Handbook of Learning Disabilities

328 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

(e.g., “Writing is a waste of time.”), the stu- ing of students with LD who were asked to
dents with LD were generally positive about plan and write compositions in an environ-
writing. Their responses stand in contrast to ment that included many of the features de-
anecdotal and clinical reports where such scribed previously actually declined over
children frequently indicate that they avoid time. In contrast, Danoff, Harris, and Gra-
writing if they can (Berninger et al., 1997). ham (1993) reported that the writing per-
formance of students with LD in a similarly
How Can We Help Students with LD supportive environment improved once they
Become More Strategic Writers? were taught a strategy for planning and
writing their papers.
When we asked a fourth-grade child with
LD to tell us what good writers do, he hesi- Self-Regulated Strategy Development
tated only for a moment before declaring,
“Write large!” Though this is clearly a Alexander and her colleagues (Alexander,
strategic response, it is not one that we want Graham, & Harris, 1998) have argued that
to support. How then do we help students the development of competence is closely
with LD set aside the low-effort approach tied to changes in strategic knowledge, sub-
that they so often employ and take up a ject-matter knowledge, and motivation. To
more thoughtful and insistence course to help students form a more sophisticated ap-
composing? proach to composing then, it is important to
design instructional procedures that shape
One means for doing this is to tackle the the development of each of these abilities.
problem head on by teaching students with This is especially important for students
LD to use the same types of strategies em- with LD, as many of these children experi-
ployed by more skilled writers. This is the ence problems in each of these areas (see
primary tactic we have used in our research Harris, Graham, Deshler, 1998). They often
program. use inefficient and ineffective strategies, ex-
perience difficulty activating and regulating
A second approach involves constructing strategic behavior, possess incomplete and
an environment that nourishes the develop- poorly integrated knowledge, hold mal-
ment of self-regulation (Graham & Harris, adaptive beliefs and self-doubts, and exhibit
1994, 1997). This environment includes as- low levels of engagement.
signing writing topics that serve real pur-
poses and promote strategic behavior; al- Consequently, we developed an approach
lowing students to work on topics of their to strategy instruction, referred to as self-
own choosing; encouraging them to share regulated strategy development (SRSD),
their writing with others; establishing pre- designed to enhance students’ strategic
dictable classroom routines where planning behaviors, self-regulation skills, content
and revising are expected and reinforced; knowledge, and motivational dispositions
letting students arrange their writing envi- (Harris & Graham, 1996, 1999). Strategic
ronment and work at their own pace; and knowledge is elevated by teaching students
creating a classroom milieu that is support- more sophisticated strategies for accom-
ive, pleasant, and nonthreatening. plishing an academic task or problem (e.g.,
report writing). Self-regulation is advanced
Clearly, these two approaches are not in- by teaching them how to use goal setting,
compatible, and we (e.g., Danoff, Harris, & self-monitoring, self-instructions, and/or
Graham, 1993; MacArthur, Graham, self-reinforcement to regulate their use of
Schwartz, & Schafer, 1995; MacArthur, the target strategies, the task, and their be-
Schwartz, & Graham; 1991; MacArthur, haviors. Content knowledge is increased by
Schwartz, Graham, Molloy, & Harris, teaching any information (or skills) students
1996) and other researchers (Englert et al., need to use the selected strategies or self-
1991) have used both in tandem. Neverthe- regulation procedures. Motivation is boost-
less, it should be noted that the second ap- ed by a variety of procedures, including em-
proach by itself may not be powerful phasizing the role of effort in learning,
enough for many children with LD who making the positive effects of instruction
struggle with writing. For example, Troia
and Graham (in press) found that the writ-

A Meta-Analysis of SRSD Studies 329

concrete and visible, and promoting an “I To increase students’ motivation, the
can do” attitude. teacher made it clear how learning the strat-
egy would improve their writing, stressed
A writing study by Sexton, Harris, and students’ role as collaborators in the learn-
Graham (1998) illustrates how SRSD can be ing process, taught students how to monitor
used to address each of these areas. Teachers the effects of the strategy, and encouraged
identified fifth- and sixth-grade students students to support each other during in-
with LD who had difficulty with writing and struction. Students’ maladaptive beliefs
exhibited low levels of motivation as well as about the causes of writing success and fail-
maladaptive beliefs about the causes of writ- ure were addressed by emphasizing the role
ing success and failure. These students were of effort in learning and writing. For exam-
explicitly taught a strategy for planning and ple, students were encouraged during writ-
writing an opinion essay. The strategy in- ing to use personal self-statements that at-
volved a series of steps designed to help them tributed success to the use of effort (“Work
establish a goal for writing, generate an ini- hard,” “Write better.”).
tial outline for their paper, and continue the
process of planning while writing. The strat- Characteristics of SRSD Instruction
egy was designed to upgrade their approach
to composing, as they typically did little There are five critical characteristics of
planning in advance of writing. SRSD instruction:

In developing an outline for their paper, 1. Strategies, accompanying self-regulation
students were taught to generate ideas in re- procedures, and needed knowledge are
sponse to the basic components of an opin- explicitly taught, as children with LD
ion essay (i.e., a thesis, supporting reasons, typically require more extensive and di-
and a conclusion). To do so required that rect instruction to master processes and
they become familiar with the elements of knowledge that other students acquire
such an essay. As a result, this content more easily (Reeve & Brown, 1985).
knowledge was taught by introducing and
defining these elements, identifying them in 2. The SRSD model stresses interactive
essays written by others, and generating learning between teacher and students,
ideas for each element when using different consistent with the dialectical construc-
essay topics. tivist viewpoint (Pressley, Harris, &
Marks, 1992). Children are viewed as
To help students learn to regulate their active collaborators who work with the
use of the strategy, the teacher modeled how teacher and each other during instruc-
to use it, while thinking out loud. While tion.
modeling aloud, she used a variety of self-
statements to direct the use of the strategy 3. Instruction is individualized so that the
and the writing process. This included self- processes, skills, and knowledge targeted
statements involving problem definition for instruction are tailored to children’s
(e.g., “What do I need to do?”), self-evalua- needs and capabilities For instance, in a
tion (e.g., “Did I say what I really be- class where students were taught the
lieve?”), error correction (e.g., “Whoops, I content outline from the Sexton and col-
forgot to do this; I need to do all of the leagues (1998) study described above,
strategy steps.”), and self-reinforcement the strategy would be modified for stu-
(e.g., “Great, this is a good reason.”). Stu- dents who already included the basic
dents and teacher discussed the importance parts (i.e., thesis, supporting reasons,
of such statements, identified the things the and conclusion) in their persuasive writ-
teacher said that helped her work better, ing. An appropriate modification might
generated self-statements that they would include generating one or more possible
use, and were encouraged and reinforced examples for each supporting reason.
for using their statements while learning the Instruction is further individualized
strategy. Students further regulated their through the use of individually tailored
writing behavior by setting goals to include feedback and support.
all the basic parts in their compositions, em-
phasizing that this could be accomplished 4. Instruction is criterion rather than time
by using the strategy. based, as students move through each in-

330 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

structional process at their own pace and ment statements. After analyzing the mod-
do not proceed to later stages of instruc- el’s performance, teacher and students may
tion until they have met the criteria for collaborate on how to change the strategies
doing so. Just as importantly, instruction to make them more effective or efficient.
does not end until the student can use the Each student develops and records personal
strategy and self-regulation procedures self-statements they plan to use. These self-
efficiently and effectively. statements may be designed to regulate
5. SRSD is an ongoing process in which strategy use, the task, or interfering student
new strategies are introduced and previ- behavior. Teachers may model how to use
ously taught strategies are upgraded. For the strategy more than once, depending on
example, the content outline from the how quickly students’ grasp the concepts il-
Sexton and colleagues (1998) study lustrated by the teacher.
could be upgraded by adding an addi-
tional essay element, namely, refuting 4. Memorize it. The steps of the strate-
reasons that run counter to the writer’s gies, any accompanying mnemonic for re-
thesis. membering them, and students’ personal-
ized self-statements are memorized;
Stages of Instruction paraphrasing is allowed as long as the origi-
nal meaning is maintained. Practice memo-
Six instructional stages provide the structur- rizing the strategies, mnemonics, and per-
al framework for SRSD (Harris & Graham, sonalized self-statements may begin during
1996). These stages represent a “meta- the “discuss it” stage. This stage is included
script,” providing a general guideline for in- for students with severe learning and memo-
struction, but stages can be reordered, com- ry problems and is not needed by all stu-
bined, or modified to meet student and dents.
teacher needs. Example lesson plans can be
found at www.vanderbilt.edu/CASL/. 5. Support it. Students practice using the
strategies, self-statements, and any other
1. Develop background knowledge. The self-regulation processes (e.g., self-assess-
teacher helps students develop the knowl- ment and goals setting) introduced here or
edge and skills needed to understand, ac- earlier, receiving help from the teacher, their
quire, and execute target strategies and self- peers, or both until they can use these pro-
regulation procedures. cedures independently. Teacher help ranges
from direct assistance in applying the strate-
2. Discuss it. Teacher and students exam- gies (i.e., collaborative practice) to remodel-
ine and discuss current performance and the ing part or all of the strategies to corrective
strategies used to accomplish specific as- feedback and praise. Students may also sup-
signments or tasks. The target strategies, port each other by working together as they
their purpose and benefits, and how and initially learn to use the strategies. Both
when to use them are then examined. Stu- teacher and peer help as well as instruction-
dents are asked to make a commitment to al facilitators, such as self-statement lists
learn the strategies and act as a collabora- and strategy reminder charts, are faded as
tive partner in this endeavor. Negative or in- quickly as possible, and students are en-
effective self-statements or beliefs that stu- couraged to begin using their self-state-
dents currently use may also be addressed at ments covertly (i.e., in their head).
this time. Teachers may further introduce
the concept of progress monitoring, teach- 6. Independent performance. Students
ing students how to monitor the impact of use the strategies independently. If goal set-
learning the strategies. ting and self-assessment procedures are still
in use, the teacher may decide to fade them
3. Model it. The teacher models aloud at this time.
how to use the strategies, employing appro-
priate self-instructions. The self-instructions Procedures for promoting maintenance
include a combination of problem defini- and generalization are integrated through-
tion, planning, strategy use, self-evaluation, out the SRSD model. This includes dis-
error correction, coping, and self-reinforce- cussing opportunities to use, and results of
using, the strategies and self-regulation pro-

A Meta-Analysis of SRSD Studies 331

cedures with other tasks and in other set- fect size of 0.20 is considered small, 0.50
tings; asking parents and other teachers to medium, and 0.80 large. For single-partici-
comment on the student’s success in using pant design studies, effect sizes were calcu-
the strategies; and working with other lated using the percentage of nonoverlap-
teachers to prompt the use of the strategies ping data (PND) points recommended by
in their classrooms. Scruggs and Mastropieri (2001). The PND
is “the proportion of data points in a given
Impact of SRSD Instruction in Writing treatment condition that exceeds the ex-
treme value in a baseline condition” (p.
SRSD Studies in Writing 230). PND scores above 90% represent very
effective treatments, scores between 70%
To date, 26 studies have examined the use and 90% represent effective treatments,
of SRSD. Most of this research has involved scores between 50% and 70% are of ques-
students’ writing (see Harris & Graham, tionable effectiveness, and scores below
1999), but reading and math have been in- 50% are ineffective. Because the PND met-
vestigated as well (Bednarczyk, 1991; Case, ric was used, it was not possible to calculate
Harris, & Graham, 1992; Johnson, Gra- effect size for all the variables collected in
ham, & Harris, 1997). This chapter only the single-participant design studies. PND
examines SRSD writing intervention stud- can only be calculated when the data for
ies. Tables 20.1 through 20.4 presents effect each assessment point are provided. When
sizes for these 18 studies. Studies by Harris multiple measures are collected in single-
and colleagues (2002) and Sawyer and col- participant studies, such data is usually pro-
leagues (1992) involved component analysis vided for only the most critical variables
of the SRSD model, so only effect sizes for (usually in the form of one or more graphs).
the full treatment were computed. This was the case for many of the single-
participant studies reviewed here.
Not included in Tables 20.1 through 20.4
are a qualitative study of SRSD implementa- Thirteen of the 18 studies (72%) present-
tion (MacArthur et al., 1996), an evaluation ed in Tables 20.1 through 20.4 involved stu-
of SRSD using a one-group pretest–posttest dents with LD. The students with LD were
design (Collins, 1993), a component analy- in fourth to eighth grade. In addition to be-
sis of SRSD that did not include a control ing identified as LD by the schools, they
group (Graham & Harris, 1989a), and the typically met the following additional crite-
study of a writing program that included ria: a score between 80 and 120 on an intel-
SRSD as one of several instructional compo- ligence test, achievement 2 years or more
nents (MacArthur et al., 1995). A study by below grade level on a standardized
Troia and Graham (in press) that was par- achievement test, and problems with writ-
tially modeled after SRSD was also not in- ing. Students who were poor writers or low
cluded, because interactive learning between achievers were included in three studies (De
teacher and students, a hallmark of the La Paz, 2001; Harris et al., 2002; Saddler,
SRSD model, was purposefully limited. In Moran, Graham, & Harris, 2002), average
addition, a study by Tanhouser (1994) was writers in three studies (Danoff, Harris, &
not included because the investigator in- Graham, 1993; De La Paz, 1999; De La Paz
cluded only 3 days of instruction, limiting & Graham, in press), and good writers or
the amount of practice and time students gifted students in two studies (Albertson &
were given to master the target strategy. Billingsley, 1997; De La Paz, 1999). Finally,
This violates a basic characteristic of the a mixture of students with special needs
SRSD model, namely, the use of criterion, (LD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder,
not time-based, learning. etc.) were included in three studies (De La
Paz, 2001; De La Paz & Graham, 1997b;
For SRSD writing studies that involved Harris et al., 2002). Thus, the effectiveness
group comparisons, effect sizes were com- of SRSD has been tested with a variety of
puted by subtracting the posttest mean of different types of children. Moreover, SRSD
the control group from the posttest mean of has been experimentally tested with chil-
the SRSD group and dividing by the stan- dren as early as second grade (Saddler et al.,
dard deviation for the control group. An ef-

TABLE 20.1. Effect Sizes for Self-Regulated Strategy Development Planning St

Study Design Grades Students Teacher Posttest
3 GAs
Harris, Graham, & Group Poor (Quiet r
Mason (2002) design writers Length
Elemen
Quality

Sawyer, Graham, Group 5–6 LD GAs (Quiet r
& Harris (1992) design Story gr
Quality

Saddler, Moran, SP 2 Poor GAs (Quiet r
Graham, & Harris Elemen
(2002) writers

Troia, Graham, & SP 5 LD Researchers (Quiet r
Harris (1999) Story gr
332

Albertson & SP 6 Gifted Researcher (Home
Billingsley (1997) Length
Story gr
Sentenc

Danoff, Harris, SP 4–5 LD Teacher (Regula
& Graham (1993) Elemen
Story gr
4–5 Normal Teacher Elemen
writers Story gr

Harris, & SP 6 LD GAs (Quiet r
Graham (1985) Adjectives Action
100%
Adverb

Note. Effect sizes for group studies were calculated by subtracting the posttest mean of t
by the standard deviation for the control condition; effect size for single-participant desi
in the school where instruction was delivered; SP, single-participant design; LD, learning

tudies Involving Story Writing

Maintenance Generalization ES
ts ES tests ES tests 0.27
1.23
room) (8–10 weeks) (Narratives) 0.56
2.21 Length 0.49 Length
nts 1.76 Elements 1.16 Elements 83%
y 1.90 Quality 0.82 Quality

room) 3.52 (Narratives)
rammar 1.47 86% Elements
y

room) 100% (2–4 weeks)
nts Elements

room) (3 weeks) (Essays) 75%
rammar 100% Story grammar 67% Elements

setting) 71%
100%
rammar 100%
ces

ar class) 100% (2–4 weeks) 100% (Different teacher) 100%
nts 100% Elements 100% Elements 100%
rammar 100% Story grammar 100% Story grammar 100%
nts 100% Elements 100% Elements 100%
rammar Story grammar Story grammar

room) 100% (2–14 weeks) (Classroom) 75%
verbs Adjectives Action verbs 50% Action verbs 100%
100% Adjectives 100%
bs 88% Adverbs 75% Adverbs

the control condition (SRSD) from the posttest mean of the SRSD condition and dividing
ign studies was the percentage of nonoverlapping data points. Quiet room, a quiet room
g disability; GAs, graduate assistants.

