incorporating strategy instruction within the writing ...

Journal of Reading Behavior 1993, Volume 25, No. 3

INCORPORATING STRATEGY INSTRUCTION WITHIN THE WRITING PROCESS IN THE REGULAR CLASSROOM: EFFECTS ON THE WRITING OF STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT LEARNING DISABILITIES

Barbara Danoff Montgomery County Schools

Karen R. Harris and Steve Graham University of Maryland

ABSTRACT This study examined the effectiveness of embedding strategy instruction in the context of a process approach to writing in inclusive classrooms. Through a series of extended mini-lessons during writers' workshop, both students with and without a learning disability were taught a previously validated writing strategy and procedures for regulating the strategy and the writing process. The strategy instructional procedures had a positive effect on the participating fourth- and fifthgrade students' writing. The schematic structure of their stories improved substantially following instruction and remained improved over time and with a different teacher. The quality of what was written also improved for all but two of the students following instruction. Overall, improvements in story quality were maintained and generalized by all of the students, except for the younger fourth graders and one fifth-grade student who failed to maintain quality gains on a generalization probe. In addition, one of the students who had not evidenced quality gains immediately following instruction, wrote qualitatively better stories on the generalization and maintenance probes. Finally, data collected during instruction demonstrated that the best results were obtained when all stages and components of instruction were enacted. Implications for instruction and research were examined.

The role of cognitive strategy instruction in academic learning has received considerable attention from the educational community (e.g., Pressley et al., 1990; Pressley, Harris, & Marks, 1992). Strategies are goal-directed, cognitive opera295 Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on November 16, 2016

296

Journal of Reading Behavior

tions used to facilitate performance (Pressley et al., 1992). Interest in explicitly teaching students goal-directed cognitive processes has been particularly pronounced in the area of learning disabilities. Strategy instruction with students with learning disabilities (LD), as well as other inefficient learners, has become a major focus in educational research (Graham & Harris, in press; Pressley & Levin, 1986). Although the available evidence favors the conclusion that strategy instruction improves the academic performance of many students, including those with LD and normally achieving students (e.g., Goldman, 1989; Paris & Oka, 1989; Wong, Harris, & Graham, 1991), a number of important issues remain unresolved. A programmatic issue that is particularly important involves how strategy instruction should be incorporated into the school program. Unfortunately, as Pressley and his colleagues have noted (Pressley, Goodchild, Fleet, Zajchowski, & Evans, 1989), strategy instruction is often thought of as a supplement to the schools' regular curriculum. One example of this approach is to provide students with a separate class devoted to teaching study strategies that can then be used in content classes. Another example involves teaching students with LD reading strategies within the confines of a pull-out program and outside of the context of a meaningful reading program or reading activities. A different view on how strategy instruction can be incorporated into the school curriculum is that it should occur in the context of real academic tasks and processes (Graham & Harris, in press: Pressley et al., 1989). With this approach, strategies are taught as part of the regular curriculum. In the area of writing, strategy instruction can be easily and profitably incorporated into the process approach (Bos, 1988; Harris & Graham, 1992a). One advantage of such incorporation is that students are learning to use strategies in the context in which they are expected to apply them, increasing the likelihood that they will see the relevance of the strategies and be more likely to maintain and generalize their use. This is especially important for students with LD; problems with maintenance and generalization are common for these children (Swanson, 1989; Wong, 1985).

THE PRESENT STUDY In the current investigation, fourth- and fifth-grade students with and without a learning disability were taught a strategy for planning and writing stories, as well as procedures for regulating their use of the strategy and the writing process. In two previous studies (Graham & Harris, 1989a; Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992) the schematic structure and quality of stories written by fifth- and sixth-grade students with LD improved significantly following instruction in the strategy and self-regulation procedures. Strategy instruction was delivered during the period that the participating students received resource room services. Consequently, instruction was delivered outside of the context of the school's general program and

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com by guest on November 16, 2016

Strategy Instruction

297

to small groups of two to four students. In contrast, the students with LD in the present study were in an "inclusive" school where they did not participate in a "pull-out" program but received all of their instruction within the mainstream. Thus, the strategy and accompanying self-regulation procedures were taught within the context of the school's regular writing program. Because the students' teachers felt that all of the students would benefit from the instruction, the writing strategy and self-regulation procedures were taught to all of the students in three writing classes (each containing one of the subjects with LD). These writing classes emphasized a process approach to composition instruction (see Atwell, 1987; Calkins, 1991). In each class, the strategy and self-regulation procedures were taught through a series of extended mini-lessons (a common component of a process approach to writing) led by the school's special education teacher. Although the writing and self-regulation strategies were taught to all of the students in these three classrooms, data were collected for selected students in each classroom. A multiple-baseline, single-subject design, was used to examine the effectiveness of the instructional program with these students. This experimental design has a rich and long history in both psychology and special education (Gast, Skouge, & Tawney, 1984), but it has not commonly been used by researchers in the area of literacy. Process approaches to writing instruction usually emphasize the cognitive processes and strategies central to effective writing by encouraging students to plan and revise, providing feedback and assistance in carrying out these processes during individual or group writing conferences, creating learning communities where students assist each other in planning and revising their texts, and delivering process oriented instruction through mini-lessons (MacArthur, Schwartz, & Graham, 1991a). Nonetheless, cognitive processes and strategies are not the primary focus of many teachers using a process approach to writing. The development of these processes are often secondary to helping students learn to anticipate the needs of their readers. In addition, explicit instruction in using specific writing and selfregulation strategies is not common in many classrooms using a process approach (cf. Anthony & Anderson, 1987). Rather, teachers tend to facilitate children's "natural" development over long periods of time through questions and "gentle" response during conferences, sharing, and so forth. Students with learning problems, however, may require extensive, structured, and explicit instruction to master the skills and processes critical to effective writing (Harris & Graham, 1992b; Harris & Pressley, 1991). A considerable amount of research, for instance, demonstrates that many students with learning problems do not acquire a variety of cognitive and metacognitive strategies unless detailed and explicit instruction is provided (e.g., Brown & Campione, 1990; Hallahan, Lloyd, Kauffman, & Loper, 1983; Reeve & Brown, 1985). For example, MacArthur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991b) found that the quantity and quality of revising undertaken by students with LD participating in a process approach to writing


