluency. Third, each session was limited to 30 minutes. This time limit was arbitrary rather than based on each participant’s actual attention span. Since students with LD tend to have a short attention span and cannot focus on a task for a long time, a 30-minute writing session might not be an appropriate length for a participant to remain on task. Fourth,

90

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 91


because of the study design, a small sample size was used. This has inevitably limited the power of the study to generalize the results to other individuals with different characteristics and in different settings. Future replications are needed to help determine the effectiveness of this intervention for other individuals and eventually to establish generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS This study examined the effects of the story map and story map questions on the story writing of students with LD. Although studies abound that explore the writing development of students with LD and the use of instructional strategies to improve students’ writing performance, relatively few empirical studies have investigated the direct instructional effect of using story mapping and facilitative cues on students’ writing fluency and word diversity. Further, the findings of these studies are far from conclusive. The findings of the present study provide evidence that the use of a story map and story map questions was effective in improving the narrative writing fluency of some students with learning disabilities. Three of the four participants dramatically increased the number of T-units in their stories. The fourth participant did not demonstrate improvement in writing fluency. This may be because fluency was not as much a problem to him at the beginning of the study as it was to the other participants. Regarding the second research question about the word diversity in story writing, the findings of this study did not provide evidence that the story mapping strategy positively affected students’ performance. While two participants increased the type/token ratio to some extent, the ratios of the other two participants remained relatively unchanged. In light of these findings, it may be concluded that story mapping and story map questions is a useful tool for improving story writing fluency of students with LD. The strategy may also be used effectively for helping students write stories that are more complete and contain more story elements. Writing teachers are encouraged to use the strategy to teach story structure and story writing. However, for students who are weak in word usage, story mapping and story map questions may not be useful. To help students increase word diversity in story writing, other effective strategies that focus on word usage should be sought and combined with story maps and story map questions.

REFERENCES Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bain, A. M., Bailet, L. L., & Moats, L. C. (1991). Written language disorders: Theory into practice. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Barenbaum, E. M., Newcomer, P. L., & Nodine, B. F. (1987). Children’s ability to write stories as a function of variation in task, age, and developmental level. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 175-188. Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 2-17, 28.

91

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 92


Graves, A., & Hauge, R. (1993). Using cues and prompts to improve story writing. Teaching Exceptional Children, 25, 38-40. Graves, A., Semmel, M., & Gerber, M. (1994). The effects of story prompts on the narrative production of students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 154-164. Hammill, D. D., & Bryant, B. R. (1998). Learning Disabilities Diagnostic Inventory (LDDI). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Houck, C. K., & Billingsley, B. S. (1989). Written expression of students with and without learning disabilities: Differences across the grades. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 561-567. Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 214-229. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press. Laughton, J., & Morris, N. (1989). Story grammar knowledge of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 87-95. MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing under three methods of text production: Hand-writing, word processing, and dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 22-41. Montague, M., & Leavell, A. G. (1994). Improving the narrative writing of students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 21-33. Montague, M., Maddux, C., & Dereshiwsky, M. (1990). Story grammar and comprehension and production of narrative prose by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 190-197. Morris, N. T., & Crump, D. T. (1982). Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 163-172. Newcomer, P. L., & Barenbaum, E. M. (1991). The written composing ability of children with learning disabilities: A review of the literature from 1980 to 1990. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 578-593. Nodine, B. F., Barenbaum, E., & Newcomer, P. (1985). Story composition by learning disabled, reading disabled and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 167-179. Polloway, E. A., & Smith, T. E. C. (1992). Language instruction for students with disabilities (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing. Poplin, M., Gray, R., Larsen, S., Banikowski, A., & Mehring, T. (1980). A comparison of components of written expression abilities in learning disabled and non-learning disabled children at three grade levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 46-53. Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. New York: Macmillan. Thomas, C. C., Englert, C. S., & Gregg, S. (1987). An analysis of errors and strategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 2130. Vallecorsa, A., & deBettencourt, L. (1997). Using a mapping procedure to teach reading and writing skills to middle grade students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 173-188. Zipprich, M. (1995). Teaching web making as a guided planning tool to improve student narrative writing. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 3-15. Submitted: September 8, 2006 Revised: December 21, 2006 Accepted: February 17, 2007

92

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 93


Appendix

Characters: Who was the main character? Can you describe him/her? Any other important people? Who?

Time: When did it happen?

Place: Where did it happen?

The Goal: What was the story about? What did the main character want? The Problem: What was the central problem? What difficulty did the main character meet? Event: How did the main character try to solve the problem? What were the consequences? How did other characters react? What did they say or do?

Event: What did the main character do next? What happened next? Did the main character meet new problems?

Event: Then what happened? What did the main character do?

Outcome: How did the story end? Did the main character solve the problem? Was it a happy ending? Was the ending a surprise?

93

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 94

NEW CD

FOR

PEDIATRICIANS

“The physician and the child with learning disabilities”

Order your copy today! Pediatricians, and other primary care providers, need to develop an organized approach to assessment and understand how the education system works if they are going to help the child with a learning disability succeed. That is what this CD is all about. It is one of many important resources available to physicians, providing a concise overview of the current scientific understanding of causes and treatment of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Worldwide is committed to helping both the medical community and the general public learn more about learning disabilities and how we can help our children grow and learn successfully. Price for members: $12.99 (includes shipping & handling) Price for non-members: $19.99 (includes shipping & handling) Number of CD’s ordering:

Total amount: $

Name Address Telephone

email

Please make check payable and mail to: LDW, P.O. Box 142, Weston, MA 02493 VISA MC AMEX Account # Signature of cardholder Please print name

Exp Date

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 95

OLD

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 96

OLD

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 97

our newest publication!

Research to Practice: Effective Interventions in Learning Disabilities This book describes the best, up-to-date and well-validated interventions for struggling learners. Each chapter is devoted to a specific intervention which is thoroughly described for teachers and practitioners. The book will be of interest to teachers who may use any of the proposed interventions for changing classroom behaviors and achievement of struggling learners.

EDITORS Georgios D. Sideridis Teresa Allissa Citro FOREWORD Robert Slavin

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS Robert Brooks Bryan G. Cook Richard J. Cowan Christine A. Espin Barbara R. Foorman Douglas Fuchs Kere Hughes Erica S. Lembke Howard Margolis

Craig A. Michaels Paul L. Morgan Angeliki Mouzaki Pete Peterson Kristi Santi Georgios D. Sideridis Melody Tankersley Gloria Lodato Wilson Caresa Young

781-890-5399 or visit www.ldworldwide.org ORDER YOUR COPY NOW!

For more information, call LDW at

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp

2/21/07

10:35 PM

Page 98

Proudly Announces the Newest Addition to its Website www.ldworldwide.org

University Access An Exclusive site for University Professors and their Students Free access to articles by leading researchers on current practices, theories, trends, and issues in the field of learning disabilities. These articles originally published in the premier journals Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal and Insights on Learning Disabilities: From Prevailing Theories to Validated Practices provide the most up-to-date information on diagnoses, identification, assessment, interventions, policy, and other related issues on LD.