TABLE 20.2. Effect Sizes for Self-Regulated Strategy Development Planning St

Study Design Grades Students Teacher Posttes
GAs
Harris, Graham, & Group 3 Poor (Quiet
Mason (2002) Length
design writers Elemen
Quality

De La Paz & Group 7–8 LD GAs (Quiet
Graham (1997a) design (Task—
Length
333 Elemen
Cohere
Quality
(Task—
Length
Elemen
Cohere
Quality

Sexton, Harris, & SP 5–6 LD Researcher (Regula
Graham (1998) Elemen

De La Paz & SP 5 LD/Gifted Researcher (Quiet
Graham (1997b)
LD/MMR, LD Elemen

Graham, MacArthur, SP 5 LD GAs (Quiet
Schwartz, & (Word
Page-Voth (1992) Elemen

Graham & Harris SP 6 LD GAs (Quiet
(1989b) Elemen

Note. Effect sizes for group studies were calculated by subtracting the posttest mean of t
by the standard deviation for the control condition; effect size for single-participant d
design; LD, learning disability; MMR, mild mental retardation; GAs, graduate assistants

tudies Involving Opinion Essays

Maintenance Generalization ES
sts ES tests ES tests
1.58
room) 1.83 (Informative) 1.15
h 1.07 Length
nts 2.14
y Quality

room) (2 weeks) .58
—writing) (Task—writing) 1.53
h .32 Length 1.19
nts .55 Elements .48
ence 1.10 Coherence
y .48 Quality 1.38
—dictation) (Task—dictation) 2.11
h 5.18 Length .40
nts 3.74 Elements .90
ence .44 Coherence
y 1.43 Quality

ar class) (3–8 weeks) (Different teacher)
nts 70% Elements
33% Elements 100%

room) (6–8 weeks) 100%
nts 100% Elements

room) (4–15 weeks) (Stories)

processing) (Word processing) (Word processing)

nts 100% Elements 100% Elements 88%

room) (3–12 weeks) 75% (Class) 100%
nts 100% Elements Elements 88%
(Stories)
Elements

the control condition (SRSD) from the posttest mean of the SRSD condition and dividing
design studies was the percentage of nonoverlapping data points. SP, single-participant
s.

334 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

TABLE 20.3. Effect Sizes for Self-Regulated Strategy Development Planning Studies Involving Essays
Involving Explanation

Maintenance

Study Design Grades Students Teacher Posttests ES tests ES

De La Paz Group 7–8 Normal Teachers (Class) (4 weeks)

& Graham design writers Length 0.82 Length 1.07

(in press) Vocabulary 1.13 Vocabulary 0.94

Quality 1.71 Quality 0.74

De La Paz SP 7–8 LD Teachers (Class) (4 weeks)
(1999) Length Length
Poor Elements 89% Elements 100%
writers Quality 89% Quality 100%
Average Length 89% Length 100%
writers Elements 100% Elements 100%
Good Quality 100% Quality 100%
Writers Length 100% Length 100%
Elements 100% Elements 100%
Quality 67% Quality 100%
Length 100% Length 100%
Elements 50% Elements 100%
Quality 83% Quality 100%
100% 100%

De La Paz SP 7–8 ADHD and Teachers (Class) (4 weeks)
(2001) 100% Elements
speech/lang Elements 100%

Note. Effect sizes for group studies were calculated by subtracting the posttest mean of the control condition (SRSD)
from the posttest mean of the SRSD condition and dividing by the standard deviation for the control condition;
effect size for single-participant design studies was the percentage of nonoverlapping data points. SP, single-
participant design; LD, learning disability; ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; speech/lang, speech and
language disorders.

2002) and as late as eighth grade (e.g., De searcher to determine whether they included
La Paz, 1999). a main character(s), a location, time frame,
goals for the characters, actions, expressed
Does SRSD Improve Students’ emotions, and an ending. Elements tabulat-
Writing Performance? ed in opinion essays included the writer’s
premise, counter premise, supporting rea-
To answer this question, we first looked at sons, refutation of counterreasons, elabora-
the impact of SRSD on students in general tions, and ending. The story grammar scale
and then examined its impact on specific examined the inclusion and quality of story
kinds of students, including those with and elements or parts. Finally, length was the
without LD. To examine overall and differ- number of words in a composition.
ential effects of SRSD writing instruction,
average effect sizes (ESs) were calculated for Table 20.5 summarizes the average effect
the four variables that appeared most fre- size for these four variables across all stud-
quently in the SRSD studies summarized in ies (i.e., overall) and by specific type of stu-
Tables 20.1 though 20.4. These were quali- dents (i.e., LD, poor writers, and average
ty (11 ESs), elements (15 ESs), story gram- students). The number in the parentheses
mar scale (5 ESs), and length (10 ESs). following each average effect size specifies
Quality measured the overall impact or val- the n, or number of effect sizes used to com-
ue of a student’s composition. Elements as- pute that average. n ranged from 11 to 1.
sessed the inclusion of basic genre elements Effect sizes for good writers (i.e., good writ-
or parts in a composition. With a story, for ers or gifted students) were not included in
example, papers were analyzed by the re- Table 20.5 because n was never greater than
1 on any of the four target variables. For

TABLE 20.4. Effect Sizes for Self-Regulated Strategy Development Revising St

Study Design Grades Students Teacher Posttests
LD Teachers
MacArthur, Schwartz, Group 4–6 (Class)
& Graham (1991) Design (Narratives
Total revisi
S—revision
NS—revisio
Spelling
Punctuatio
Capitalizat
Quality

Albertson & SP 6 Gifted Researcher (Home sett
Billingsley (1997) (Stories)
Revising tim
335

Stoddard & SP 7–8 LD Researcher (Quiet room
MacArthur (1993) (Narratives
NS—revisio
MNS—rev
S—revision

Graham & SP 5–6 LD GAs (Quiet room
MacArthur (1988) (Opinion e
Total revisi
MC—revis
MP—revisi

Note. Effect sizes for group studies were calculated by subtracting the posttest mean of th
by the standard deviation for the control condition; effect size for single-participant desig
in the school where instruction was delivered; SP, single-participant design; LD, learning
non-surface-level revisions; MNS—revisions, meaning changing non-surface level revis
revisions.

tudies Where Students Wrote Using Word Processing

Maintenance Generalization ES
ES tests ES tests

s) 1.29
ions 1.41
ns 0.64
ons 0.54
0.33
on 0.14
tion 1.19

ting)

me 100%

m) 100% (4–9 weeks) 100% (Paper and pencil) 100%
s) 100% (Narratives) 100% (Narratives) 83%
ons NS—revisions NS—revisions 67%
visions 75% MNS—revisions 83% MNS—revisions
ns S—revisions S—revisions

m) 60% (4–9 weeks) 75% (Paper and pencil) 67%
essays) 100% (Opinion essays) 100% (Opinion essays) 100%
ions Total revisions Total revisions
sions 30% MC—revisions 50% MC—revisions 33%
ions MP—revisions MP—revisions

he control condition (SRSD) from the posttest mean of the SRSD condition and dividing
gn studies was the percentage of nonoverlapping data points. Quiet room, a quiet room
g disability; GA, graduate assistants; S—revisions, surface-level revisions; NS—revisions,
sions; MC—revisions, meaning-changing revisions; MP–revisions, meaning-preserving

TABLE 20.5. Summary of Average Effect Sizes for Quality, Elements, Story Gram

Overall LD
___________________________________ ________________________

Measures Post. General. General. Gener
Maint. genre P & P Post. Maint. genr

Quality — 1.14 (4) 0.69 (2) —
Group 1.47 (7) 0.74 (4) 0.86 (2) — 89% (1) 100% (1) —
SP 97% (4) 100% (4) —

Elements

Group 1.87 (4) 1.60 (3) 1.23 (1) — 2.15 (2) 1.82 (2) —

SP 92% (11) 90% (11) 84% (4) 100% (4) 93% (6) 85% (6) 84%

Story 3.52 (1) — —— 3.52 (1) — —
grammar 100% (4) 89% (3) 75% (1) 100% (2) 100% (2) 84% (2) —

Group
SP

Length — 1.86 (2) 0.98 (2) —
Group 2.07 (5) .88 (4) .93 (2) — 89% (1) 100% (1) —
SP 82% (5) 100% (4) —

Note. Post., posttest; Maint., maintenance; General. genre, generalization to different genre;
Group design; SP, single-participant studies; the number in parentheses following the effect
good writers/high-achieving students were not included in this table because there was no m

mmar, and Length for Self-Regulated Strategy Development Studies

Poor writers Average students
____________ ____________________________ ____________________________

ral. General. Post. General. Post. General.
re P & P Maint. genre Maint. P & P

— — 1.67 (2) 0.82 (2) 0.86 (2) 1.71 (1) 0.74 (1) —

— — 100% (1) 100% (1) — 100% (1) 100% (1) —

— — 1.42 (2) 1.16 (1) 1.23 (1) — — —

(3) 100% (3) 100% (2) 93% (2) 83% (1) 84% (2) 100% (2) 100% (1)

—— — —— — — —
— 100% (1) — — — 100% (1) 100% (1) 100% (1)

— — 2.02 (2) .49 (1) 0.93 (2) .82 (1) 1.07 (1) —

— — 100% (2) 100% (1) — 100% (1) 100% (1)

General. P & P, generalization to different person or place; LD, learning disabilities; Group,
t size is the number of effect sizes the average effect size was computed from; effect sizes for
more than one effect size for any test (posttest, maintenance, etc.).

A Meta-Analysis of SRSD Studies 337

each variable, the average effect size, when dividual PNDs fell below the effective range
available, was provided for both group de- (70% or higher), and two-thirds of the indi-
sign and single-participant studies. Whenev- vidual effect sizes for the group design stud-
er possible, these average effect sizes were ies were above 1.0, with the other one-third
calculated for posttest (immediately follow- ranging from 0.32 to 0.55 (small to medium
ing instruction), maintenance (2 to 15 effects).
weeks following instruction), generalization
to a different genre (e.g., story writing to OTHER GROUPS OF STUDENTS
opinion essay writing), and generalization
to a different person or place (e.g., from a Although the findings for other groups of
special setting to the regular classroom). students must be viewed as more tentative,
due to the smaller n for effect sizes, the data
OVERALL support the contention that SRSD is an ef-
fective writing treatment for students in
As can be seen in Table 20.5, SRSD writing general. For students who are poor writers
instruction produced large effects for stu- (n = 11), for example, the average effect size
dents in general. When all studies were con- on quality and length at posttest (1.67 and
sidered together, average effect sizes at 2.02, respectively) exceeded the average ef-
posttest for group design investigations fect size obtained by students with LD (see
ranged from 1.47 for quality, 1.78 for ele- Table 20.5). Their average effect size for ele-
ments, and 2.0 and above for length and ments was also quite large (ES = 1.42) as
story grammar scores. Likewise, average was their average PNDs for quality, ele-
PNDs for quality, elements, and story gram- ments, and length (all PNDs at posttest =
mar were all above 90%, indicating that 100%).
SRSD writing instruction is an effective
treatment in single-participant design stud- The available statistics for average writers
ies as well. Thus, SRSD had a strong and and good writers suggests that they benefit
positive effect on the quality, structure, and from SRSD instruction in writing too. For
length of students’ writing. average writers (n = 7), PNDs for the four
writing variables at posttest ranged from
STUDENTS WITH LD 84% to 100%, and the single effect size for
quality from the group design studies was
Of particular importance to this review is 1.71; the single effect size for length was
the impact of SRSD on the writing of stu- 0.82 (see Table 20.5). For good writers (n =
dents with LD. Average effect sizes at 3), the results from the limited database
posttest for group and single-participant de- were not quite as strong but still quite
sign studies show that this is a powerful promising. The PND for quality was 100%
treatment for these students (see Table (i.e., very effective treatment) and 83% for
20.5). Average effect sizes for group studies elements (i.e., effective treatment). The im-
ranged from 1.14 for quality, 1.86 for pact of SRSD on the length of good writers’
length, and above 2.0 for elements and sto- compositions was questionable, however, as
ry grammar. All the average PNDs were the PND was just 50% for this variable at
89% or above. These statistics are complied posttest.
from 11 studies involving students with LD
(effect sizes for quality, elements, story If a single-participant study by De La Paz
grammar, or length were not available for (2001) is representative, then SRSD also ap-
the other two LD studies) and included 19 pears to be an effective writing treatment
individual effect sizes. Although this is a rel- for mainstreamed students with attention-
atively small n when compared to an area deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and
such as phonological awareness (n > 700; speech/language difficulties. The PND for
Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1999), the general elements in this study was 100%.
consistency of the findings strengthens the
conclusion that SRSD provides an effective Does SRSD Improve Students’ Revising?
treatment for addressing the writing diffi-
culties of students with LD. None of the in- The average effect sizes reviewed in the pre-
vious section were all based on studies in-
volving the teaching of planning strategies.