298


instruction was improved substantially by explicitly teaching them a strategy for peer revising. In addition to focusing on students with LD, we were also interested in the effects that strategy instruction would have on the writing performance of students without learning problems. Therefore, one average writer from each of the inclusive classrooms served as a subject as well. Because of the increasing emphasis on inclusion (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Reynolds, Wang, & Walberg, 1987), it has become even more important to identify instructional procedures that are successful with a wide range of students. Although Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, and Stevens (1991) demonstrated that strategy instruction in writing can be useful in meeting the needs of both students with LD and their normally achieving counterparts, they did not examine the effectiveness of providing such instruction to both groups of students in the same setting. In their study, strategy instruction for the students with LD was delivered in the special education classroom. The writing strategy taught to students in the present study prompted them to generate and organize possible writing content by responding to a series of questions about the basic parts of the story being planned. We anticipated that this strategy would be useful for both students with and without a learning disability. For students with LD, the strategy provided a mechanism for dealing with several of the writing problems they commonly experience. These students often do little planning in advance of writing (MacArthur & Graham, 1987), have trouble generating content (Graham, 1990; Thomas, Englert, & Gregg, 1987), and fail to frame their stories so that all of the basic elements are included (Barenbaum, Newcomer, & Nodine, 1987). Although normally achieving writers do not have the same degree of difficulty as students with LD (Graham & Harris, 1989b), the processes involved in generating, organizing, and planning text still create special problems for them. As Scardamalia and Bereiter (1986) noted, young writers often have difficulty exerting deliberate control over these processes, and their knowledge about writing is limited. A multicomponent strategy instructional model, self-regulated strategy development (Graham, Harris, & Sawyer, 1987; Harris & Graham, 1992b), was used to teach the writing strategy emphasized in the current study. With this approach, the target strategy is embedded in a self-instructional routine, and individual students are provided the level of explicit instruction necessary to learn how to use selfregulation procedures (such as goal setting, self-monitoring, self-assessment, selfinstructions, and self-reinforcement) to evaluate and guide their use of the strategy and the writing process. Although a variety of writing, reading, and math strategies have been effectively taught to students using this model (Bednarczyk & Harris, 1992; Case, Harris, & Graham, 1992; Graham & Harris, in press), only two studies have examined the relative contribution of specific instructional components (Graham & Harris, 1989a; Sawyer et al., 1992). In these two studies, the contribution of explicit procedures for promoting self-regulation were isolated by testing the effectiveness of the instructional regime with and without these compo-



299

nents. The strongest effects were found when these components were included as part of instruction. In the current study, a different approach to analyzing the effectiveness of the instructional components was undertaken. First, a series of writing probes were administered prior to the start of instruction to establish a baseline. Then at two different points during instruction, a writing probe was administered to determine if improvements in students' writing performance had occurred. One probe was administered after students had been taught preskills considered necessary to the effective use of the strategy. The second probe was administered after the strategy and accompanying self-regulation procedures had been described and modeled and the students had memorized the steps of the writing strategy. Finally, a series of writing probes was administered following collaborative and independent practice in using the strategy. This allowed us to determine students' progress at different stages of instruction.

METHODS Setting The study took place in a suburban elementary school located in the northeastern United States. The school had a population of approximately 370 students representing a diverse range of races and cultures. A whole-language approach to literacy instruction was emphasized by the teachers in this school. In addition, educational services for students with LD were provided through an inclusion model. These students were in general education classes for the full school day. The school's special education teacher (the first author of this study) supported the integration process by acting as a consultant to the school at large and as a co-teacher in specific classrooms where students needed assistance. In some instances, she supported what a general classroom teacher was doing by providing additional instructional assistance (e.g., modeling, feedback, or guided practice) to students with special needs, as well as any other students who needed help. At other times, as was the case in this study, she took primary responsibility for crafting and delivering instructional lessons and the general classroom teacher provided the back-up assistance. Although writing took place throughout the school day, students also had a period for writers' workshop, a common process approach to writing (Atwell, 1987; Calkins, 1991). During their writing period, students chose their own topics and genre, determined the content and purpose of their writing, selected pieces for completion and publication, and consulted with other students when planning and revising their work. Students from two fifth-grade and one fourth-grade writing workshops participated in the study. Each class contained between 25 to 28 students. There was one student with LD in each of the participating classrooms.


300


Participants

Participants were four fifth-grade and two fourth-grade students from the classrooms described above. Two of the fifth-grade (a male and a female) and one of the fourth-grade students (a female) had been identified as having a learning disability by the school district. Because of problems associated with the validity of the LD label and the heterogeneity of school-identified LD populations (Shephard, Smith, & Vojir, 1983), these three students had to meet three additional criteria; IQ scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974) above 85, achievement at least one standard deviation below grade level in one or more academic areas, and absence of any other handicapping condition. The Full Scale IQ scores on the WISC-R for the two fifth-grade and one fourth-grade student with LD were 105, 98, and 89, respectively. Their standard scores on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (Woodcock, 1987) were 88, 78, and 76, respectively. In addition, interviews with the general classroom teacher indicated that significant composition problems were evident for all three students, and each student had IEP goals related to creative writing. The three remaining participants (two fifth-grade students and one fourthgrade student) were "normally achieving" classmates of the three students with LD. Each of these students had been nominated by their respective general classroom teacher as being competent, but not outstanding, writers. They were not receiving any special services, and each had received either a "B" or "C" on their previous report card in the area of writing. Although the school system would not allow IQ teasing for the purposes of research, scores from the California Achievement Test (1979) were available. Each of the students scored between the 50th and 75th percentile on the test. The stanine scores for the two fifth-grade (one male and one female) and the one fourth-grade student (a female) were 6, 5, and 6, respectively. The six participants formed three data collection pairs (one for each of the participating classrooms; these students did not receive instruction together or in any way "act" as a pair, however, instruction was delivered to all students in the classrooms). Each data collection pair included a student with LD and a normally achieving student. The students in each pair were of the same sex, grade, and race. The only exception was that the two fourth-grade students were not of the same race. The student with LD was Asian, whereas the normally achieving student was Hispanic. All of the other participants were Caucasians.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The effects of strategy instruction were assessed through the use of a multiplebaseline design across pairs of subjects with multiple probes in baseline only (Gast et al., 1984). With this design, treatment is systematically and sequentially intro-