338 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

The only exception was a single effect size MacArthur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991)
(1.19 for quality) generated by MacArthur, study, but not for capitalization (ES = 0.14).
Schwartz, and Graham (1991) in a study in
which students with LD were taught a revis- Are SRSD Effects Maintained
ing strategy. Table 20.4 presents effect sizes and Generalized?
for SRSD revising studies. With the excep-
tion of one PND (100% for revising time in A major issue in strategy instructional re-
a study with gifted students), all available search, especially for students with LD, is
effect sizes are from three studies involving whether effects are maintained over time
students with LD. We did not develop aver- and are generalized to new tasks and situa-
age effect sizes for this data, as the measures tions (Graham & Harris, 1997). Table 20.5
used across the LD studies were not equiva- presents average effect sizes for mainte-
lent. nance and generalization. Although average
effect sizes were typically not as large at
The primary objective of these SRSD re- maintenance as they were at posttest for
vising studies was to increase the number of students in general, as well as for poor writ-
substantive revisions made by students with ers and students with LD in particular, they
LD. As noted earlier in the chapter, children remained moderate to large for these three
with LD focus most of their revising efforts groups in terms of overall quality, structure
on minor surface-level features of text, such (elements or story grammar), and length.
as correcting mechanical errors and substi- The average effect size for group design
tuting one word for another (MacArthur & studies ranged from 0.74 to 1.60 overall,
Graham, 1987: MacArthur, Graham, & 0.69 to 1.82 for students with LD, and
Schwartz, 1991). As can be seen in Table 0.49 to 1.67 for poor writers. Similarly, av-
20.4, SRSD had moderate to strong effects erage PNDs ranged from 89% to 100%
on increasing substantive revisions at overall, 84% to 100% for students with
posttest. In the group design study by LD, and 93% to 100% for poor writers.
MacArthur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991), For the revision studies presented in Table
the effect size for substantive or nonsurface 20.4, strong maintenance effects were ob-
revisions was 0.64, whereas the PNDs for served for the number of substantive revi-
nonsurface as well as meaning-changing sions made by students with LD (all PNDs
nonsurface revisions in the Stoddard and = 100) but not for the less important sur-
MacArthur (1993) investigation were both face-level revisions (PNDs ranged from
100%. Likewise, the PND for meaning- 50% to 83%).
changing revisions in Graham and
MacArthur (1988) was 100%. It is interesting to note that maintenance
was not much of an issue for average and
Although these studies were primarily de- good writers in the SRSD studies conducted
signed to increase substantive revisions, to date. All available PNDs at maintenance
each investigation included procedures for (n = 9; see Tables 20.1—20.3) for these stu-
bolstering surface-level revisions as well. dents were 100%. Furthermore, effect sizes
The effects of SRSD on these types of revi- for length for average writers in the De La
sions at posttest were more variable (see Paz and Graham (in press) study was higher
Table 20.4). In the group design study by at maintenance than at posttest (see Table
MacArthur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991), 20.3). Although the effect size for overall
the effect size for surface-level revisions was quality was smaller at maintenance in this
quite large (1.29), but a more moderate study, it was still quite substantial (ES =
PND (75%) was obtained for this variable 0.74).
by Stoddard and MacArthur (1993). In con-
trast, SRSD was ineffective in increasing Data on generalization from one genre to
meaning-preserving revisions (PND = 30%) the next was only available for poor writers
in the study by Graham and MacArthur and students with LD. In studies in which
(1988). Finally, small to moderate effects this generalization was assessed, students
were found for improved punctuation (ES = were taught how to use a writing strategy in
0.33) and spelling (ES = 0.54) in revised pa- one genre (e.g., opinion essay) and transfer
pers following SRSD instruction in the effects to another genre (e.g., stories). For

A Meta-Analysis of SRSD Studies 339

students with LD, SRSD was effective in for elements (see Table 20.6).
promoting cross-genre transfer as the aver-
age PNDs (n = 3) was 84% (see Table 20.5). Is SRSD Effective with Different Types
This was also the case for poor writers, as of Genres?
average effect sizes (n = 6) ranged from
moderate to large (0.86 to 1.23; PND = Story and personal narratives served as the
83%). primary genre of interest in approximately
half of all SRSD studies, whereas opinion or
Transferring SRSD effects from one set- explanation essays were the main focus in
ting or person to another did not appear to the other investigations. Table 20.6 presents
pose much difficulty for students when such average effect sizes for narrative writing
data were collected (i.e., for average writers studies (i.e., stories and personal narratives)
and students with LD), as all average PNDs and expository writing studies (i.e., opinion
equaled 100% (see Table 20.5). Students and explanatory essays). At posttest, all av-
with LD were also generally effective in erage effect sizes for group design studies
transferring SRSD revising effects from the were large (1.44 or greater) for both types
word processor to paper and pencil as there of genres, and average PNDs for each genre
was little difference in their PNDs when were within the effective to very effective
these two modes of composing were em- range (i.e., 71% to 100%). Average effect
ployed (compare posttest vs. generalization sizes for both genres were generally lower at
in Table 20.4). maintenance but remained above 0.80 (a
large effect) for both genres in all but two
Is SRSD Effective with Younger and instances (0.71 for quality of expository
Older Students? writing and 0.49 for length of narrative
compositions). The average PND for ele-
To answer this question, we computed aver- ments at maintenance (the only available
age effect sizes for students in grades 2 data for single-participant studies) remained
through 6 as well as grades 7 and 8 for writ- high (89% and 95%).
ing quality, elements, and length (see Table
20.6). At posttest, all average effect sizes for Although there was no clear-cut differ-
group design studies exceeded 1.21 (i.e., a ence between genres at posttest and mainte-
large effect) for both groups of students, nance, generalization to another genre was
whereas the average PNDs for each group clearly stronger when the primary focus of
were within the effective to very effective SRSD writing instruction was on exposition
range (i.e., 71% to 96%). Although average (see Table 20.6). For narrative writing, aver-
effect sizes for group design studies were age effect sizes ranged from small to moder-
smaller at maintenance, they remained ate (ES = 0.27 and 0.56; PND = 79%),
above 0.80 (a large effect) for both groups whereas effect sizes for expository writing
in all but two instances. The average effect were much larger (ES = 1.15 and 1.58; PND
size for writing quality for students in = 88%). For the available data (i.e., ele-
grades 7 and 8 was 0.71 at maintenance, ments), there was no difference between
while the average effect size (based on an n genres in terms of transfer to a different per-
of 1) for length was 0.49 for students in son or place (both PNDs = 100%).
grades 2 through 6. The average PNDs of
both groups remained in the effective to Can Teachers Apply SRSD Effectively?
very effective range (i.e., 85% to 100%) at
this point. Of the 18 SRSD writing studies presented in
Tables 20.1 through 20.4, slightly more
Although SRSD provides an effective than one-fourth were implemented by
writing treatment for both groups of stu- teachers. All the rest were carried out by
dents, comparison between the two age graduate assistants or the researchers them-
groups were mixed. Average writing quality selves. Table 20.6 provides the average ef-
effects were larger for younger students fect sizes for teacher as well as graduate as-
than for older ones, whereas effects for sistant (GA)/researcher–implemented SRSD
composition length were stronger for older writing instruction. First, SRSD writing in-
children. There was no clear-cut difference

340 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

TABLE 20.6. Average Effect Sizes for Self-Regulated Strategy Development Studies at Different
Grades, Genres, and Instructors

Measures GA or Classroom
Grades 2–6 Grades 7–8 Narrative Expository researcher teacher

Quality 1.68 (4) 1.21 (3) 1.52 (3) 1.44 (4) 1.48 (5) 1.45 (2)
Group-Post. 0.82 (1) 0.71 (3) 0.82 (1) 0.71 (3) 0.73 (3) 0.74 (1)
Group-Maint. 0.56 (1) 1.15 (1)
Group-Gen. — — — —
genre

Elements 1.38 (2) 2.15 (2) 1.76 (1) 1.99 (3) — —
Group-Post. 1.16 (1) 1.82 (2) 1.16 (1) 1.82 (2) — —
Group-Maint. 96% (7) 85% (4) 100% (3) 89% (8) 94% (5) 90% (5)
SP-Post. 85% (7) 100% (4) 95% (3) 89% (8) 77% (5) 100% (6)
SP-Maint. 79% (2) 88% (2) — —
SP-Gen. — —
genre 100% (2) 100% (2) 100% (2) 100% (2)
SP-Gen. — —
P&P

Story grammar — — — — 100% (2) 100% (2)
SP-Post. — — — — 67% (1) 100% (2)
SP-Maint.

Length 2.02 (2) 2.10 (3) 2.21 (1) 2.04 (4) 2.39 (4) 0.82 (1)
Group-Post. 0.49 (1) 1.01 (3) 0.49 (1) 1.01 (3) 0.82 (3) 1.07 (1)
Group-Maint. 0.27 (1) 1.58 (1)
Group-Gen. — — — —
genre 71% (1) 85% (4)
SP-Post. 71% (1) 85% (3) 71% (1) 85% (4)

Note. Narratives include stories or personal narratives. Expository included opinion essays and explanation essays.
Group, group design; SP, single-participant design; Post., posttest; Maint., maintenance; Gen. Genre, generalization
to genre; Gen. P & P, generalization to a different person or place.

struction had moderate to large effects for gies in the context in which they are most
both implementation groups at posttest and likely to use them during teacher-imple-
maintenance. All the average effect sizes for mented SRSD instruction.
group design studies exceeded 0.74 (the ma-
jority were above 1.0), and all but one PND Do Independent Evaluations Support the
was greater than 71%. The exception was Effectiveness of SRSD Writing Instruction?
the PND (67%) for story grammar at main-
tenance for the GA/researcher implementa- Of the 18 studies reviewed in this chapter,
tion group. This effect size is in the ques- we were authors on all but four of the inves-
tionable effectiveness range (50–70%). tigations. Three of these four studies were
conducted by former students or colleagues
When the two implementation groups (i.e., De La Paz, 1999, 2001; Stoddard &
were compared at posttest, the GA/re- MacArthur, 1993). With one exception,
searcher group generally evidenced larger PNDs for all four of these studies were in
average effect sizes (1.48 to 2.39 vs. 0.82 to the effective to very effective range at
1.45; 94% to 100% vs. 90% to 100%). In posttest, maintenance, and generalization
contrast, the advantage was held by teach- (75% to 100%). The exception involved
ers for maintenance (0.74 to 1.07 vs. 0.73 generalization of surface-level revisions
to 0.82; 100% vs. 67% to 77%) and gener- from word processor to paper and pencil in
alization to a different writing genre (85% the Stoddard and MacArthur (1993) inves-
to 71%). This is not necessarily surprising, tigation (PND = 67%). As noted before,
as students are learning to apply the strate-

A Meta-Analysis of SRSD Studies 341

promoting surface-level revisions was a sec- powerful, as effects for the story grammar
ondary goal in this study. measure were quite large at posttest (ES =
1.96), maintenance (average ES =1.51), and
Clearly, more independent evaluations of generalization (ES = 2.78). Although the ef-
SRSD are needed. However, the effects for fects on writing quality were small at
SRSD are consistent with or exceed the posttest (ES = 0.30), they were strong at
findings of other strategy investigators. To maintenance (average ES = 1.15) and gener-
illustrate, Gersten and Baker (2001) com- alization (ES = 1.22). Thus, components de-
puted effect sizes for 13 group-designed signed to promote self-regulation in the
writing intervention studies involving stu- SRSD model make a significant contribu-
dents with LD. Ten of these studies focused tion to improved writing performance for
on teaching writing strategies for planning students with LD.
and/or revising. When we removed effect
sizes for any SRSD studies (four studies), Implications
the average effect size was 1.01. Our aver-
age SRSD effect size computed across all We started this chapter with the claim that
posttest indices for group design studies in an important goal in writing instruction for
Tables 20.1 through 20.4 was 1.37 for stu- students with LD is to help them develop a
dents with LD. more sophisticated approach to compos-
ing—one that draws on the same types of
What Components of SRSD Instruction Are composing processes and strategies em-
Most Important? ployed by more skilled writers. We further
asserted that this problem needs to be tack-
We have conducted several studies to deter- led “head on” by explicitly teaching stu-
mine the relative effectiveness of SRSD com- dents with LD such strategies, and that this
ponents designed to promote self-regula- instruction should be multifaceted, address-
tion. Two studies (Graham & Harris, ing students’ strategic behavior, self-regula-
1989a; Sawyer et al., 1992) assessed the tion skills, knowledge, and motivational
added value of explicit instruction in three dispositions. To test this proposition, we de-
self-regulation components (goal setting, veloped a strategy instructional model,
self-monitoring, and self-recording). In both SRSD, designed to meet these specifications.
of these studies, students with LD were Since the early 1980s, the model has been
taught a strategy for planning and writing a tested repeatedly by ourselves, colleagues,
story. For the story grammar scale described students, and others to determine if it pro-
earlier, the inclusion of these self-regulation vides an effective and viable model for im-
procedures had little impact at posttest or proving the writing performance of students
maintenance (average ESs = 0.07 and 0.05, with LD as well as other students. In this
respectively) but generated a strong incre- chapter, we examined the outcomes of this
mental effect on generalization to a new set- test by computing effect sizes for 18 SRSD
ting (average ES = 1.03). Although effect intervention studies in writing.
sizes for writing quality could only be com-
puted for the more recent study (Sawyer et One of the primary findings of our review
al., 1992), the addition of the three self- was that SRSD is an effective approach for
regulation procedures produced moderate improving the writing of students with LD.
effects at posttest (ES = 0.42), maintenance Following instruction, average effect sizes
(average ES = 0.40), and generalization (ES for four different writing indices each ex-
= 0.75). ceeded 1.13, and the average PNDs for these
measures were 89% or higher. Impressive ef-
Sawyer and colleagues (1992) further de- fects were also found for maintenance and
composed the SRSD model by removing generalization, as effect sizes ranged from
not only explicit instruction in goal setting, moderate to strong for these variables. These
self-monitoring, and self-recording but oth- findings, along with the impressive effects
er instructional components thought to in- obtained by other researchers such as Englert
duce self-regulation as well (use of person- and her colleagues (1991) and Wong and her
alized self-statements, teacher modeling, collaborators (Wong, Butler, Ficzere, & Ku-
etc.). In comparison to this reduced version
of the model, full SRSD was much more

342 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

peris, 1996, 1997), makes it clear that an im- Acknowledgments
portant part of an effective writing program
for students with LD is explicit writing strat- Preparation of this chapter was supported by the
egy instruction. Center to Accelerate Student Learning, funded by
the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Spe-
Although we can provide no definitive cial Education Programs (Grant # H324V980001).
answer on the most effective components of
such instruction for students with LD, our References
research demonstrated that the inclusion of
procedures that foster self-regulation con- Abbington, A. (1952). Bigger and better boners.
tributes to these children’s writing develop- New York: Viking Press.
ment. This appears to be especially true for
generalization and maintenance. Because Alexander, P., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998).
maintenance and generalization are such A perspective on strategy research: Prospect and
critical issues for students with LD, addi- progress. Educational Psychology Review, 10,
tional research is needed to determine how 129–154.
each can be fostered and supported. The
findings from this review suggest that con- Albertson, L. R., & Billingsley, F. F. (1997, March).
text and student ability may play an impor- Improving young writers’ planning and review-
tant role in such an analysis. Students ing skills while story-writing. Paper presented at
evidenced greater maintenance and general- the annual meeting of the American Educational
ization when teachers rather than re- Research Association, Chicago.
searchers or GAs taught writing strategies.
Furthermore, average and high-ability stu- Bednarczyk, A. (1991). The effectiveness of story
dents were more likely than weaker writers grammar instruction with a self-instructional
to maintain strategy effects. strategy development framework for students
with learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral
In contrast to strategy instructional re- dissertation, University of Maryland, College
search in reading (see Gersten, Fuchs, Park.
Williams, & Baker, 2001), our review of
SRSD studies found that writing strategies Berninger, V., Vaughn, K., Abbott, R., Abbott, S.,
taught to students with LD also had a bene- Rogan, L., Brooks, A., Reed, E., & Graham, S.
ficial impact on the writing of poor, aver- (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in
age, and good writers. A similar finding was beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to
reported by Englert and colleagues (1991). composition. Journal of Educational Psychology,
One reason such effects may be so universal 89, 652–666.
is that almost all students experience diffi-
culty mastering basic writing processes such Berninger, V., Vaughn, K., Abbott, R., Brooks, A.,
as content generation, planning, revising, Abbott, S., Rogan, L., Reed, E., & Graham, S.
and so forth (Scardamalia & Bereiter, (1998). Early intervention for spelling problems:
1986). With the advent of inclusion, it has Teaching functional spelling units of varying size
become increasingly important to identify with a multiple-connections framework. Journal
instructional procedures that are effective of Educational Psychology, 90, 587–605.
with a wide range of students. This review
and the research by Englert and colleagues Bus, A., & van IJzendoorn, M. (1999). Phonologi-
suggest that strategy instruction meets this cal awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis
requirement. of experimental training studies. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 91, 403–414.
In summary, SRSD appears to be a versa-
tile tool. It was effective with younger and Case, L. P., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Im-
older students as well as different types of proving the mathematical problem solving skills
students, instructors, and writing genres. of students with learning disabilities: Self-regulat-
Perhaps most important, classroom teachers ed strategy development. Journal of Special Edu-
were able to apply the model effectively, im- cation, 26, 1–19.
proving the writing performance of a wide
range of students, including those with Collins, R. A. (1993). Narrative writing of option II
learning disabilities. students: The effects of combining whole-lan-
guage techniques, writing process approach, and
strategy training. Unpublished master’s thesis,
State University of New York at Buffalo.

Danoff, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1993). In-
corporating strategy instruction within the writ-
ing process in the regular classroom: Effects on
the writing of students with and without learning
disabilities. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25,
295–319.

De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy in-
struction in regular education settings: Improving
outcomes for students with and without learning

A Meta-Analysis of SRSD Studies 343

disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1994). The role and
Practice, 14, 92–106. development of self-regulation in the writing
De La Paz, S. (2001). Teaching writing to students process. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.),
with attention deficit disorders and specific lan- Self-regulation of learning and performance: Is-
guage impairments. Journal of Educational Re- sues and educational applications (pp. 203–228).
search, 95, 37–47. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1995). Dictation: Ap-
plication to writing for students with learning dis- Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). Self-regulation
abilities. In T. Scruggs & M. Matropieri (Eds.), and writing: Where do we go from here? Contem-
Advances in learning and behavioral disorders porary Educational Psychology, 22, 102–114.
(Vol. 9, pp. 227–247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997a). Effects of dic- Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of
tation and advanced planning instruction on the self-regulation and transcription skills in writing
composing of students with writing and learning and writing development. Educational Psycholo-
problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, gist, 35, 3–12.
89, 203–222.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997b). Strategy in- Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (in press). Literacy:
struction in planning: Effects on the writing per- Writing. In R. Anand (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cog-
formance and behavior of students with learning nitive sciences. London: Macmillan.
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 167–181.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (in press). Explicitly Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink, B. (2000). Is
teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writ- handwriting causally related to learning to write?
ing instruction in middle school classrooms. Jour- Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning
nal of Educational Psychology. writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
De La Paz, S., Swanson, P., & Graham, S. (1998). 4–88–497.
The contribution of executive control to the re-
vising of students with writing and learning diffi- Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink, B. (in press).
culties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, Contribution of spelling instruction to the
448–460. spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers.
Englert, C., Raphael, T., Anderson, L., Anthony, H., Journal of Educational Psychology.
Steven, D., & Fear, K. (1991). Making writing
and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruc- Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C., &
tion writing in regular and special education Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing and writing instruc-
classrooms. American Educational Research tion with students with learning disabilities: A re-
Journal, 28, 337–373. view of a program of research. Learning Disabili-
Englert, C., Raphael, T., Anderson, L., Gregg, S., & ty Quarterly, 14, 89–114.
Anthony, H. (1989). Exposition: Reading, writ-
ing, and metacognitive knowledge of learning Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (1988). Improving
disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, learning disabled students’ skills at revising es-
5, 5–24. says produced on a word processor: Self-instruc-
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expres- tional training. Journal of Special Education, 22,
sive writing to students with learning disabilities: 133–152.
A meta-analysis. Elementary School Journal,
101, 251–272. Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Page-
Gersten, R., Fuchs, D., Williams, J., & Baker, S. Voth, V. (1992). Improving the compositions of
(2001). Teaching reading comprehension strate- students with learning disabilities using a strategy
gies to students with learning disabilities. Review involving product and process goal setting. Ex-
of Educational Research, 71, 279–320. ceptional Children, 58, 322–334.
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors
in learning disabled students’ compositions. Jour- Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993).
nal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791. Knowledge of writing and the composing process,
Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for stu-
of students with learning and writing difficulties. dents with and without learning disabilities. Jour-
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223–234. nal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237–249.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989a). A component
analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1985). Improving
on learning disabled students’ compositions and learning disabled students’ composition skills:
self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, Self-control strategy training. Learning Disability
81, 353–361. Quarterly, 8, 27–36.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989b). Improving
learning disabled students’ skills at composing es- Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the
says: Self-instructional strategy training. Excep- writing process work: Strategies for composition
tional Children, 56, 201–214. and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline
Books.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic in-
tervention research: Illustrations from the evolu-
tion 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 di-
verse schools and classrooms. Cambridge, MA:
Brookline Books.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2002).
[Teaching strategies for writing stories and per-

344 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

suasive essays: The effects of SRSD instruction instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects
with young struggling writers]. Unpublished raw on the composition skills and self-efficacy of stu-
data. dents with learning disabilities. Journal of Educa-
Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understand- tional Psychology, 84, 340–352.
ing cognition and affect in writing. In M. Levy & Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Written
S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theo- composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
ries, methods, individual differences, and applica- research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778–803).
tions (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum. New York: MacMillan.
Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the orga- Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (2001). How to
nization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. summarize single-participant research: Ideas and
Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing applications. Exceptionality, 9, 227–244.
(pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sexton, R. J., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1998).
Johnson, L., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). The effects of self-regulated strategy development
The effects of goal setting and self-instruction on on essay writing and attributions of students with
learning a reading comprehension strategy learning disabilities in a process writing setting.
among students with learning disabilities. Journal Exceptional Children, 64, 295–311.
of Learning Disabilities, 30, 80–91. Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. (1993). A peer edi-
Loranger, D. (2000, December). Reader’s Digest, p. tor strategy: Guiding learning disabled students
126. in response and revision. Research in the Teach-
MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning dis- ing of English, 27, 76–103.
abled students’ composing with three methods: Tanhouser, S. (1994). Function over form: The rela-
Handwriting, dictation, and word processing. tive efficacy of self-instructional strategy training
Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42. alone and with procedural facilitation for adoles-
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1991). cents with learning disabilities. Unpublished doc-
Knowledge of revision and revising behavior toral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.
among students with learning disabilities. Learn- Thomas, C., Englert, C., & Gregg, S. (1987). An
ing Disability Quarterly, 14, 61–74. analysis of errors and strategies in the expository
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & writing of learning disabled students. Remedial
Schafer, W. (1995). Evaluation of a writing in- and Special Education, 8, 21–30.
struction model that integrated a process ap- Troia, G., & Graham, S. (in press). The effective-
proach, strategy instruction, and word process- ness of highly explicit and teacher-directed strate-
ing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 276–291. gy instructional routine: Changing the writing
MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991). performance of students with learning disabili-
Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in ties. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
special education classrooms. Learning Disability Troia, G. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1999).
Research and Practice, 6, 201–210. Teaching students with learning disabilities to
MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., Graham, S., Molloy, mindfully plan when writing. Exceptional Chil-
D., & Harris, K. R. (1996). Integration of strate- dren, 65, 215–252.
gy instruction into a whole language classroom: Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Ku-
A case study. Learning Disabilities Research and peris, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers and stu-
Practice, 11, 168–176. dent with learning disabilities to plan, write, and
McCutchen, D. (1988). “Functional automaticity” revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Dis-
in children’s writing: A problem of metacognitive abilities, 29.
control. Written Communication, 5, 306–324. Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Ku-
Pressley, M., Harris, K. R., & Marks, M. (1992). peris, S. (1997). Teaching adolescents with learn-
But good strategy instructors are constructivists! ing disabilities and low achievers to plan, write,
Educational Psychology Review, 4, 3–31. and revise compare-contrast essays. Learning
Reeve, R., & Brown, A. (1985). Metacognition re- Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 2–15.
considered: Implications for intervention re- Wong, B., Wong, R., & Blenkinsop, J. (1989). Cog-
search. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, nitive and metacognitive aspects of learning dis-
13, 343–356. abled adolescents’ composing problems. Learn-
Saddler, B., Moran, S., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. ing Disability Quarterly, 12, 310–323.
(2002). [Preventing writing difficulties: Strategy Zimmerman, B., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becom-
instruction for young struggling writers]. Unpub- ing a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive per-
lished raw data. spective. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
Sawyer, R., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992). Di- 22, 73–101.
rect teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy

21

Preventing Written Expression
Disabilities through Early
and Continuing Assessment

and Intervention for Handwriting
and/or Spelling Problems:
Research into Practice

Virginia W. Berninger
Dagmar Amtmann

Referral of students with written expression primarily on high-level meaning (e.g., Brit-
problems sharply increases around grade 4, ton, 1978; Clay, 1982; Graves, 1975). Al-
when amount and complexity of written as- though both waves of our research extended
signments also increases (Levine, Oberklaid, process to include processes involved in
& Meltzer, 1981). Not only do many upper- transcription, we also included high-level
elementary-grade students have problems in processes for constructing meaning in both
written expression but also a sizable number our assessment batteries and instructional
of middle school students do (Hooper et al., protocols.
1993). Writing is the most common problem
of 9- to 14- year-old students with learning Early intervention in writing was initially
disabilities (Cobb-Morocco, Dalton, & Tiv- justified on the basis of a longitudinal study
nan, 1992). Over a decade ago, the first au- documenting the persistence of early
thor initiated a systematic research program spelling problems across the elementary
to identify the developmental origins of grades (Juel, 1988). We subsequently found
these written expression problems early in that early intervention for at-risk spelling
schooling when the probability of remedia- was more likely to result in improved
tion, and therefore prevention, may be spelling (e.g., Abbott, Reed, Abbott, &
greatest. The first wave of this research fo- Berninger, 1997; Berninger, Vaughan et al.,
cused on multivariate process assessment in 1998) than later intervention with upper el-
cross-sectional, unreferred samples (grades 1 ementary grades for students with spelling
to 9) (Berninger, 1994), whereas the second problems (e.g., Brooks, Vaughan, &
wave focused on early instructional inter- Berninger, 1999). By the end of second
vention (grades 1 to 3). We launched this re- grade, children may be impaired in hand-
search at a time that process writing and in- writing only, spelling only, or both; those
tegrated reading-writing instruction focused with dual disabilities in handwriting and
spelling were the most impaired and re-

345

346 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

sponded more slowly to early intervention term memory accounted for unique vari-
(Berninger, Abbott, Rogan, et al., 1998). ance in handwriting skills in primary-grade
children (Berninger & Rutberg, 1992;
Transcription skills and related processes Berninger, Yates, et al., 1992). Yet the direct
are what best differentiates good and poor path from short-term orthographic coding
writers among intellectually talented stu- to handwriting was significant, but the di-
dents in the elementary grades (Yates, rect path from fine motor skills to hand-
Berninger, & Abbott, 1994). Intellectually writing was not significant (Abbott &
talented students with impaired transcrip- Berninger, 1993). This finding does not
tion or related processes may not be identi- mean that motor skills are not involved in
fied for early intervention because their handwriting (see reviews by Berninger, in
strengths in high-level thinking skills mask press, and Graham & Weintraub, 1996,
the difficulties they initially have with low- with evidence that they are). Rather, this
level skills. By the time their marked defi- finding calls attention to the fact that hand-
ciencies in low-level skills are discovered, writing is more than just a motor act. Hand-
they may be beyond the critical period in writing is “language by hand” (Berninger &
writing development when transcription Graham, 1998), and language by hand is a
skills are most easily remediated. Later in separate functional system that is on a dif-
schooling, they may be mislabeled as lazy or ferent developmental trajectory than “lan-
unmotivated when, in reality, they have un- guage by eye” (reading) (Berninger, 2000).
deridentified and untreated transcription
problems that compromised their ability to Orthographic and memory processes may
learn to express their ideas in writing and contribute even more than motor skills to
complete writing assignments (see Yates et handwriting through the following mecha-
al., 1994). nisms: representation of letter forms in
short-term and long-term memory, access to
Early Precursors of Written and retrieval of these representations in
Expression Problems memory, and planning for letter production.
Orthographic–motor integration may be
The initial hypothesis (Berninger, Mi- more important than motor processes per se
zokawa, & Bragg, 1991) that the develop- in beginning writing (Berninger, 1994; Jones
mental origin of written expression prob- & Christensen, 1999). Failure to replicate
lems lay in impaired low-level transcription the relationship between orthographic cod-
skills in handwriting and spelling, which in ing and handwriting in older students with
turn were related to developmental varia- persisting handwriting problems (Wein-
tions in related neuropsychological process- traub & Graham, 2000) may be due to one
es, was confirmed. To begin with, confirma- or both of the following factors: (1) Their
tory factor analyses indicated that predictor orthographic processing measure
handwriting, spelling, and composing are used manuscript letters and the criterion
separable processes, even though they may handwriting measure used cursive writing,
be functionally integrated during the writ- and (2) primary motor problems may be
ing process (Abbott & Berninger, 1993). overrepresented in samples of older students
Subsequent structural equation modeling with persisting handwriting problems, as
documented a direct, significant path from Weintraub and Graham studied, compared
handwriting to compositional length and to the normal variation in motor skills in
quality throughout elementary school, and samples of beginning at-risk writers, as we
from spelling to composition length and studied. If so, generalizations about the neu-
quality primarily in the early elementary rodevelopmental correlates of handwriting
grades (Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, should be qualified by age of students and
& Whitaker, 1997). Other multivariate by whether or not they have comorbid mo-
analyses identified the associated neurode- tor disabilities. Longitudinal studies of aur-
velopmental indicators of handwriting and al/oral language development and of read-
spelling. Both fine motor skills and ortho- ing development have shown that different
graphic coding of written words in short- subtypes of reading disabilities surface at
different developmental stages (see Bern-

Assessment and Intervention for Transcription Problems 347

inger, 2001b, for review) and the same may Effective Early Intervention for Spelling
hold for writing disabilities. However, we and Handwriting
have replicated our own finding that ortho-
graphic coding is directly and significantly Handwriting Training followed by Composing
related to handwriting, spelling, and com- in Same Lesson
posing in a sample carefully recruited for
dyslexia (specific reading disability) and/or First-graders at the bottom of their classes
dysgraphia (specific writing disability) with- on measures of legibility and automaticity
out comorbid primary motor disabilities of handwriting at the beginning of the year
(Berninger, Abbott, Thomson, & Raskind, were randomly assigned to a contact control
2001). Put another way, students with se- of phonological awareness training or one
vere motor problems are likely to have of five treatments: (1) conventional repeated
handwriting problems, but children with copying of letters, (2) conventional model-
motor development within the normal ing and imitating of motor components in
range may also have handwriting problems, letter formation, (3) studying visual cues
which are more directly related to ortho- (numbered arrow cues) for a sequential plan
graphic than motor processing skills. for letter formation, (4) writing letters from
memory after increasing delays in how long
An automaticity factor also contributed the letter form had to be retained in memo-
to individual differences in beginning writ- ry, and (5) combination of (3) and (4). All
ing (Berninger, Yates, et al., 1992; Jones & groups composed and read their composi-
Christensen, 1999). The more automatic tions to the tutor and other children in the
low-level handwriting and spelling are, the triad. Following 24 lessons distributed over
more the spatial and temporal resources of a 4-month period, the combination of
working memory are available for high-lev- studying numbered arrow cues and writing
el composing (Berninger, 1999; McCutchen, letters from memory was found to be more
1996). Robust gender differences, in favor effective than the control or other condi-
of girls, in automaticity of letter production tions in improving handwriting legibility
from memory occurred in the primary- and automaticity and compositional fluency
grade sample (Berninger & Fuller, 1992) (amount written under timed conditions)
and the intermediate and junior high sam- (Berninger et al., 1997). Effect sizes ranged
ples. Removing effects due to individual dif- from 1.7 for copying letters in text to 1.8
ferences in this automaticity of letter pro- for writing letters from dictation. Graham,
duction eliminated the gender difference, in Harris, and Fink (2000) and Jones and
favor of girls, in compositional quality in Christensen (1999) replicated the finding
the junior high grades (Berninger, Whitaker, that handwriting training leads to improved
Feng, Swanson, & Abbott, 1996). Thus, compositional fluency.
early intervention in increasing automaticity
of letter production may have long-range ef- Spelling Training followed by Composing in
fects on written expression in the junior Same Lesson
high years, but further research is needed on
this issue. Second-graders at the bottom of their class-
es on standardized measures for spelling at
In contrast to handwriting that draws on the beginning of the year were randomly as-
orthographic coding, spelling draws on signed to a contact control treatment of
both orthographic and phonological coding phonological awareness training or one of
(Abbott & Berninger, 1993; Berninger & seven treatments (whole word, alphabetic
Abbott, 1994a; Berninger, Cartwright, principle, or onset-rime training, singly or in
Yates, Swanson, & Abbott, 1994) and vo- combinations of two or three strategies for
cabulary knowledge (Berninger, Hart, Ab- making connections between spoken and
bott, & Karovsky, 1992, Berninger, Yates, et written words). All groups composed at the
al., 1992; Berninger et al., 1994). Moreover, end of the session and shared what they
phonological short-term memory, which is wrote with the tutor and other child in the
genetically constrained, appears to play a dyad. Following 24 lessons distributed over
role in learning to spell (Hsu, Berninger,
Thomson, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2002).