301

duced to one pair of subjects at a time. Prior to the introduction of treatment, each student's performance on the behavior of interest is measured over time to establish a baseline against which change can be evaluated and to determine if a student is improving prior to the introduction of the independent variable. A functional relationship between the independent variable and changes in students' behavior is established if the target behavior improves only after the introduction of treatment and if the performance of nontreated subjects remains at or near preintervention levels across baseline. When multiple probes are taken during baseline, as in the present study, baseline probes are not collected on a continuous basis. Instead, baseline probes are conducted intermittently on the behavior(s) of interest. In the present study, we followed procedures recommended by Gast et al. (1984). Specifically, all students were administered an initial baseline probe, and a subsequent baseline probe was collected from the remaining noninstructed students each time an instructed pair of students reached the established criterion-performance level following instruction. In addition, a minimum of three consecutive writing probes were collected from each pair of students prior to instruction; thus, trends in baseline data could be identified prior to the introduction of instruction. These multiple probes procedures occurred only during baseline; continuous data were collected in the stages following baseline. The following conditions were in effect during the study: Baseline story probes. During baseline, the participating students' preinstructional response rates on writing stories were established. Instruction. Instruction began for the class including the first pair of students (a student with LD and a normally achieving student in one of the fifth-grade classes) after a stable baseline in terms of story grammar elements was established. Instruction continued until all students, including this pair, demonstrated independent mastery of the writing strategy and self-regulation procedures. Instruction was not begun in the second classroom (the other fifth-grade classroom) until the pair in the first classroom reached a criterion level on postinstructional probes of at least two times their mean total story grammar score at baseline. Identical procedures were used when introducing and concluding instruction in the third classroom (the fourth-grade classroom). Furthermore, in order to monitor students' progress during instruction, two story probes were administered during this experimental phase. Postinstructional story probes. Three postinstructional story probes were administered immediately following instruction. Generalization story probe. The students' general classroom teacher for writers' workshop administered a generalization story probe immediately following the postinstructional story probes.


302


Maintenance story probes. Maintenance story probes were administered 2 weeks and 4 weeks following the completion of instruction. Instructional procedures All instruction took place in the regular classroom during writers' workshop. Although we had initially anticipated providing instruction for only those students whose portfolios indicated a need in this area, inspection of the students' portfolios led the teachers to agree that all of the students would benefit from this instruction. The teachers found that most of the students commonly neglected two or more story parts and that all of the students, including those few who used all of the parts, could improve their writing by including greater detail and elaboration, as well as more goals and actions. Thus, the writing and self-regulation strategies were taught to all students through a series of mini-lessons delivered by the school's special education teacher. As a guide for teaching the writing strategy and self-regulation procedures, the special education teacher adapted and personalized the lesson plans from two previous investigations (Graham & Harris, 1989a; Sawyer et al., 1992). The lesson plans for these two studies were based on the Self-Regulated Strategy Development model (SRSD) (see Graham, Harris, & Sawyer, 1987; Harris & Graham, 1992b). The SRSD model emphasizes the student's role as an active collaborator, and interactive learning between students and the teacher is stressed, with responsibility for recruiting and applying strategies gradually placed upon the student. Composition and self-regulation strategies are explicitly and overtly modeled in context (any combination of self-statements, goal setting, self-assessment, self-recording, and self-reinforcement to regulate performance, including the use of the target strategy), and the goals and significance of the strategy are established in discussion with the students. Scaffolding and discussion are used, and feedback is tailored to each child individually. Finally, instruction is criterion-based rather than time-based, and previously taught skills/strategies are reviewed as necessary. In personalizing the lesson plans, the special education teacher followed all of the tenets of the SRSD model noted above. On the basis of her observations of the participating students, she decided to incorporate self-instructions, proximal goal setting, self-monitoring (including self-assessment and self-recording), and selfreinforcement into the strategy instructional regime. She also reversed the typical order of the first two stages of instruction. Lesson plans were developed to cover the seven instructional stages described below. Progression through the stages of instruction was criterion-based (students had to meet at least initial criterion in a stage before proceeding to the next stage) rather than time-based, as described below. Further, the teacher worked with the entire classroom through the first five stages and then provided individualized or small-group instruction as needed dur-



303

ing Stages 6 and 7.1 The students in the two fifth-grade classrooms required a series of 9 mini-lessons to master the strategy and self-regulation procedures, whereas the students in the fourth-grade classroom needed 11 lessons. Stage I: Initial conference. Instruction began with a conference in which the purpose of instruction was discussed. Entire classrooms participated in discussions concerning the common parts of a story and how including and expanding story parts can improve a story. Stage 2: Preskill development. Preskill development focused on more fully defining, identifying, and generating common story parts; these skills were essential prerequisites to using the writing strategy and accompanying self-regulation procedures. Large-group discussions continued, during which the students and teacher discussed the types of elements commonly included in the two major components of a story: setting (main characters], locale, and time of the story) and episode (goal, action, ending, and reaction). Then they identified examples of these elements in literature they were reading, highlighting the different ways in which authors developed or used story parts. Students also spent some time generating ideas for different story parts. Finally, the teacher held an individual conference with each student participating in the study to review one story written during baseline to determine which story elements were present. All of the other students in the class also met with the teacher either individually or in small groups to review a story they has composed previously. At this point, the teacher introduced the purpose of graphing (to monitor the completeness of stories and the effects of learning the strategy), demonstrated how to graph the number of story parts included in the baseline story, and explained how the graph would continue to be used for self-recording. Stage 3: Discussion of the composition strategy. Next, the teacher introduced the five-step writing strategy to the whole class; each student had a small chart listing the five steps and a mnemonic for remembering seven questions about the basic parts of a story (Step 3). The strategy and mnemonics were as follows: The Strategy: 1. Think of a story you would like to share with others. 2. Let your mind be free. 3. Write down the story part reminder (mnemonic): W-W-W1Further information regarding SRSD, detailed descriptions of instruction in this classroom and other classrooms additional writing strategies across genres, and sample of students' writing are available in Helping Young Writers Master the Craft: Strategy Instruction and Self-Regulation in the Writing Process (Harris & Graham, 1992). Copies of the lesson plans from this study are available from the authors.


304


What=2 How=2 4. Write down story part ideas for each part. 5. Write your story—use good parts and make sense. The Mnemonic: Who is the main character; who else is in the story? When does the story take place? Where does the story take place? What does the main character want to do? What happens when the main character tries to do it? How does the story end? How does the main character feel? In examining the strategy, the students and the teacher discussed the rationale for each step. The goal for learning the strategy (to write better stories: ones that are more fun for you to write and more fun for others to read) was also established. The teacher also explained the procedures for learning the strategy, stressing the students' roles as collaborators and the importance of effort in strategy mastery. In addition, the teacher illustrated the types of things she would say to herself to free up her mind and think of good ideas and parts when writing. Students also volunteered self-statements they found useful. After discussing how these self-statements were helpful, students determined their own preferred creativity self-statements, recorded them on paper, and practiced using them. Stage 4: Modeling. The teacher shared a story idea with the students that she had been thinking about, and modeled (while "thinking out loud") how to use the strategy to further develop the idea. The students helped her as she planned and made notes for each story part and as she wrote the first draft of her story (changes to her plans, generated by the teacher or the students, were made several times as she wrote). While composing, the teacher modeled five additional types of selfinstructions for managing the strategy and the writing process: problem definition, planning, self-evaluation, self-reinforcement, and coping. Once the story was completed, the students and the teacher again discussed the importance of what we say to ourselves and identified the types of self-statements the teacher had used. Students then generated and recorded at least three self-statements they planned to use while writing. Finally, the students were asked to consider the strategy steps and mnemonic and suggest any changes they thought would make the strategy better. No changes were suggested. Stage 5: Memorization of the strategy and mnemonic. Students were asked to memorize the five-step strategy and the mnemonic alone or with a partner in any way they liked. These were memorized easily by some students, whereas others needed more extended practice. Some students continued to work on memorizing as they began the next stage of instruction, collaborative practice.