348 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

4 months, alphabetic principle training (in randomly assigned to one of four time-
isolation) followed by combined whole equated treatments: spelling only training,
word and onset rime training in word con- genre-specific essay composing training,
text resulted in the best learning of taught combined spelling and essay composing
words (effect size 1.7) and transfer to un- training, or a contact control of keyboard
taught words (effect size 0.35). However, training without explicit writing instruc-
only the combination of training alphabetic tion. The two treatments that contained
principle both in isolation and in word con- spelling instruction were superior in im-
text led to significant improvement in com- proving spelling of taught words, although
position length and spelling accuracy in only the treatment that focused only on
composing. These results replicate the find- spelling transferred to better spelling in
ing that explicit code instruction facilitates compositions. That spelling treatment had
beginning spelling in the general education instructional components aimed at both au-
classroom (Foorman, Francis, Novy, & tomatization of alphabetic principle and
Liberman, 1991). Another study has repli- reflection about alphabetic principle. The
cated the transfer of spelling training to two treatments that contained composition
compositional fluency (Graham, Harris, & training were superior in improving persua-
Fink, in press). sive essay writing. Overall, only the com-
bined treatment improved both spelling and
By the end of the second-grade interven- composing skills (Berninger et al., 2002).
tion, half the sample was at or above grade By third grade, it appears to be important
level (the faster responders) and half had to provide at-risk writers with explicit writ-
improved but were still below grade level ing instruction for both low-level transcrip-
(the slower responders). The faster respon- tion (e.g., spelling) and high-level composi-
ders were monitored at the beginning and tion (e.g., genre-specific strategies for essay
end of third grade; the slower responders writing).
were monitored at the same time points and
received continuing intervention in fall of Integrated Handwriting, Spelling,
third grade. Both groups maintained their and Composition
relative gains from end of second to begin-
ning of third grade (Berninger et al., 2000), Teachers referred children who were having
which is important because normal spellers difficulty with written expression during
tend to regress in spelling over the summer third grade for a summer intervention at the
months (Allinder, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, critical transition in writing development
1992) and long-term retention is what dif- between third and fourth grade. In individ-
ferentiates good and poor spellers over time ual 1-hour tutorials, children worked on
(Dreyer, Luke, & Mellican, 1994). Repeated handwriting automaticity, multiple strate-
practice in writing specific words in dictated gies for spelling, and composing (teacher
sentences was found to be effective for modeling and scaffolding the planning,
word-specific learning (Gough, Juel, & translating, reviewing, and revising process-
Griffith, 1992) for those third-graders who es). Both at immediate posttesting and 6-
received continuing tutoring (Berninger et month follow-up, the treated children im-
al., 2000). An additional study with at-risk proved significantly on at least one measure
third-grade spellers indicated that reflective of handwriting, spelling, and composition
phonological awareness training aimed at compared to the untreated control group
eight syllable types in English, first at the (Berninger, Abbott, Whitaker, Sylvester, &
spoken level and then in written words, also Nolen, 1995).
had some beneficial effects in improving
their spelling (Berninger et al., 2000). Instructional Design Principles

Comparison of Transcription and Composition First, there is more than one effective way to
Training, Singly and Combined implement scientifically supported instruc-
tional practices (Berninger, 1998b). Howev-
Third-graders at the bottom of their classes er, instructional design principles that cut
on a standardized measure of composition- across commercially available instructional
al fluency at the beginning of the year were

Assessment and Intervention for Transcription Problems 349

materials are emerging from our instruc- lating the writing process (e.g., Harris &
tional studies on writing and reading. The Graham, 1996; Hooper, Swartz, Wakely,
first is that children may benefit from in- deKruif, & Montgomery, 2002).
struction aimed at both low-level and high-
level skills within the same lesson. Possible Third, writing is inherently a social activi-
reasons for this benefit include the follow- ty (see Englert & Mariage, Chapter 27, in
ing: this volume; see also Cobb-Morocco et al.,
1992; Wong et al., 1994; Zimmerman &
1. Transfer of low-level skills to support the Reisenberg, 1997), and writing instruction
development of high-level skills, for ex- may be delivered most effectively to groups.
ample, automatizing low-level skills With a few exceptions, our early interven-
through practice frees up working mem- tions have been delivered to small groups of
ory for high-level skills. two or three at-risk writers, and recently we
have scaled up to groups as large as 10 to
2. High-level reflection is motivating and 12 (unpublished data).
makes children willing to work hard on
low-level skills that are necessary but dif- Simple View of Writing
ficult for them.
Although transcription plays a fundamental
3. Integrating skills in lessons helps chil- role in beginning writers’ ability to translate
dren coordinate components of writing their ideas into written language, other
close in time in working memory and components of the functional writing sys-
thus facilitates development of function- tem come into play as writing develops (see
al writing systems (Berninger, 1999). Berninger & Swanson, 1994, for develop-
mental models of emerging writing compo-
See Berninger and Richards (2002) for fur- nents, based on cross-sectional studies in
ther discussion of these possibilities based grades 1 to 9, which require further re-
on both brain research and instructional re- search). These components include working
search. memory (McCutchen, 1996; Swanson &
Berninger, 1996), discourse knowledge (e.g.,
Second, the goal of composing in the first McCutchen, 1995; Wong, 1997), the cogni-
two grades for at-risk writers should be to tive processes of planning and reviewing
encourage them to put their thoughts in and revising (Hayes & Flower, 1980), and
writing despite the transcription difficulties strategies for the executive functions for
they have. Invented spellings (Chomsky, self-regulating these cognitive processes dur-
1979) should be encouraged and the me- ing writing (e.g., Graham, 1997; Graham &
chanics of writing should not be overem- Harris, 1996; Harris & Graham, 1996;
phasized. However, explicit instruction for Hooper et al., 2002).
handwriting and spelling is necessary and
conventional spellings should be intro- To incorporate these various components
duced. The important instructional chal- and the diverse research traditions in the
lenge is to create learning environments in field of writing (educational, cognitive, lin-
which children with transcription problems guistic, developmental, neuropsychologi-
begin to think of themselves as writers and cal), Berninger and colleagues (2002) pro-
are willing to write daily and do not avoid posed the Simple View of Writing (see
writing, creating a self-perpetuating cycle in Figure 21.1) to capture the most relevant of
which poor writing breeds poor writing these components for assessing and teaching
through lack of practice. Once these chil- students at-risk for developing normal writ-
dren develop adequate transcription skills ing skills. According to the Simple View,
and have had some experience in expressing writing can be represented as a triangle
their ideas in writing, the goal of instruc- encompassing a short-term, working, and
tion should be to learn the processes of long-term memory environment. At the
writing—planning, translating, and review- base supporting the writing process are
ing/revising (Berninger et al., 1995, 2002; transcription (left angle) and executive func-
Hayes & Flower, 1980), genre-specific dis- tions (right angle). At the vertex of the tri-
course structures (e.g., McCutchen, 1995; angle is text generation. Early in writing de-
Wong, Butler, Ficzere, & Kuperis, 1996)
and executive function strategies for regu-

350 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

Text Generation
(w(worodrdss, ,sseenntteencess,, ddisisccoouursres)e)

Working
Memory*

Transcription Executive Functions
(handwriting, (conscious attention,
keyboarding, and spelling) planning, reviewing,
revising, strategies for
self-regulation)

FIGURE 21.1. Simple view of writing. *Activates long-term memory during composing and short-term
memory during reviewing.

velopment, the transcription processes pro- er-regulation from the teacher for writing
vide the foundation from which writing skills to develop.
springs; they allow the writer to translate
generated ideas and language in his or her Research-Supported Use of
mind into visual symbols that represent the Computer Technology
language. Across development, the execu-
tive functions will play an increasing role in Computer technology has advanced more
text generation and management of the rapidly than has research on the most effec-
writing process. Early in writing develop- tive ways to use computer technology during
ment, the executive functions that manage writing instruction with students with hand-
the planning, translating, reviewing (moni- writing and/or spelling disabilities. Although
toring), and revising processes are depen- computer technology may create the illusion
dent on other-regulation in the form of that it is more educationally sound than in-
guided assistance from parents, teachers, structional approaches not using technology,
and peers. As writers mature, they transi- in reality there has been relatively little re-
tion from other-regulation to self-regulation search on educational applications of hard-
of these cognitive processes (e.g., Zimmer- ware and software during composing or
man & Reisenberg, 1997). This transition teaching composing. This lack of research is
from other- to self- regulation is dependent especially concerning now that the Individu-
on both brain maturation and instruction, als with Disabilities Education Act mandates
reflecting the nature–nurture interactions in that adaptive technology solutions be con-
literacy learning (Berninger & Richards, sidered when developing individualized
2002). education plans. Multidisciplinary teams
(MDTs) and others who participate in tech-
We return to components of this Simple nology selection and purchasing decisions
View of Writing in the next section as we tend to rely on software developers or ven-
discuss how computer technology might be dors of computer technology rather than re-
used in the instructional program for stu- search (Raskind & Higgins, 1995). More re-
dents with transcription disabilities. This search with well-defined populations and
model provides a conceptual framework for educational objectives is needed on the edu-
(1) thinking about how computer technolo- cational applications of computer technolo-
gy may bypass certain transcription prob- gy to assist MDTs in making decisions about
lems but pose challenges for the text genera- adaptive technology for students with writ-
tion, executive function, and/or working ing (and reading) problems.
memory components of writing and (2)
evaluating the extent to which the computer First we review the computer tools avail-
technology can be used independently by able to students with handwriting problems
the student or will require considerable oth-

Assessment and Intervention for Transcription Problems 351

and then those with spelling problems. KEYBOARDING
These tools are conceptualized as an addi-
tion (a complement) to and not as a replace- Keyboarding changes the task from forming
ment (an alternative) for research-supported letters by hand to the task of finding and se-
instructional interventions, such as those lecting the key. Motor processes are still in-
described earlier. Although we are cautious- volved but are less complex than for pencil
ly optimistic about the potential of technol- manipulations. Although selection of the
ogy to assist students with specific writing correct key produces a correctly formed
disabilities with writing tasks, we offer letter, the process of automaticity is still
caveats to make the point that computer relevant. Typing may indeed slow rate of
technology may not be the quick fix that text production compared to handwriting
many assume it is. When considering tech- (Lewis et al., 1998; MacArthur & Graham,
nology, educators and parents must (1) take 1987). Unless a student automatizes the let-
into account a student’s profile of develop- ter finding and key press process, typing
mental and academic skills and stage of may not be sufficiently fluent to support
writing development, (2) think about how keyboarding as a viable alternative to hand-
the technology will make specific compo- writing. Students who have difficulty with
nents of writing easier for the student while automatizing letter production with a pencil
possibly making other components more may also have difficulty with automatizing
challenging, and (3) consider practical is- letter finding and selection on the keyboard.
sues of implementation. Regarding the lat- Short-term keyboard instruction (e.g., for 6
ter, all implementation of computer technol- weeks) does not appear to be effective in in-
ogy should deal with issues of compatibility creasing typing speed, and close teacher
of different software tools needed to create monitoring is needed or students will revert
an individually tailored system, plan for to hunt and peck (Lewis, 1998). Instruction
potential hardware crashes, and take into aimed at keyboarding fluency needs to be
account the level of technical support avail- built into the instructional program and
able when the system fails. Other implemen- carefully monitored and evaluated (Bryant
tation factors to consider are the amount of & Bryant, 1998) because ultimately those
time available for instruction for and prac- students with good keyboarding skills are
tice with the computer tool, the environ- the ones who are best able to use computer-
ments in which the tool will be used, the fa- based strategies for composing (Anderson-
miliarity of adults in those environments Inman, Knox-Quinn, & Horney, 1996).
with the technology, and the nature of the Overall, keyboarding is probably the least
writing task(s) for which it will be used. restrictive bypass tool for students with
handwriting problems, but research is need-
Computer-Based Compensatory ed on the best predictors of which students,
Tools for Handwriting based on well-defined characteristics, will
benefit from use of a keyboard as a bypass
Currently keyboarding, dictation using a tool. It is important to remember that key-
voice recognition system, and word predic- boarding draws on some of the same
tion programs are the three computer-based processes as handwriting, and students who
strategies for bypassing handwriting prob- have trouble learning handwriting may also
lems. Unless keyboarding is automatized, have trouble learning keyboarding. If used
handwriting is the fastest mode of text en- as a bypass strategy, keyboarding requires
try. However, each of these computer tools systematic, sustained instruction until key-
has been shown to improve the writing ac- boarding skills are automatized.
curacy of students with learning disabilities
(Lewis, Graves, Ashton, & Kieley, 1998). In DICTATION USING VOICE RECOGNITION
each case it is important to remember that
these technological tools bypass handwrit- Typically developing fifth- or sixth-graders
ing difficulties but create new tasks with tend to dictate longer but not better-quality
processing requirements that may or may compositions than they write with pencil
not be a challenge for an individual student. and paper (Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Goel-
man, 1982). In contrast, for students with
learning disabilities, both the length and

352 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

quality of dictated compositions may be su- recognition system may be taxing for the
perior to handwritten compositions (Gra- developing executive management system
ham, 1990). Speech recognition software is for writing (see Hooper et al., 2002). Never-
available that directly translates dictated theless, for students with transcription
speech into typed text through a program problems who sustain use of dictation once
that depends on voice recognition for the in- the novelty wears off, voice recognition may
dividual student. These voice recognition make it possible to generate longer and bet-
programs are relatively new and rapidly ter text than they would otherwise be able
evolving; the literature reviews on the first to write.
generation of these programs no longer ap-
ply to the newer ones now on the market. WORD PREDICTION
However, Reece and Cumming (1996) re-
ported that quality of dictated compositions This software provides support by predict-
was enhanced by use of a voice recognition ing, based on the syntax and spelling of text
system that generated a written record to re- written so far, frequency of words in the
view while composing. Although Borgh and language, and any letters typed so far for
Dickson (1992) found no effect of dictation the word at hand, what the current word
with voice recognition on composition might be; it then generates on the monitor a
length, they did find that it resulted in im- list of possibilities from which the student
proved revising of typically developing sec- can select. Word prediction software was
ond- and fifth-graders. originally developed to reduce the number
of keystrokes needed to make keyboarding
A number of issues should be considered easier, faster, and less tiring for individuals
in deciding whether to use dictation with a with severe motor disabilities. More recent-
voice recognition system as a bypass for ly, it has been used with individuals with
handwriting problems. First, keyboards are written language but not severe motor dis-
more transportable across work environ- abilities. Word prediction programs that in-
ments than are voice recognition systems. corporate into their algorithms alternative
Second, voice recognition systems may be phonetic spellings for the same word are es-
disruptive to other students in the classroom pecially helpful for students with written
who are not using such systems, and the ac- language disabilities. If the student has a
curacy of voice recognition decreases in reading problem in addition to a handwrit-
noisy environments. Third, voice recogni- ing and/or spelling problem, some word
tion software requires a computer with suf- prediction programs provide synthesized
ficient processing and storage capacity and speech that reads each of the options on the
a good-quality microphone. Fourth, the sys- list to assist in the selection of one of the
tem has to be adequately trained on recog- predicted options. This adaptation can in-
nizing the student’s voice. Although the is- crease the time costs for using word predic-
sue of transporting voice files will be tion substantially.
eventually resolved, it is currently difficult
to move voice files; thus students have to Word prediction programs may present
create a voice file on every computer that challenges for students who have working
will be used. Fifth, the student user must memory (MacArthur, 1999) or attention or
take time to learn to use a number of com- executive function problems along with
mands for monitoring and repairing errors. transcription problems because they must
Sixth, although dictating may reduce the carefully monitor the list of options, which
time needed to enter text, the time and skills changes with each typed letter. Another lim-
necessary for finding and correcting recog- itation of word prediction programs is that
nition errors may be considerable. Seventh, they are a slow mode of text entry com-
the simultaneous processes of dictation, pared to handwriting for students with
self-monitoring for errors, and effective use learning disabilities (e.g., Lewis et al.,
of program commands for fixing errors 1998). In the Lewis and colleagues (1998)
place considerable demands on working study, students using word prediction only
memory, which has limited resources for all reached 82% of their handwriting speed;
developing writers, especially in elementary moreover, those who also used synthesized
school. In addition, dictation using a voice speech with the word prediction program

Assessment and Intervention for Transcription Problems 353

only reached 41% of their handwriting ham, Haynes, & De La Paz, 1996). Never-
speed. At the same time, the decrease in theless, spell checkers (and to a lesser degree
speed was accompanied by an increase in grammatical checkers) showed benefits for
spelling accuracy for these students. The students in grades 4 to 12 with learning dis-
group using word prediction with speech abilities (Lewis, Ashton, Haapa, Kieley, &
feedback halved the number of spelling er- Fielden, 2000). In another study, students
rors they made. Thus, in making decisions with learning disabilities increased their
for individual students, an MDT may need spelling error correction rate of 9% without
to weigh the trade-off between reduced a spell checker to 37% with a spell checker
speed but increased spelling accuracy. Word (MacArthur et al., 1996). Some commer-
prediction may serve as an excellent starting cially available software packages were de-
point for students with transcription prob- veloped specifically for people with learning
lems, as long as the necessary instruction in disabilities and generate spell-check options
handwriting and spelling is in place, but based on phonetic spellings. These pro-
eventually other computer tools that result grams may be more helpful than main-
in faster text entry may have to be intro- stream spell checkers to students with
duced as the student is more able to handle spelling problems, who tend to spell words
them. Younger writers tend to enjoy the the way they sound, but more research is
multiple supports provided by word predic- needed on this topic.
tion that allow them to begin to compose,
whereas older writers who face longer writ- WORD PREDICTION
ing assignments may find word prediction
to be frustratingly slow. As already discussed, word prediction pro-
grams with text entry may enhance spelling
Computer-Based Compensatory accuracy despite slowing text entry speed.
Tools for Spelling The size and sophistication of a student’s
vocabulary may influence how effectively a
SPELL CHECKERS student may be able to use this tool in com-
posing (MacArthur, 1999). Flexible pro-
Many proficient writers use spell checkers grams that allow users to customize by cre-
as a way to detect errors due to typing and ating a personal dictionary are most likely
repair the error based on their ability to to transfer to improved composing. Re-
choose the correctly spelled word. Even for search is not available on whether training
skilled writers, spell checkers are not with- in word prediction transfers to improved,
out their limitations, for example, in detect- unaided spelling while composing.
ing incorrectly spelled words for a particu-
lar sentence context, as captured in the first SPEECH FEEDBACK SOFTWARE
verse of the anonymously authored “Ode to
a Spell Chequer,” which is circulating on the Users receive auditory feedback about
Web: whether they spelled (typed) a word correct-
ly. These programs have a voice synthesizer
Eye halve a spelling chequer, that pronounces for the user any word that
It may come with my pea sea, appears on the screen. When the program
It plainly marques for my revue, detects a misspelled word, it attempts to
Miss steaks eye kin knot see. pronounce the word phonetically. Pro-
nounced word sounds that seem odd to the
For the students with spelling disabilities, user are a cue that a spelling error has prob-
mainstream spell checkers may be of limited ably been made. At the same time, ortho-
use. The major limitations are that their graphic feedback highlights the word being
spelling errors are not sufficiently recog- pronounced by the speech synthesizer. In
nized by the spell checkers to even suggest some cases the orthographic feedback dis-
possible correct spellings for severely mis- play consists of color-coded units smaller
spelled words, and the students may not be than the word. The combination of auditory
able to recognize the correctly spelled word and written feedback may enhance detec-
in the list of possibilities (MacArthur, Gra- tion of spelling errors (Higgins & Zvi,

354 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

1995), but more research is needed on this should not replace handwriting instruction
topic at different stages of writing develop- for beginning writers. In the 21st century,
ment and for different well-defined popula- children need to become bilingual in lan-
tions. guage by hand, able to transcribe with a
pencil as well as a keyboard. Early key-
Integrating Computer Tools in the board training should also be integrated in
Instructional Program in Writing the writing instruction program so that chil-
dren can learn to use the keyboard to com-
The research on the effect of computers on pose for authentic communication pur-
writing has shifted from a focus on the com- poses.
puter alone to the interaction of the technol-
ogy and instruction (Cobb-Morocco et al., SPELLING INSTRUCTION
1992). Using word processors in the in-
structional program in writing results in One issue to consider in choosing spelling
modest gains for typically developing writ- software to integrate into the instructional
ers (Bangert-Drowns, 1993). Bangert- program is whether it is linguistically correct
Drowns differentiated among computer ap- in providing orthographic and/or phonolog-
plications for (1) supplanting lower-order ical feedback for phoneme–spelling corre-
processes, (2) modifying higher-order pro- spondences. Many times such programs do
cesses, and (3) providing metacognitive not provide accurate feedback for those in-
prompts. Word processors have been shown stances in which phonemes correspond to
to be especially helpful for the higher-order two letters (e.g., the last sound in her) rather
revision process (e.g., Cobb-Morocco et al., than one letter (e.g., the first sound in rose)
1992). Simply providing the student with and erroneously treat the /er/ and /r/
adaptive technology does not guarantee that phoneme as equivalent when they are not
the student will use it effectively unless (Berninger, 1998c). Such erroneous feedback
teacher guidance is provided. See Wise and can be confusing to students who are still
Olson (1992) for empirical evidence that learning to make connections between units
students are less likely to request feedback they perceive in spoken words and corre-
when not monitored by an adult. One rea- sponding units in written words. Another
son for integrating the computer technology factor to consider is that software may pre-
with teacher-guided instruction is that sent letter–sound correspondences for read-
young writers in general and students with ing words, as if they are the same for spelling
learning disabilities in particular have con- words as well. However, in English such cor-
siderable difficulty in self-regulation, includ- respondences (the alphabetic principle) are
ing attention-managing and self-monitor- applied differently when going from spoken
ing, and benefit from other-regulation words to written words in spelling than in
provided by teachers, as already discussed. going from written to spoken words as in
Technology-supported writing instruction reading (Berninger, 1998c). For instance, an
may be more likely than technology-sup- a in a written word has a corresponding long
ported writing without instruction to trans- and short sound or a reduced vowel (schwa),
fer to improved, unaided writing, but fur- but the long /a/ phoneme may be spelled in
ther research is needed on this issue. many more ways than the single letter a (e.g.,
made, play, paid, weigh, and they) and may
KEYBOARDING INSTRUCTION depend on its placement in an open (e.g.,
apron) rather than closed syllable. Explicit
Keyboarding instruction should probably reflection on these alternations generalized
start early, as early as first grade, for all be- to improved spelling while composing
ginning writers—not just for the at-risk (Berninger et al., 2002). Another factor to
ones—so that they do not later have to un- consider is that at-risk spellers have prob-
learn hunt-and-peck strategies that may be- lems in word-specific spelling, which re-
come automatized. Compressed keyboards quires integrating knowledge of a specific
with smaller keys positioned closer together phoneme–spelling correspondence with a
may accommodate smaller hands and specific word context (e.g., which spelling to
fingers of beginning writers. Keyboarding use in the phrase pl__ with toys). Purported-

Assessment and Intervention for Transcription Problems 355

ly Mark Twain told an editor who com- semantic mapping or as networks to sup-
plained that he had spelled the same word 10 port collaboration and problem solving
different ways in the same manuscript that (MacArthur, 1996). Additional research is
he felt sorry for anyone who could not think needed on the most effective ways to incor-
of 10 different ways to spell the same word. porate such high-level computer applica-
Such knowledge of the alternations of alpha- tions most effectively in the instructional
betic principle suggests outstanding linguis- program in writing for students with tran-
tic awareness but poor word-specific spelling scription problems.
knowledge. Clearly, as demonstrated by
Twain’s superb storytelling ability, this kind Application of Research to Practice
of word-specific spelling knowledge and
ability to generate text are separate writing Three-Tier Approach to Definition of
skills. Learning Disability

The value of computer-assisted ortho- The first tier screens students who are at
graphic and speech feedback in spelling in- risk for handwriting and spelling problems
struction has been understudied. In an ex- and provides them with early intervention
ploratory study, Wise and Olson (1992, (Berninger, 2002; Berninger & Abbott,
1994) reported null effects. However, com- 1994b; Berninger, Stage, Smith, & Hilde-
puter-assisted immediate feedback as to the brand, 2002). The second tier provides
accuracy of the spelling appears to be more progress monitoring and curriculum modifi-
effective than the delayed feedback on accu- cation when needed in the general education
racy of handwritten spelling (MacArthur, writing program (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, Ham-
Haynes, Malouf, Harris, & Owings, 1990). lett, & Allinder, 1991a, 1991b). The third
Spelling error correction rate improved tier assesses students who fail to respond
when high school students with spelling reasonably well to the first two tiers—both
problems received instruction in strategies to decide whether the students qualify for
for using spell checkers (McNaughton, special education services and to clarify,
Hughes, & Ofiesh, 1997). A reasonable through differential diagnosis, the nature of
goal for spelling instruction is to bring stu- their learning differences, which is impor-
dents with spelling problems to the level at tant to parents and is relevant to under-
which they can use commercial spell check- standing etiology, planning intervention,
ers effectively and independently. and gauging prognosis (e.g., Berninger,
1998b, 2002; Berninger et al., 2001).
COMPOSING INSTRUCTION Berninger (1998b) and Berninger, Stage, and
colleagues (2001) provide practical recom-
Computer-based strategies appear to have mendations for implementing this conceptu-
benefits over handwriting only for extended al approach. The process measures that
writing assignments requiring, for example, were shown to have the best validity in
4 to 6 weeks to complete (Cobb-Morocco et cross-sectional and instructional interven-
al., 1992). Integrating instruction in ad- tion studies have now been nationally
vance planning with dictation has benefits normed (Berninger, 2001a). In general,
beyond dictation alone (De La Paz & Gra- there is enormous normal variation within
ham, 1997). Integrating instruction in and across developmental and academic do-
strategies for planning, drafting, and revis- mains in children with learning differences
ing with use of word processing resulted in (see Berninger, Abbott, Billingsley, & Nagy,
greater improvement in narrative and essay 2001, for the reading and writing system;
writing for upper-elementary-grade students Sandler et al., 1992, and Hooper et al.,
with learning disabilities compared to a 1994, for the writing system). Thus, we ad-
control group with learning disabilities that vocate for a flexible approach that serves all
did not receive such instruction children (Berninger, 1998b; Berninger, Hart,
(MacArthur, Graham, Schwartz, & Schafer, Abbott, & Karovsky, 1992) and believe that
1995). Computers can assist in writing in accomplishing this goal requires a lifespan
more ways than bypassing transcription approach (Wong, 1998) and better coopera-
problems, for example, as supports for tion and coordination among general and
planning through prompting, outlining, and

356 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

special education. We use a multidomain ic, and morphological (Bryant, Nunez, &
profile approach for assessing older stu- Bindman, 1997; Carlisle, 1988; Ehri, 1992;
dents with persisting writing (Berninger, in Gough et al., 1992; Leong, 2000; Moats,
press) or reading (Berninger, 2001b) disabil- 2000; Treiman, 1997; Treiman & Bourassa,
ities and an approach to instructional inter- 2000; Tyler & Nagy, 1989; Varnhagen,
vention based on all the necessary compo- 1994; Varnhagen, Varnhagen, & Das, 1992;
nents of functional writing and reading Venezky, 1970, 1999). English spelling
systems (Berninger, 1998b; Berninger & varies in predictability of sound–spelling
Richards, 2002). Learning outcomes for correspondence but is not capricious. Most
writing and reading of students without phonemes (the smallest sound units in spo-
neurological disease or damage depend on ken words) can be spelled with a small set
nature-nurture interactions (both brain and of alternative one- and two-letter spelling
genetic constraints and quality of instruc- units (alternations) (Venezky, 1970, 1999).
tion) (Berninger & Richards, 2002). We end Most written words have mostly spelling
this section with an illustrative example of units that conform to these alternations, es-
how practitioners might apply knowledge pecially if the speller has orthographic
of spelling, based on research, to analyzing awareness that in English the functional
spelling errors and generating individually spelling unit is often a two-letter rather than
tailored spelling accommodations within one-letter unit Berninger (1998c). Thus it is
comprehensive instruction aimed at all com- misleading to categorize spelling words as
ponents of the functional writing system. regular or irregular for either teaching or
testing purposes. Of the many sources of
Assessing Spelling Errors for language knowledge contributing to
Instructional Clues spelling—phonology, orthography, and
morphology and their relationships—a
Standard scores indicate how well students word may be irregular in correspondences
spell compared to age or grade peers but do for one of these language sources but regu-
not specify how to improve spelling. Analy- lar for another source.
sis of spelling errors can provide instruc-
tional clues for improving spelling. Reliabil- Conclusions and Future
ity of errors is important, however, and Research Directions
recommended instructional interventions
should be based on patterns of errors that Given the enormous problems at-risk writ-
occur repeatedly. Table 21.1 contains ques- ers face in learning transcription skills, it is
tions teachers and testers can ask about not surprising that they become overfo-
spelling errors for clues to intervention. The cused on the mechanics of writing such as
example words are not the test items but il- handwriting and spelling (Graham,
lustrate the kinds of spelling errors observed Schwartz, & MacArthur, 1993; MacArthur,
in the standardization sample of the Wech- 1999). Based on 12 years of research on
sler Individual Achievement Test—Second prevention of writing problems, we propose
Edition (WIAT-2; Psychological Corpora- that early intervention aimed at teaching
tion, 2002). Correct spelling is in parenthe- handwriting and/or spelling to at-risk writ-
ses. Some errors are double-coded because ers early in schooling may eliminate or sig-
they reflect more than one kind of error. nificantly reduce the number of students
This scheme can be applied to standardized needing to use computer-based technologies
or informal measures of spelling words as bypass strategies for low-level processes
from dictation or standardized or informal in writing and increase the number of stu-
measures of written composition to evaluate dents able to use computers adaptively for
whether the same kinds of errors occur the high-level processes in writing later in
when spelling single words from dictation writing development. However, research-
as when spelling while composing text. based evidence currently available suggests
that for the students who continue to expe-
The recommended coding scheme for an- rience difficulties with transcription
alyzing spelling errors is based on research processes, in spite of appropriate interven-
showing that multiple language sources in-
fluence spelling: phonological, orthograph-

Assessment and Intervention for Transcription Problems 357

TABLE 21.1. Coding of Spelling Errors and Their Links to Interventiona,b,c

I. PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING PROBLEMS: These errors indicate that the student does not
have precise phonological representation of all the phonemes in a spoken word that is being
translated into its written form. Mixed phonological errors are the most indicative of serious
phonological processing problems.

A. Diagnostic Questions
1. Are phonemes deleted? Example: The /r/ phoneme is deleted in pinsiss (princess).
2. Are additional phonemes inserted? Example: The /p/ phoneme is added in abpsent
(absent).
3. Are phonemes transposed? Example: The /d/ and /n/ phonemes are switched in order in
ruts (rust).
4. Are phonemes confused and similar ones substituted? Examples: peg (pig) in which the
short e and short i phonemes are confused; apsent (absent) in which the /p/ phoneme is
confused with the /b/ phoneme; bug (dug) in which the /b/ and /d/ phonemes are confused.
Note. Some dialects do not distinguish between short e and short i. Also, b and d
confusions may be related to their phonemic rather than graphemic (letter) similarity.
5. Are there mixed phonological errors? Example: vamlee (family) in which the /v/ phoneme
is substituted for the /f/ phoneme and the second syllable (reduced vowel) is omitted.