305

Stage 6: Collaborative practice. During this stage, the teacher purposefully adjusted the amount of instructional assistance provided, with the goal of shifting responsibility for recruiting and applying the strategy and accompanying self-regulation procedures directly to the students. Initially, the teacher and students collaboratively planned a story using the five-step strategy; each student wrote the story independently, however. The mnemonic and five-step strategy chart, as well as the student-generated self-instructions were available as prompts. Prior to planning the story, the teacher and students set a goal to include all of the story grammar elements in their story. After each student wrote their story, the teacher met with students in small groups to review their stories; if any story elements were missing, the group discussed how and where they could be added. Then, each student and the teacher independently counted the number of story elements included in a story, compared counts, filled in the student's graph, and compared this number to the goal. For this initial story and subsequent stories written during this stage, the teacher modified the level of input and support provided in response to the specific needs of individual students and the instructional group as a whole. Assistance included helping students determine self-statements especially useful to them, prompting and providing guidance, as well as reexplanations and modeling as needed. With some students, assistance focused on planning for greater detail and elaboration, or incorporating more goals and actions on the part of story characters. Scaffolding, including students' use of charts and self-statements lists, was faded individually as students planned and wrote subsequent stories, and the teacher started encouraging students to use their self-statements covertly if they were not already doing so. All six of the students participating in this study were ready for the next stage of instruction, independent practice, after either two of three collaborative experiences. Stage 7: Independent performance. Students independently planned and wrote two stories using the five-step strategy and accompanying self-regulation procedures (goal setting self-monitoring).2 The teacher provided positive and constructive feedback as needed, and continued to review each story with students to determine how missing elements (if any) could be included. Transition to covert self2 The number of stories written during independent practice was limited to two for research purposes; outside of controlled studies such as this, no predetermined number of compositions would be imposed at this stage. Similarly, outside of controlled research such as this, students are free to work together throughout the stages of instruction and to use all the resources in their learning community. In addition, we typically encourage teachers to discuss a strategy's weaknesses at this point (for instance, story structures other than that inherent in this strategy exist and can be compared and contrasted to this story-writing strategy). Finally, developmental enhancement is encouraged; i.e., as students mature as writers, they are encouraged to refine, combine, and enhance the strategies they have mastered or created, using them in more sophisticated ways.


306


instructions was again encouraged. At the conclusion of this stage, a group discussion was held to evaluate the strategy and instruction. The importance of using the strategy flexibly and creatively was emphasized during this discussion. Additional components. Throughout the instructional sessions students were asked to share what they were learning with their teachers and parents. Students also discussed with the special education teacher how what they were learning (both the five-step strategy and self-instructions) could be used during writers' workshop and other classes. Discussions regarding their attempts to do so were also a regular part of the instructional process. Treatment Validity To insure that the strategy instructional procedures were implemented as planned, each instructional procedure included in each of the daily lesson plans was checked off by the teacher as it was completed. This provided a running record of what the teacher completed during each lesson. For all three instructional pairs, all of the instructional procedures planned were completed. Data Collection and Scoring Procedures Pictures were used as the writing stimuli for the baseline, instruction, postinstruction, generalization, and maintenance story probes. The first story probe during instruction was administered just after the completion of Stage 2 (or Lesson Plan 1), preskill development. The second instructional story probe was administered following the completion of Stage 5 (or Lesson Plan 3), memorization of the strategy and mnemonic. The participating students' classroom teachers selected the pictures to be used in the current study. They selected pictures that would be interesting to fourth- and fifth-grade students, easy to write about, and similar in nature (e.g., showed only one character). Examples of pictures used in the current study included a boy sitting at his desk at school wearing a Halloween costume and a girl sitting on a horse in the woods. The pictures were randomly ordered and preassigned for each of the planned writing probes. All writing probes were administered during writers' workshop by the special education teacher. The only exception to this was the generalization story probe which was administered by the general classroom teacher during writers' workshop. The following standardized instructions were given for all story probes: "Look at this picture and write a story to go with it. Please remember that I cannot help you write the story." Story grammar scale. A scale developed by Graham and Harris (1989a) for assessing the schematic structure of stories was used to score students' papers. The scale was designed to assess the inclusion and quality of eight story elements identified by Stein and Glenn (1979): main character, locale, time, starter event, goal,



307

action, ending, and reaction. For each story element, a score of 0 was awarded if the element was not present in the student's story, a score of 1 was awarded if the element was present, and a score of 2 was awarded if the element was highly developed. For the story element, goal, an additional point was awarded if two or more goals were articulated in the student's story. Similarly, for the action story element an additional point was awarded if either of the following conditions were met: (a) the story contained more than one well-defined episode, or (b) events happened in a logical manner. For each story, scores were first determined for each element separately. Scores for the individual elements were then totaled to obtain a total story grammar element score (a total of 19 points was possible). In addition, the examiners recorded which elements or parts were included in each story. This score was based on all of the elements included on the story grammar scale with the exception of one element, starter event. This element was not included in this tabulation because the story grammar strategy did not contain a question that prompted students to think about it. Prior to scoring, the stories were typed and corrected for spelling, and all identifying information was removed from the papers (these typed stories were also used when obtaining the quality rating discussed below). All stories written by a student were independently scored by the first author and a second trained examiner who was naive to the purpose and design of the investigation. For all papers, the total story grammar score was the score assigned by the first author. Interobserver reliability between the two examiners for the total story grammar element score was .97. Interobserver agreements for the inclusion of individual elements or parts were as follows: character (.82), locale (.83), starter event (.76), goal (.94), ending (.77), and reaction (.87). Evidence on the validity of the story grammar scale has been obtained in several separate investigations. Researchers have found that students' scores on the story grammar scale correlated significantly with other measures of story structure (Graves, Montague, & Wong, 1990), with performance on a standardized writing test (Graham & Harris, 1989a), and with indicators of fluency and overall quality in students' written work (Graham & Harris, 1989a; MacArthur & Graham, 1987). The scale also discriminated between groups of students known to differ in their writing ability (Montague, Graves, & Leavell, 1991; Vallecorsa & Garris, 1990). Finally, the scale was sensitive to the effects of an instructional program designed to improve the schematic structure of students' stories (Graham & Harris, 1989a; Sawyer et al., 1992). Number of words written. Stories written during baseline, postinstruction, generalization, and maintenance were scored in terms of number of words written. Total number of words included all written words, regardless of spelling, which represented a spoken word. Interobserver reliability between the first author and the naive trained examiner was .99.


308


Holistic rating scale. A traditional holistic rating scale was used to assess the quality of each story written during baseline, postinstruction, generalization, and maintenance. Compositions were scored on an 8-point scale, with 8 representing the highest quality of writing, and 1 representing the lowest quality. Examiners were asked to read each story attentively, but not laboriously to obtain a general impression of overall quality. Examiners were told that aptness of word choice, grammar, sentence structure, organization, and imagination should all be taken into account in forming a judgment about the overall quality of the writing sample and that no one factor should receive undue weight. To guide the examiners in the scoring process, a representative low-, medium-, and high-scoring composition were provided. These three compositions were obtained from a fifth-grade classroom. Two graduate students then selected the best, middle, and the poorest story on the basis of the scoring criteria noted above. Stories were independently scored by two graduate students majoring in education who were unfamiliar with the purpose and the design of the study. Both raters received considerable instruction and practice in using the holistic rating scale prior to scoring students' stories. For all papers, the scores obtained by the two examiners were averaged. Interobserver reliability between the two examiners was .77. Strategy usage. The notes, along with the written papers, generated by students during postinstruction, generalization, and maintenance writing probes were examined to obtain direct evidence that they actually used the writing strategy taught. Self-efficacy measure. An individually administered measure for assessing selfefficacy for story writing developed by Graham and Harris (1989a) was administered to each student just before and after instruction in the writing strategy. The measure was designed in accordance with procedures outlined by Bandura and Schunk (1981). The self-efficacy measure included 10 items for probing judgment of one's capability to write a "made-up story." The first nine items were introduced with the phrase "Can you write a story that," and were as follows: (a) tells about the main character's feelings? (b) clearly tells about the setting? (c) has a good beginning? (d) tells who the main character is? (e) tells about several things that happens to the main character? (f) tells when the story takes place? (g) tells where the story takes place? (h) tells what the main character wants to do? (i) has a good ending? The last question asked, "Can you write a good, creative (made-up) story?" Located directly underneath each item was an efficacy scale that ranged from 10 to 100 points in 10-unit intervals; the higher the scale value, the higher the perceived self-efficacy. Written descriptions which were verbalized by the examiner occurred at the following points on the scale: 10 (not sure), 40 (maybe), 70 (pretty sure), 100 (real sure). Before administering the 10 self-efficacy items, students were familiarized with



309

the 100-point efficacy scale by using the scale to judge their capability of jumping progressively longer distances, from a few inches to several yards. Next, each selfefficacy item was read aloud, and the student was asked to mark privately the appropriate number on the efficacy scale corresponding to each item. The students were encouraged to answer honestly. They understood the directions and did not experience any difficulties completing their judgments. The self-efficacy score was obtained by summing the judgments for all items and dividing by 10. At no time during the course of the study were students provided with feedback on their performance on the self-efficacy measure. In order to avoid carryover effects, the selfefficacy measure was not administered on the same day as a writing probe. Social validity interviews. At the conclusion of the study, the participating students and their writing workshop teachers were interviewed to obtain information on perceived effectiveness of the intervention, recommendations, and other feedback.

RESULTS Student's average scores on the writing probes administered during each phase of the study are presented in Table 1. In addition, Figure 1 presents the total score on the story grammar measure (inclusion and quality of story elements) for each writing probe administered during the course of the study, whereas Figure 2 presents the number of story grammar parts (i.e., elements) included in each student's stories. Schematic Structure of Stories For all of the participating students, the instructional procedures resulted in substantial increases over baseline in terms of the story grammar element score (see Table 1 and Figure 1). Students' average scores from baseline to postinstruction doubled to tripled. Moreover, these gains were maintained over time and generalized to a writing probe administered by the students' general classroom teacher. Thus, instruction had a positive impact on the inclusion and quality of story elements included in students' compositions. Similarly, when only the number of story grammar parts (i.e., elements) were considered, the instructional procedures resulted in substantial increases over baseline for all six of the participating students (see Table 1 and Figure 2). Students' average scores from baseline to postinstruction almost doubled, and these gains were maintained over time and generalized to the writing probe administered by the general classroom teachers. On stories written during baseline, students included only about three elements or story parts per paper. In these stories, students almost always included a



310

Table 1 Students' Average Scores during Each Experimental Condition Experimental Condition Baseline

Students Pair 1 Student with LD Elements Parts Length Quality Normally Achieving Student Elements Parts Length Quality Pair 2 Student with LD Elements Parts Length Quality Normally Achieving Student Elements Parts Length Quality Pair 3 Student with LD Elements Parts Length Quality Normally Achieving Student Elements Parts Length Quality

Postinstmctior i Generalization Maintenance

5.3 4.3 188.0 4.5

13.3 6.3 494.0 4.5

12.0 6.5 159.0 5.5

8.0 6.0 219.0 6.8

3.7 3.0 93.0 3.3

12.3 7.0 189.0 6.2

11.0 6.5 141.0 5.0

8.0 7.0 285.0 5.3

3.8 2.8 167.0 2.6

12.3 6.7 197.0 5.7

14.5 7.0 152.0 3.5

11.0

4.0 3.5 130.0 4.0

16.0 6.3 234.0 4.7

14.0 7.0 154.0 4.0

3.8 2.2 111.0 3.5

13.0 6.3 177.0 4.5

13.5 7.0 124.0 3.5

4.0 3.3 90.0 3.6

13.7 6.7 182.0 3.3

13.0 7.0 225.0 3.0

7.0

217.0 4.8

12.0 6.0

339.0 5.5

11.0 7.0

129.0 3.0

13.0 7.0

190.0 3.5

Note. Students in Pairs 1 and 2 are fifth graders, whereas students in Pair 3 are fourth graders. Elements is the score for the inclusion and quality of common story elements. Parts is just the score for the inclusion of common story elements.


311


Instruction M1 Baseline Postdate M2 Generalization

•

- students with LD

D

= normally achieving students

20 16

I 1 12 "5 o icr

1 2

3 A 5

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

6 7 8

20' 18 16 0

u

y

1 12 O 10 § «• 6' 4 2 1 2 3

4

5

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

6 7 8 9

20 18 16 14

•5 S Q. £ 86"

D

4 •

•

2' 1 2

3

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Writing Assessments Figure 1. Students' scores on the story grammer scale.


312


Instruction M1 Baseline Postdata M2 Generalization

•

= students with LD

D

= normally achieving students

5 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 23 24 25 26 27

Q

7 ' 6

•

5

••

4 3 2 1 0

' ' ' -. 1 2

n

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 1

12 13,14 15 1(

18.19 18.19 2200 21 2 2 23 2 4 25 26 27

7 6 e 5

w O

D

4

0. £ 3 2 1 1

2

3

4

5

6 7

8

9 10

1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 23 24 25 26 27

Writing Assessments Figure 2. Number of story grammar parts included in students' stories.