B. Intervention
1. Phonological awareness training (see, e.g., Berninger, 1998b).
2. Always analyze words in spelling lesson phonologically before spelling them. For example,
count the syllables, count the phonemes in syllables, say the word phoneme by phoneme,
especially for polysyllabic words. Provide feedback if phonological representation is not
perfect. See Berninger and colleagues (2000).

II. PHONOLOGICAL–ORTHOGRAPHIC PROCESSING PROBLEMS

A. Diagnostic Question
1. Is a spelling unit implausible given the conventional phoneme–spelling correspondences
(and their alternations) in English? Examples: fich (fish), lorchj (large), ridn (riding), sithed
(sight). See Berninger and Abbott (1994a).

B. Intervention
1. Teach alphabet principlec and its alternations in the direction of phonemes to one- or two-
letter spelling unit. See Berninger (1998c).

III. WORD-SPECIFIC ORTHOGRAPHIC PROCESSING PROBLEMS (see Gough et al., 1992)

A. Diagnostic Questions
1. Is a spelling unit plausible for a conventional phoneme–spelling correspondence (one of
the alternations) in English but not appropriate for a specific word context? Examples:
cairful (careful), monkee (monkey), anshunt (ancient), wile (while), briet (bright), resine
(resign). See Berninger and Abbott (1994a).
2. Is the schwa (reduced vowel marked in the dictionary with an upside-down backwards e),
which can only be spelled correctly by memorizing it for a specific word context, spelled
with the correct arbitrary letter? Examples: seperately (separately), sentance (sentence).
3. Does the misspelled spelling unit involve one or more silent letters that can only be spelled
correctly by memorizing the letter(s) for a specific word context? Example: anser (answer).

B. Intervention
1. Combine teaching alphabet principlec and its alternations in the direction of phonemes to
one- or two-letter spelling unit (see Berninger, 1998c) with word-specific training by
spelling target word in dictated sentence (see Berninger et al., 2000).

IV. MORPHOLOGICAL PROCESSING PROBLEMS

A. Diagnostic Questions (see Tyler & Nagy, 1989)
1. Are there errors in inflectional suffixes or stem changes for tense? Note that there are
three spellings for past-tense marker—d, t, or ed; three spellings for plurality, -s /z/, -s/s/,
or -es (es or ez). Examples: bumpd (bumped), washs (washes), grow (grew).
(continued)

358 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

TABLE 21.1. Continued

2. Are there errors in prefixes? Examples: adcite (excite) or inpolite (impolite).
3. Are there errors in derivational suffixes? Examples: religous (religious), nashunal

(national).
4. Is spelling of stem morpheme maintained? Example: bomming (bombing).

B. Intervention
1. Combine morphological awareness trainingc with word-specific training by spelling target
word in dictated sentence (see Berninger, 1998b).

V. SPELLING CONVENTIONS (RULES)

A. Diagnostic Questions
1. Is there an error in doubling final consonant of closed syllables before adding another
morpheme? Examples: acomodate (accommodate), begining (beginning).
2. Is there an error in changing y to i when adding morpheme? Example: busyer (busier).
3. Is there an error in forming a contraction? Example: woulden’t (wouldn’t).
4. Is there an error in twinning for l, s, or f in final position? Example: kised (kissed).
5. Is there an error in final e for soft c or soft g? Example: dans (dance).

B. Intervention
1. Systematically and explicitly teach spelling rules (see Berninger, 1998b, for instructional
resources, and Masterson et al., 2002, for strategies).

VI. PHONOLOGICAL/ORTHOGRAPHIC/MORPHOLOGICAL CONFUSIONS

A. Diagnostic Questions
1. Is the spelled word a homonym (sounds the same but meaning and spelling are different)?
Examples: too (two), him (hymn).
2. Is the spelled word a homograph (spelled the same but sounds different)? (Can only be
evaluated in context.) Examples: “He red the book” for “He read the book.”

B. Intervention
1. Spelling targeted words in dictated sentences so that sentence context must be taken into
account.

VII. PREALPHABETIC PRINCIPLE STAGE OF SPELLING DEVELOPMENT

A. Diagnostic Questions (see Ehri, 1992; Treiman, 1997; Treiman & Bourassa, 2000)
1. Does the spelling appear to be random letters rather than attempted representation of
speech in writing? Example: utody (train).
2. Does the spelling appear to represent speech at a phonetic level (invented spelling stage)
and is only partially phonemic (based on alphabetic principle)? Example: bz (bees).

B. Intervention
1. Phonological Awareness (Berninger, 1998b) and Alphabetic Principle Trainingc (Berninger,
1998c)

VIII. LETTER PRODUCTION ERRORS

A. Diagnostic Questions
1. Is there a letter reversal? Example: maq (map).
2. Is there a letter inversion? Example: me (we).
3. Are letters transposed? Example: tow (two).

B. Intervention
1. Combine Handwriting Lessons (Berninger, 1998a) and Alphabetic Principle Trainingc
(Berninger, 1998c)

aSome misspelled words can be given more than one code because more than one kind of error is involved.
bThese kinds of errors were observed in standardization sample for the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test—
Second Edition (WIAT-II; Psychological Corporation, 2002). However, the words used to illustrate the error types
are not the same as the test items.
cA criterion-referenced approach to spelling assessment and intervention that can be used to complement norm-
referenced assessment is A Prescriptive Assessment of Spelling on CD-ROM (Masterson, Apel, & Wasowitz, 2002).

Assessment and Intervention for Transcription Problems 359

tions, computer-based bypass strategies mental skills and writing skills in primary and in-
should be considered. termediate grade writers. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85, 478–508.
Systematic research is needed to assess Abbott, S., Reed, L., Abbott, R., & Berninger, V.
which computer-based tools, under which (1997). Year-long balanced reading/writing tuto-
circumstances, and for which groups of stu- rial: A design experiment used for dynamic as-
dents with well-specified characteristics are sessment. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20,
helpful in addressing specific writing diffi- 249–263.
culties. Just as we studied the development Allinder, R., Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.
of writing processes using a pencil, we are (1992). Effects of summer break on math and
now studying development of component spelling performance as a function of grade level.
writing processes using computer technolo- Elementary School Journal, 92, 451–460.
gy. Research on effective use of specific Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C., & Horney,
writing technologies in teaching specific M. (1996). Computer-based study strategies for
writing skills may benefit from understand- students with learning disabilities: Individual dif-
ing the underlying processes for learning ferences associated with adoption level. Journal
specific writing skills with specific technolo- of Learning Disabilities, 29, 461–484.
gies. For example, research is needed on Bangert-Drowns, R. (1993). The word processor as
how to automatize use of technology tools an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word
so that they require minimum attention and processing in writing instruction. Review of Edu-
effort. Research should also address how to cational Research, 63, 69–93.
predict and plan for the appropriate level of Berninger, V. (1994). Reading and writing acquisi-
training and support for both students and tion: A developmental neuropsychological per-
educators in using technology. spective. Madison, WI: W. C. Brown (Distributed
by Perseus Books).
Research on both writing disabilities and Berninger, V. (1998a). Handwriting Lessons Pro-
educational applications of computer tech- gram in Process of the Learner (PAL) interven-
nology to writing is of recent origin, having tion kit. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corpo-
gained momentum during the last two ration.
decades of the 20th century. Progress in gen- Berninger, V. (1998b). Process assessment of the
erating scientifically supported instructional learner: Guides for reading and writing interven-
practices in writing, with and without the tion. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corpora-
support of computer assistance, is most like- tion.
ly to be made during the 21st century if the Berninger, V. (1998c). Talking Letters Program in
federal government increases funding for Process of the Learner (PAL) intervention kit.
cross-site collaborations designed to repli- San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
cate study designs across well-defined popu- Berninger, V. (1999). Coordinating transcription and
lations and instructional settings. text generation in working memory during com-
posing: Automatized and constructive processes.
Acknowledgments Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112.
Berninger, V. (2000). Development of language by
Grant No. HD25858-11 supported the first author hand and its connections to language by ear,
and Grant No. H224A30006 supported the second mouth, and eye. Topics in Language Disorders,
author in preparation of this chapter. Grant Nos. 20, 65–84.
HD25858-1 to -10 supported the research on writ- Berninger, V. (2002). Best practices in reading, writ-
ing assessment and intervention conducted at the ing, and math assessment-intervention links: A
University of Washington. The authors thank the systems approach for schools, classrooms, and
Psychological Corporation for providing represen- individuals. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.),
tative spelling errors from the standardization sam- Best practices in school psychology IV (Vol. 1,
ple of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test— pp. 851–865). Bethesda, MD: NASP Press.
Second Edition (WIAT II) to use in developing a Berninger, V. (in press). Understanding the graphia
coding system. in dysgraphia. In D. Dewey & D. Tupper (Eds.),
Developmental motor disorders: A neuropsycho-
References logical perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Berninger, V. (2001a). Process Assessment of the
Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (1993). Structural equa- Learner (PAL) Test Battery for Reading and
tion modeling of relationships among develop- Writing. (PAL-RW). San Antonio, TX: Psycho-
logical Corporation.
Berninger, V. (2001b). Understanding the lexia in
dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 23–48.
Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (1994b). Redefining
learning disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude–
achievement discrepancies to failure to respond
to validated treatment protocols. In G. R. Lyon

360 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

(Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of remediation. In J. Andrews, D. Saklofske, & H.
learning disabilities: New views on measurement Janzen (Eds.), Handbook of psychoeducational
issues (pp. 163–202). Baltimore: Brookes. assessment. Ability, achievement, and behavior in
Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (1994a). Multiple or- children (pp. 195–223). New York: Academic
thographic and phonological codes in literacy ac- Press.
quisition: An evolving research program. In V. Berninger, V., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying
Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic Hayes & Flower’s model of skilled writing to ex-
knowledge I: Theoretical and developmental is- plain beginning and developing writing. In E.
sues (pp. 277–317). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Butterfield (Ed.), Children’s writing: Toward a
Kluwer Academic. process theory of development of skilled writing
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Billingsley, F., & Nagy, W. (pp. 57–81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
(2001). Processes underlying timing and fluency: Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Abbott, S.,
Efficiency, automaticity, coordination, and mor- Brooks, A., Rogan, L., Reed, E., & Graham, S.
phological awareness. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslex- (1997). Treatment of handwriting fluency prob-
ia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 383–414). Timoni- lems in beginning writing: Transfer from hand-
um, MD: York Press. writing to composition. Journal of Educational
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Rogan, L., Reed, L., Ab- Psychology, 89, 652–666.
bott, S., Brooks, A., Vaughan, K., & Graham, S. Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Begay, K.,
(1998). Teaching spelling to children with specif- Byrd, K., Curtin, G., Minnich, J., & Graham, S.
ic learning disabilities: The mind’s ear and eye (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone
beat the computer or pencil. Learning Disability and together: Implications for the simple view of
Quarterly, 21, 106–122. writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Thomson, J., & Raskind, 291–304.
W. (2001). Language phenotype for reading and Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Brooks, A.,
writing disability: A family approach. Scientific Abbott, S., Reed, E., Rogan, L., & Graham, S.
Studies in Reading, 5, 59–105. (1998). Early intervention for spelling problems:
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Whitaker, D., Sylvester, Teaching spelling units of varying size within a
L., & Nolen, S. (1995). Integrating low-level multiple connections framework. Journal of Edu-
skills and high-level skills in treatment protocols cational Psychology, 90, 587–605.
for writing disabilities. Learning Disability Quar- Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Brooks, A.,
terly, 18, 293–309. Begay, K., Curtin, G., Byrd, K., & Graham, S.
Berninger, V., Cartwright, A., Yates, C., Swanson, (2000). Language-based spelling instruction:
H. L., & Abbott, R. (1994). Developmental skills Teaching children to make multiple connections
related to writing and reading acquisition in the between spoken and written words. Learning
intermediate grades: Shared and unique variance. Disability Quarterly, 23, 117–136.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Jour- Berninger, V., Whitaker, D., Feng, Y., Swanson, H.
nal, 6, 161–196. L., & Abbott, R. (1996). Assessment of planning,
Berninger, V., & Fuller, F. (1992). Gender differ- translating, and revising in junior high writers.
ences in orthographic, verbal, and compositional Journal of School Psychology, 34, 23–52.
fluency: Implications for diagnosis of writing dis- Berninger, V., Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J.,
abilities in primary grade children. Journal of Remy, E., & Abbott, R. (1992). Lower-level de-
School Psychology, 30, 363–382. velopmental skills in beginning writing. Reading
Berninger, V., & Graham, S. (1998). Language by and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4,
hand: A synthesis of a decade of research on 257–280.
handwriting. Handwriting Review, 12, 11–25. Borgh, K., & Dickson, W. P. (1992). The effects on
Berninger, V., Hart, T., Abbott, R., & Karovsky, P. children’s writing of adding speech synthesis to a
(1992). Defining reading and writing disabilities word processor. Journal of Research on Comput-
with and without IQ: A flexible, developmental ing in Education, 24, 533–544.
perspective. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, Britton, J. (1978). The composing processes and the
103–118. functions of writing. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell
Berninger, V., Mizokawa, D., & Bragg, R. (1991). (Eds.). Research on composing: Points of depar-
Theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writ- ture (pp. 13–28). Urbana, IL: National Council
ing disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 29, of Teachers of English.
57–79. Brooks, A., Vaughan, K., & Berninger, V. (1999).
Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2002). Brain literacy Tutorial interventions for writing disabilities:
for educators and psychologists. New York: Aca- Comparison of transcription and text generation
demic Press. processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22,
Berninger, V., & Rutberg, J. (1992). Relationship of 183–191.
finger function to beginning writing: Application Bryant, D., & Bryant, B. (1998). Using assistive
to diagnosis of writing disabilities. Developmen- technology adaptations to include students with
tal Medicine and Child Neurology, 34, 155–172. learning disabilities in cooperative learning activ-
Berninger, V., Stage, S., Smith, D., & Hildebrand, ities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3, 41–54.
D. (2001). Assessment for reading and writing in- Bryant, P., Nunes, T., & Bindman, M. (1997). Chil-
tervention: A three-tier model for prevention and dren’s understanding of the connection between