313

main character and a referent to when the story took place. The characters were usually not developed though and reference to time was generally "once" or "one day." Furthermore, the characters in the stories often did not pursue activities related to specific goals or display reactions or feelings to events taking place within the story. Most of the students' papers did have an ending sentence. On all of the probes administered after instruction, however, students included all or all but one of the story parts. In addition, they were more descriptive, established goals for their characters to pursue, and tied their action to their characters' goals. Instructional probes. Examination of the story probes administered during instruction (see Figures 1 and 2) provided a window into how specific instructional procedures affected students' performance. The first probe was taken after discussion of the purposes of instruction, a review of baseline performance, and practice in identifying story parts (Stages 1 and 2). Following this instruction, students averaged an increase of slightly more than one additional part per story (although one student with LD and one of the normally achieving students included all of the parts). Furthermore, students were more likely to provided additional detail about their main character and be more specific as to when the story took place. All other aspects of their stories were similar to their baseline performance. None of the students took time to plan their stories in advance. The second probe was administered following description and modeling of the writing strategy and self-regulation procedures. The students had also memorized the steps to the strategy at this point (Stages 3,4, and 5). Following these stages of instruction, students averaged adding one additional part to their stories; the students from two of the classrooms included all or all but one of the story parts on this probe. All of the students' stories included a main character and a setting (time and place). All but one student included a reaction, and one student did not establish a goal for their characters. Several of the students still had difficulty tying the action in the story to the characters' goals, and an ending was not established in all of the stories. In addition, the amount of detail included in students' stories increased. Finally, the fifth-grade students used the story grammar mnemonic and questions to outline their story prior to writing; the fourth graders did not (although they wrote the mnemonic on their papers). As noted previously, postinstructional probes indicated further improvements, particularly in terms of story grammar element score. Thus, the data indicated that students progressed throughout the stages of instruction, with collaborative practice and independent performance (Stages 6 & 7) resulting in continued gains in performance. Number of words. Following instruction in the strategy, students' stories were longer than those written during baseline (see Table 1). The only exception to this pattern were the generalization stories written by the two fifth-grade students with LD.


314


Story quality. Changes in the schematic structure and length of students' stories were usually associated with improvements in story quality (see Table 1). With two exceptions, the quality of stories written by the fifth-grade students following instruction improved. Although the student with LD in the first pair did not evidence any improvement in the quality of his writing immediately following instruction, the quality of subsequent stories produced during generalization and maintenance did improve. In contrast, the quality of the stories written by the normally achieving student in the second pair improved following instruction these gains were not evident when writing a story for the regular writing teacher, however. The effects of instruction on the quality of the fourth-grade students' writing were not as pronounced. The instructional program only had a positive effect on the quality of the stories written by the student with LD. Unfortunately, these gains were not maintained over time, nor were they evident when the student wrote a story for the regular writing teacher. Strategy usage. Following instruction, the fifth-grade students consistently used the strategy when writing stores. Although the two fourth-grade students wrote the mnemonic on the top of their papers, they did not overtly use it to outline their story. When the normally achieving fourth-grade student was asked why she did this, she replied: "I don't need to do that; I know the story parts." The fourth-grade student with LD responded to the same question by indicating that "it was too much writing; I already have it in my head." Self-efficacy. The already high baseline self-efficacy scores for the normally achieving student (88) and the student with LD (90) in the first instructional pair of fifth-grade students rose slightly to 100 and 91, respectively, following instruction. For the second pair of fifth graders, the student with LD maintained a high baseline score of 98 before and after instruction. The normally achieving student in this pair had an initial self-efficacy score of 60 which rose to 86 following instruction. Finally, the baseline self-efficacy score for the fourth-grade students with LD (41) and her normally achieving counterpart (45) rose to 87 and 66, respectively, following instruction. Social validity. During the social validity interview, students were positive about the instructional regime. All of the students had indicated that prior to instruction they were not very good at writing creative stories, but had subsequently improved. As one student commented, "Now this story writing makes sense." The students also indicated that the part of the strategy they liked best was the mnemonic, and one student commented that it "builds up your resources." The students further noted that the mnemonic could be used during reading class. One student reported using the strategy to write a "tall tale" in another class, whereas other students used it for journal writing and writing a story for the school newspaper. None of the students noted any problems in incorporating the strategy or self-



315

regulation procedures into the process approach. The students' writing workshop teachers were also positive in their evaluations. One of the teachers commented that she could see "light bulbs going on" as the students worked to master the strategy. They indicated that the mnemonic seemed to help their students remember the parts of a story and to add detail. One of the teachers noted that "the mnemonic was a great deal of help for teaching my literacy unit; many times the students would used the code to write and revise." The teachers also reported that students were using self-statements at other times during the day, particularly statements for reinforcing themselves.

DISCUSSION The present study examined the effectiveness of embedding strategy instruction in the context of the general school curriculum. During writers' workshop, students with and without a learning disability were explicitly taught a previously validated writing strategy and procedures for regulating the strategy and the writing process. Changes in students' performance during instruction were also examined to determine the contribution of specific instructional components. Integrating Strategy Instruction Integrating strategy instruction into classes that followed a writing workshop approach to composition instruction had a positive impact on the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. The number and quality of story grammar elements that these students included in their compositions immediately following strategy instruction improved substantially. As the components included in stories became broader and richer, papers also became longer and, for all but one of the participating students with LD, qualitatively better. The length of this student's papers, however, increased considerably following strategy instruction, averaging an additional 300 words per composition. One reason that associated changes in quality failed to materialize for this student may be that he was having difficulty culling and integrating such a large amount of writing content—almost 500 words per paper. His performance on the generalization and maintenance writing probes supports this interpretation. On these writing assignments, he reduced the length of his stories by almost 300 words. At the same time, the quality of his compositions improved. Although we did not compare the effects of supplemental versus integrated strategy instruction, it should be noted that the changes in the schematic structure of stories written by students with LD in the current study were generally larger than those obtained in studies where the same strategies and procedures have been taught to similar students, but within the context of a pull-out program (Graham &


316


Harris, 1989a; Sawyer et al., 1992). Because of the increasing call by many educators for inclusion of students with disabilities (e.g., Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Reynolds et al., 1987), there is an increasing need to determine if procedures validated in pull-out programs remain effective and can be incorporated in such settings. In terms of strategy instruction, some researchers have indicated that they are skeptical that this type of instruction can be successfully delivered to students with LD in inclusive classrooms (e.g., Schumaker & Deshler, 1992). Although this was not the case in the current study, additional research is needed to examine how strategy instruction fares for students with LD in inclusive settings where content instruction (e.g., social studies), not process instruction, is the overriding priority. The conferences and mini-lessons integral to writers' workshop make it relatively easy to provide the level of explicitness and support necessary for individual students to develop and personalize composition strategies. One way of making inclusion more acceptable and less burdensome to teachers is to identify flexible instructional procedures that benefit both students with disabilities and their normally achieving peers. The strategy instructional procedures investigated in the current study were conducted with all of the students in the three participating classrooms. In addition to monitoring the effects of instruction on the students with LD, the performance of one average writer from each of the classrooms was assessed as well. For these three average writers, strategy instruction had a salutary effect on the number and quality of story grammar elements included in their stories. These students' papers also become longer and, with the exception of the younger fourth-grade student, qualitatively better. One possible reason why this student's papers did not evidence a general improvement in overall quality following strategy instruction may relate to how she applied the writing strategy. Instead of using the strategy as a prompt to generate planning notes in advance of writing, she simply wrote the story parts reminder (mnemonic) on her paper and proceeded to write. When asked why she was not generating planning notes in advance, she indicated that she already knew the parts. This student, therefore, mainly used the strategy as a reminder to include all of the parts. Without doing more planning in advance, the strategy as applied may simply not have been powerful enough to induce an overall shift in story quality. Similar to this study, Englert et al. (1991) also found that strategy instructional procedures has a positive effect on the writing of students with and without a learning disability. All strategies, however, are not equally effective with these two groups of students (e.g., Swanson & Cooney, 1987; Swanson, Overholzer, & Cooney, 1988). For instance, Wong and Jones (1982) found that learning a selfquestioning strategy to monitor reading comprehension had a positive impact on adolescents with LD, but lowered the reading performance of normally achieving students. One reason why the strategy instructional regime used in the current study (as well as the study by Englert et al. (1991) may have been so effective for these two



317

different types of students is that the instructional procedures addressed processes (generating, framing, and planning text) that can be problematic for young writers in general (Graham & Harris, 1989b; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986). As noted previously, examination of students' portfolios before the start of this study showed that most of the students in the three classrooms commonly neglected two or more of the basic parts of a story, and that all students could improve their story writing by including greater detail and elaboration. Another reason why the strategy instructional procedures may have been effective with both types of students in the current study is that there were no meaningful differences in their story-writing skills to begin with. Even though the students without a learning disability scored in the normal range on a standardized achievement test and were described by their teacher as "average" writers, there was no meaningful difference between the schematic structure and quality of their baseline stories and the baseline stories written by students with a learning disability. Although the teachers were positive about the effects of instruction for each class, data were not collected on the better writers in the classroom. Thus, further research is needed to confirm teachers' observations that these procedures have a positive effect on the writing of students with different levels of writing ability. Furthermore, the results from the current study raise an important issue concerning process approaches to writing. Models such as writers' workshop use various instructional procedures and arrangements to emphasize the cognitive processes considered central to effective writing. Students in a process approach to writing, however, may benefit from more extensive, structured, and explicit instruction in these processes than they generally receive. Even though the students in the current study had been participating in a process approach to writing instruction over a period of several years, their story-writing performance was significantly improved, in a relatively short period of time, by explicitly teaching them how to carry out important writing processes. Including strategy instruction as part of writers' workshop may have made important cognitive processes more visible and concrete for these young writers. In short, although most of the students were already familiar with the parts of a story, strategy instruction helped them to understand and use what it was they knew. Integrating strategy instruction as part of writers' workshop was further supported by the results obtained from the interviews administered at the end of the study. Both the students and their writing teachers were positive in their evaluation of the instructional procedures. Perhaps most importantly, the teachers at this school incorporated the writing strategy and accompanying self-regulation procedures as a regular part of their writing program the following year. Maintenance and Generalization A potential advantage of incorporating strategy instruction into the general school curriculum is that students are learning to use strategies in the context which


318


they are expected to apply them, increasing the likelihood that developed strategies will be maintained and generalized (Graham & Harris, in press; Pressley et al., 1989). With one notable exception, students in the current study maintained and generalized the gains they made as a result of instruction. For the fifth-grade students, the gains demonstrated in story structure immediately following instruction were maintained over a period of one month and generalized to the students' regular writing teacher. Similar results were found for the quality of their stories. One month following instruction, all of the fifth-grade students were still writing stories that were qualitatively superior to the compositions they wrote during baseline. With the exception of one student, the same effects were observed for the stories solicited by their regular writing teachers. Although the fourth-grade students maintained and generalized the gains they made in the schematic structure of their stories following instruction, a similar effect was not observed for the overall quality of their papers. The average writer did not evidence any gains in overall story quality following instruction, and the gains in overall quality made by the student with LD did not generalize to another teacher or remain over time. Although it is possible that failure to either obtain quality gains or to maintain and generalize them may be related to the maturation or age of these students, a more likely explanation (in our estimation) is that they did not maximize their use of the strategy. On all of the writing probes administered after instruction, the fifth-grade students used the writing strategy to generate planning notes in advance of writing. In contrast, the fourth-grade students did not do this; they merely wrote the mnemonic at the top of their paper, using it as a prompt to remember the parts of a story. These students would likely have benefitted from a booster session aimed at reminding them of the importance of generating planning notes in advance of writing. Contribution of Instructional Components A multicomponent instructional model, self-regulated strategy development (Graham et al., 1987; Harris & Graham, 1992a) was used to teach the participating students the writing strategy. A major issue in examining the effectiveness of multicomponent interventions is determining the relative contribution of instructional components and the variables responsible for change (Harris, 1985; Pressley, ForrestPressley, & Elliot-Faust, 1988). The overall results from two previous component analysis of SRSD (Graham & Harris, 1989a; Sawyer et al., 1992), revealed that the strongest results were obtained when the full instructional package was used to teach the target strategy. The findings from the current study provide additional support for this conclusion. On writing probes administered just before, during, and right after strategy instruction, the participating students evidenced progressively higher scores in terms of the schematic structure of their stories. First, on the writing probe administered after Stages 1 and 2, small gains in the schematic structure of students' stories were found. At this point, students added



319

a little more detail to their stories and added one additional story part to their papers. During these stages, students were familiarized with the basic parts of a story, why their inclusion in stories was important, and what parts they currently included in their own stories. Thus, instruction aimed primarily at increasing students' knowledge of story parts (an important preskill to using the writing strategy) was not powerful enough to result in substantial changes in students' writing. The schematic structure of students' stories evidenced a slightly larger change following the conclusion of Stages 3, 4, and 5. By this time, the writing strategy and accompanying self-regulation procedures had been described and modeled; the students had also memorized the steps of the strategy. Students again averaged adding an additional story part to their compositions, but were much more likely to add details and elaborate. The final instructional stages (6 and 7) emphasizing collaborative and independent practice resulted in further changes equivalent to those obtained after the strategy had been introduced, modeled, and memorized. On the writing probes administered after the termination of instruction, students averaged one new additional story part and continued to flesh out their stories with additional details and elaborations. Researchers have found that simply writing more stories alone does not improve the writing of students with LD (Sawyer et al., 1992); thus, collaborative and independent practice appear to be important stages in maximizing the effects of strategy instruction. Summary The present investigation demonstrated that strategy instruction can be successfully integrated into the school curriculum, resulting in positive effects on the performance of students with and without a learning disability. Specifically, incorporating strategy instruction into a process approach to writing can meaningfully augment students' composition skills. Clearly, both replication of the results of this study and further component analysis of the strategy instructional model used in this investigation are needed.

REFERENCES Anthony, H., & Anderson, L. (1987, April). The nature of writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman. Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598. Barenbaum, E., Newcomer, P., & Nodine, B. (1987). Children's ability to write stories as a function of variation in task, age, and developmental level. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 175-188.


320


Bednarczyk, A., & Harris, K. R. (1992). [Story grammar instruction to improve reading comprehension]. Unpublished raw data. Bos, C. S. (1988). Process-oriented writing: Instructional implications for mildly handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54, 521-527. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1990). Interactive learning environments and the teaching of science and mathematics. In M. Gardner, J. Greens, F. Reif, A. Schoenfeld, A. di Sessa, & E. Stage (Eds.), Toward a scientific practice of science education (pp. 111-139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. California Achievement Tests: Technical bulletin no. 1. (1979). Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill. Calkins, L. (1991). Living between the lines. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman. Case, L., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Improving the mathematical problem solving skills of students with learning disabilities: Self-regulated strategy development. Journal of Special Education, 26, 1-19. Englert, C., Raphael, T., Anderson, L., Anthony, H., Stevens, D., & Fear, K. (1991). Making writing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in writing in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337-373. Gartner, A., & Lisky, D. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367-395. Gast, D., Skouge, J., & Tawney, J. (1984). Variations of the multiple baseline design: Multiple probe and changing criterion designs. In J. Tawney & D. Gast (Eds.), Singles subject research in special education (pp. 269-299). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Goldman, S. (1989). Strategy instruction in mathematics. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 43-55. Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students' compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781-791. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (in press). Cognitive strategy instruction: Methodological issues and guidelines in conducting research. In S. Vaughn & C. Bos (Eds.), Learning disabilities research: Theory, methodology, assessment, and ethics. New York: Springer-Verlag. Graham, S., & Harris K. R. (1989a). A components 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 for written language. In J. Hughes & R. Hall (Eds.), Cognitive behavioral psychology in the schools: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 247-279). New York: Guilford. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Sawyer, R. (1987). Composition instruction with learning disabled students: Self-instructional strategy training. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20, 1-11. Graves, A., Montague, M., & Wong, Y. (1990). The effects of procedural facilitation on story composition of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 5, 88-93. Hallaha, D., Lloyd, J., Kauffman, J., & Loper, A. (1983). Academic problems. In R. Morris & T. Kratochwill (Eds.), Practice of child therapy: A textbook of methods (pp. 113-141). New York: Pergammon. Harris, K. R. (1985). Conceptual, methodological, and clinical issues in cognitive-behavioral assessment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 13, 373-390. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992a). Helping young writers master the craft: Strategy instruction and self-regulation in the writing process. Boston, MA: Brookline Books. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992b). Self-regulated strategy development: A part of the writing process. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 277-309). New York: Academic Press. Harris, K. R., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392-405. MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students' composing with three methods: Handwriting, dictation, and word processing. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22-42.



321

MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991a). A model for writing instruction: Integrating word processing and strategy instruction into a process approach to writing. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 230-236. MacArthur, C , Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991b). Effects of reciprocal peer revision strategy in a special education classroom. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 201-210. Montague, M., Graves, A., & Leavell, A. (1991). Planning, procedural facilitation, and narrative composition of junior high students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 219-224. Paris, S., & Oka, E. (1989). Strategies for comprehending text and coping with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 32-42. Pressley, M., Forrest-Pressley, D., & Elliot-Faust, D. (1988). How to study strategy instructional enrichment: Illustrations from research on children's prose memory and comprehension. In F. Weinert & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Memory development: Universal changes and individual development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. (1989). The challenges of classroom strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 89, 301-342. Pressley, M., Harris, K. R., & Marks, M. B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists! Educational Psychology Review, 4, 3-31. Pressley, M. & Levin, J. (1986). Elaborative Learning Strategies for the Inefficient learner. In S. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (pp. 175211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pressley, M., Woloshyn, V., Lysynchuk, L., Martin, V., Wood, E., & Willoughby, T. (1990). A primer of research on cognitive strategy instruction: The important issues and how to address them. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 1-57. Reeve, R., & Brown, A. (1985). Metacognition reconsidered: Implications for intervention research. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 343-356. Reynolds, M., Wang, M., & Walberg, H. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391-398. Sawyer, R., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects on learning disabled students' composition skills and selfefficacy. 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. Schumaker, J., & Deshler, D. (1992). Validation of learning strategy interventions for students with learning disabilities: Results of a programmatic research effort. In B. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international perspective (pp. 22-46). New York: Springer-Verlag. Shephard, L., Smith, M., & Vojir, C. (1983). Characteristics of pupils identified as learning disabled. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 309-331. Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. C. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), Advances in discourse processes: Vol. 2. New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Swanson, L. (1989). Strategy instruction: Overview of principles and procedures for effective use. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 3-15. Swanson, L., & Cooney, J. (1987). Individual differences in mental arithmetic: Procedural or declarative knowledge. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C. Swanson, L., Overholzer, J., & Cooney, J. (1988). The effects of self-generated visual mnemonics on adult learning disabled readers' word recall. Learning Disability Research, 4, 26-35.


322


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, 21-30. Vallecorsa, A., Garris, E. (1990). Story composition skills of middle-grade students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 57, 48-55. Weschler, D. (1974). Manual for the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation. Woodcock, R. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Wong, B. (1985). Issues in cognitive-behavioral interventions in academic skill areas. Journal of Abnor-

mal Child Psychology, 13, 425-442. Wong, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1991). Cognitive-behavioral procedures: Academic applicants with students with learning disabilities. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Child and adolescent therapy: Cognitive-behavioral procedure (pp. 245-275). New York: Guilford Press. Wong, B., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning-disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228-240.

Manuscript received: October 14, Revisions requested: January 20, Revisions received: February 25, Accepted for publication: March 1,


1992 1993 1993 1993