Assessment and Intervention for Transcription Problems 361

grammar and spelling. In B. A. Blachman (Ed.), lems in attention, memory, and executive func-
Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: tioning: An example from self-regulated strategy
Implications for early intervention (pp. development. In G. R. Lyon & N. Krasnegor
219–240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (1996). Attention, memory, and executive func-
Carlisle, J. (1988). Knowledge of derivational mor- tion (pp. 349–365). Baltimore: Brookes.
phology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth, and Graham, S., Harris, K., & Fink, B. (2000). Is hand-
eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, writing causally related to learning to write?
247–266. Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning
Chomsky, C. (1979). Reading, writing, and phonol- writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
ogy. Harvard Educational Review, 40, 287–309. 620–633.
Clay, M. (1982). Research update. Learning and Graham, S., Harris, K., & Fink, B. (in press). Is
teaching writing: A developmental perspective. spelling causally related to learning to write and
Language Arts, 59, 65–70. read? Journal of Educational Psychology.
Cobb-Morrocco, C., Dalton, G., & Tivnan, T. Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993).
(1992). The impact of computer-supported writ- Knowledge of writing and the composing process,
ing instruction on fourth grade students with and attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for stu-
without learning disabilities. Reading and Writ- dents with and without learning disabilities. Jour-
ing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, nal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237–249.
8, 87–113. Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Effects of dic- handwriting research: Progress and prospects
tation and advanced planning instruction on the from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Re-
composing of students with writing and learning view, 8, 7–87.
problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, Graves, D. (1975). An examination of the writing
89, 203–222. processes of seven year-old children. Research in
Dreyer, L., Luke, S., & Melican, E. (1994). Chil- the Teaching of English, 9, 227–241.
dren’s acquisition and retention of word Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writ-
spellings. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties ing process work: Strategies for composition and
of orthographic knowledge II: Relationships to self-regulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA:
phonology, reading, and writing (pp. 291–320). Brookline Books.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Hayes, J., & Flower, L., (1980). Identifying the or-
Ehri, L. (1992). Review and commentary: Stages of ganization of the writing process. In L. W. Gregg
spelling development. In S. Templeton & D. Bear & E. R. Sternberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in
(Eds.), Development of orthographic knowledge writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
and foundations of literacy (pp. 307–332). Hills- Higgins, E., & Zvi, J. (1995). Assistive technology
dale, NJ: Erlbaum. for postsecondary students with learning disabili-
Foorman, B., Francis, D., Novy, D., & Liberman, ties: From research to practice. Annals of Dyslex-
D. (1991). How letter-sound instruction mediates ia, 45, 123–142.
progress in first-grade reading and spelling. Jour- Hooper, S., Montgomery, J., Swartz, C., Reed, M.,
nal of Educational Psychology, 83, 456–469. Sandler, A., Levine, M., Watson, T., & Wasileski,
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., & Allinder, R. T. (1994). Measurement of written expression. In
(1991a). The contribution of skills analysis to G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the as-
curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Ex- sessment of learning disabilities. New views on
ceptional Children, 57, 443–452. measurement issues (pp. 375–417). Baltimore:
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., & Allinder, R. Brookes.
(1991b). Effects of expert system advice within Hooper, S., Swartz, C., Montgomery, J., Reed, M.,
curriculum-based measurement on teacher plan- Brown, T., Wasileski, T., & Levine, M. (1993).
ning and student achieving in spelling. School Prevalence of writing problems across three mid-
Psychology Review, 20, 49–66. dle school samples. School Psychology Review,
Gough, P., Juel, C., & Griffith, P. (1992). Reading, 22, 608–620.
spelling, and the orthographic cipher. In P. Gough, Hooper, S., Swartz, C., Wakely, M., deKruif, R., &
L. Ehri, & R. Treiman, R. (Eds.), Reading acquisi- Montgomery, J. (2002). Executive functions in el-
tion (pp. 35–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ementary school children with and without prob-
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors lems in written expression. Journal of Learning
in learning disabled students’ compositions. Jour- Disabilities, 35, 57–68.
nal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791. Hsu, L., Berninger, V., Thomson, J., Wijsman, E., &
Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising Raskind, W. (2002). Familial aggregation of
of students with learning and writing difficulties. dyslexia phenotype II: Paired correlated mea-
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223–234. sures. American Journal of Medical (Neuropsy-
Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & chiatric Genetics Section), 114, 471–478.
Whitaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics in Jones, D., & Christensen, C. (1999). The relation-
composing of elementary school students: A new ship between automaticity in handwriting and
methodological approach. Journal of Education- students’ ability to generate written text. Journal
al Psychology, 89, 170–182. of Educational Psychology, 91, 44–49.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1996). Addressing prob- Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write. A longi-

362 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

tudinal study of 54 children from first through McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writ-
fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psycholo- ing: Working memory in composition. Educa-
gy, 80, 437–447. tional Psychology Review, 8, 299–325,
Leong, C. K. (2000). Rapid processing of base and
derived forms of words and grades 4, 5, and 6 McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Ofiesh, N.
children’s spelling. Reading and Writing: An In- (1997). Proofreading for students with learning
terdisciplinary Journal, 12, 277–302. disabilities: Integrating computer and strategy
Levine, M., Oberklaid, F., & Meltzer, L. (1981). use. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
Developmental output failure: A study of low 12, 16–28.
productivity in school-age children. Pediatrics,
67, 18–25. Moats, L. (2000). Speech to print. Language essen-
Lewis, R. (1998). Enhancing the writing skills of tials for teachers. Baltimore: Brookes.
students with learning disabilities through tech-
nology: An investigation of the effects of text en- The Psychological Corporation. (2002). Wechsler
try tools, editing tools, and speech synthesis (Fi- Individual Achievement Test—2nd Edition.
nal report for H1800G40073, Special Education (WIAT-II). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Cor-
Programs (ED/OSERS)). Washington, DC. poration.
Lewis, R., Ashton, T., Haapa, B., Kieley, C., &
Fielden, C. (2000). Improving the writing skills Raskind, M., & Higgins, E. (1995). Reflections on
of students with learning disabilities: Are word ethics, technology, and learning disabilities:
processors with spelling and grammar checkers Avoiding the consequences of ill-considered ac-
useful? Learning Disabilities, 9, 87–98. tions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28,
Lewis, R., Graves, A., Ashton, T., & Kieley, C. 425–438.
(1998). Word processing tools for students with
learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies Reece, J., & Cumming, G. (1996). Evaluating
to increase text entry speed. Learning Disabilities speech-based composition methods: Planning,
Research and Practice, 13, 95–108. dictation, and the listening word processor. In C.
MacArthur, C. (1996). Using technology to enhance M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of
the writing processes of students with learning writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29,
344–354. Sandler, A., Watson, T., Footo, M., Levine, M.,
MacArthur, C. (1999). Overcoming barriers to writ- Coleman, W., & Hooper, S. (1992). Neurodede-
ing: Computer support for basic writing skills. velopmental study of writing disorders of middle
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 169–192. childhood. Journal of Developmental and Behav-
MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning dis- ioral Pediatrics, 13, 17–23.
abled students composing under three methods of
text production: Handwriting, word processing, Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goleman, H.
and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21, (1982). The role of production factors in writing
22–42. ability. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., Haynes, J., & De La know: The language, process, and structure of
Paz, S. (1996). Spelling checkes and students with written discourse (pp. 173–210). New York: Aca-
learning disabilities: Performance comparisons demic Press.
and impact on spelling. Journal of Special Educa-
tion, 30, 35–57. Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. (1996). Individual
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & differences in children’s working memory and
Schafer, W. (1995). Evaluation of a writing in- writing skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psy-
struction model that integrated a process ap- chology, 63, 358–385.
proach, strategy instruction, and word process-
ing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 278–291, Treiman, R. (1997). Spelling in normal children and
MacArthur, C., Haynes, J., Malouf, D., Harris, K., dyslexics. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of
& Owings, M. (1990). Computer-assisted in- reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for
struction with learning disabled students: early intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Achievement, engagement, and other factors that
influence achievement. Journal of Educational Treiman, R., & Bourassa, D. (2000). The develop-
Computing Research, 6, 311–328. ment of spelling skill. Topics in Language Disor-
Masterson, J., Apel, K., & Wasowicz, J. (2002). A ders, 20, 1–18.
prescriptive assessment of spelling on CD-ROM.
Evanston, IL: Learning by Design. Tyler, A., & Nagy, W. (1989). The acquisition of
McCutchen, D. (1995). Cognitive processes in chil- English derivational morphology. Journal of
dren’s writing: Developmental and individual Memory and Language, 28, 649–667.
differences. In J. S. Carlson (Ed.), Issues in educa-
tion: Contributions from educational psycholo- Varnhagen, C. (1994). Children’s spelling strategies.
gists (pp. 123–160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of ortho-
graphic knowledge II: Relationships to phonolo-
gy, reading, and writing (pp. 251–290). Dor-
drecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Varnhagen, C., Varnhagen, S., & Das, J. P. (1992).
Analysis of cognitive processing and spelling er-
rors of average ability and reading disabled chil-
dren. Reading Psychology: An International
Journal, 13, 217–239.

Venezky, R. (1970). The structure of English or-
thography. The Hague: Mouton.

Venezky, R. (1999). The American way of spelling.
New York: Guilford Press.

Assessment and Intervention for Transcription Problems 363

Weintraub, N., & Graham, S. (2000). The contribu- Wong, B., Butler, D., Ficzere, S., & Kuperis, S.
tion of gender, orthographic, finger function, and (1996). Teaching low achievers and students with
visual-motor processes to the prediction of hand- learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise
written status. Occupational Therapy Journal of opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
Research, 20, 121–140. 29, 1978–212.

Wise, B., & Olson, R. (1992). How poor readers Wong, B., Butler, D., Ficzere, S., Kuperis, S., Corden,
and spellers use interactive speech in a computer- M., & Zelmer, J. (1994). Teaching problem learn-
ized spelling program. Reading and Writing: An ers revision skills and sensitivity to audience
Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 145–163. through two instructional modes: Student-teacher
versus student-student interactive dialogues.
Wise, B., & Olson, R. (1994). Computer speech Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9,
and the remeditaion of reading and spelling prob- 78–90.
lems. Journal of Special Education Technology,
12, 207–220. Yates, C., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (1994). Writ-
ing problems in intellectually gifted children. Jour-
Wong, B. (1997). Research on genre-specific strate- nal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 131–155.
gies for enhancing writing in adolescents with
learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarter- Zimmerman, B., & Reisenberg, R. (1997). Becom-
ly, 20, 140–159. ing a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive per-
spective. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
Wong, B. (Ed.). (1998). Learning about learning 22, 73–101.
disabilities (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.

22

Science and Social Studies

Thomas E. Scruggs
Margo A. Mastropieri

Science and social studies are significant tent by the advent of high-stakes testing,
content areas, incorporating much of what which in many cases has emphasized the ac-
is taught in U.S. public schools. Both areas quisition of basic content knowledge (Frase-
have been the focus of reform efforts in re- Blunt, 2000).
cent years, reflected most strongly in Presi-
dent George H. Bush’s mandate, as part of In fact, students with learning disabilities
his America 2000 goals, that U.S. students have not been heavily involved in educa-
should be “first in the world” (p. 63) in sci- tional decision making relevant to science or
ence achievement by the year 2000 (U.S. De- social studies. For example, the AAAS
partment of Education, 1991). In most cas- book, Science for All Americans (Ruther-
es, it has been recommended that models of ford & Ahlgren, 1990) avoided mention of
rote learning of facts and principles be aban- Americans with disabilities, although it did
doned in favor of models that emphasize provide discussion of race, gender, lan-
higher-order thinking skills. The American guage, and economic circumstance as it re-
Association for the Advancement of Science lated to science education. Further, imple-
(AAAS), for example, suggested a model of mentation of high-stakes testing has often
science education that emphasized reorga- not carefully considered the needs of stu-
nizing content, promoting the study of com- dents with disabilities (Frase-Blunt, 2000).
mon themes, interrelating science, mathe-
matics, and technology with human and Nevertheless, a substantial amount of re-
social aspects, and developing understand- search has been undertaken in science and
ing of the “big picture,” rather than sup- social studies education for students with
porting details and specialized vocabulary learning disabilities. In this chapter, we pro-
(Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990). Similarly, it vide an overview of research in this area,
has been recommended that instruction in followed by a discussion of theoretical mod-
social studies focus on broad themes and els relevant to science and social studies for
ideas, and less on recitation of names and students with learning disabilities. We next
dates (Brophy, 1990). These views have provide a review of research in the area con-
been challenged in recent years to some ex- ducted by ourselves and colleagues and dis-
cuss the cumulative findings and implica-
tions of this research.

364

Science and Social Studies 365

Research in Science and Social Studies with learning disabilities include problems
with Students with Learning Disabilities in language and literacy (Kavale & Forness,
1995), attention (Hallahan & Cottone,
In spite of a relative lack of attention from 1997), semantic or verbal memory (Swan-
mainstream science and social studies edu- son, 1987), working memory (Swanson,
cators, some attention has been focused on 1994), metacognition, or awareness of cog-
content-area learning of students with nitive processes (Montague, 1998), and, in
learning disabilities, and to some extent this some cases, social skills and peer relations
research has followed the dominant para- (Sullivan & Mastropieri, 1994). All or any
digms found in the general education litera- of these characteristics can limit potential
ture. Mastropieri and Scruggs (1992) re- for academic success in science and social
viewed research on science instruction with studies for students with learning disabili-
students with disabilities from 1954 to ties. For individuals with such characteris-
1992 and identified 25 studies that involved tics, it has often been found that a combina-
learning disabilities, and (Scruggs, Mas- tion of strategy training and direct
tropieri, & Boon, 1998) reviewed science instruction has been effective (Swanson &
education literature from 1992 to 1998, Hoskyn, 2000), and, in fact, many special
identifying a number of additional studies education programs operate on these princi-
involving students with learning disabilities. ples (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2002).
Much of this research focused on text adap-
tations, including study guides and graphic It has also been suggested that many if
organizers (e.g., Benedetti, 1984; Bergerud, not most problems underlying learning dis-
Lovitt, & Horton, 1988; Horton, Lovitt, & abilities result from a relative deficit in
Bergerud, 1990; Horton, Lovitt, Givens, & phonemic awareness, the ability to isolate
Nelson, 1989; Lovitt, Rudsit, Jenkins, Pi- and discriminate among the smallest mean-
ous, & Benedetti, 1985, 1986). Other re- ingful units of speech. Because of such
search investigated the effectiveness of deficits, it is argued, students often do not
mnemonic strategy instruction to facilitate develop fluent reading skills, which later has
recall of science and social studies content a negative impact on comprehending con-
(e.g., Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1989a). In ad- tent-area textbooks (Lyon et al., 2001;
dition, research has investigated outcomes Sternberg, 1999). Though such problems
associated with hands-on, or activities- likely play a role, it seems unlikely that
oriented models of content-area instruction phonemic awareness is in itself responsible
(e.g., Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Magnusen, for all problems in science and social studies
1999; Palincsar, Magnusson, Collins, & achievement. Such an argument must either
Cutter, 2001). Most recently, researchers ignore or subordinate observed deficits in
have developed technological “virtual reali- other areas, including working memory, se-
ty” approaches to science learning (Sprague mantic memory, prior knowledge, and orga-
& Behrmann, 2001). All these areas have nizational and study skills, all of which have
reported positive outcomes for students been seen to play a role in academic prob-
with learning disabilities, as they have influ- lems of students with learning disabilities
enced both text–vocabulary recall and ac- (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2001). Such an ar-
quisition of relevant concepts. gument also makes the incorrect assump-
tion that study from text is the only medium
Theoretical Models for content-area learning.

Theoretical perspectives relevant to this Science and social studies education have
area of inquiry involve analysis of the char- been characterized by two major models of
acteristics of learning disabilities, analysis of instruction (e.g., Mastropieri & Scruggs,
the characteristics of curriculum and in- 1996). Most professional organizations and
struction in science and social studies, and university science education programs have
analysis of the interaction of characteristics advocated constructivist, child-centered
of the curriculum and characteristics of the models of instruction (e.g., Rutherford &
learner. Relevant characteristics of students Ahlgren, 1990). In science, these models fo-
cus on concrete experiences with relevant
hands-on activities and an inductive, in-
quiry model for constructing content

366 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

knowledge. Often these activities are under- instruction for students with disabilities
taken in cooperative learning groups. Social may include learning and memory strategies
studies professionals often endorse a “So- for academic content, strategies for studying
cratic” approach to instruction (Brophy, from text, adapted hands-on activities, and
1990), which promotes learner inquiry and teacher support for inquiry learning. In the
avoids a direct teaching model of instruc- following section, we discuss our own re-
tion. Such models typically emphasize the search program in science and social stud-
process of knowledge construction and pro- ies.
mote depth of learning over breadth and
comprehension of relevant concepts over re- Our Program of Research
call of factual material.
Samples
In contrast to constructivist approaches
are content-driven or textbook-based ap- Throughout our research program, we have
proaches to science and social studies. These employed school-identified samples of stu-
approaches, commonly found in public dents with learning disabilities, although in
schools, involve substantial vocabulary some cases we have subdivided these sam-
learning (e.g., phagocytosis, radial symme- ples into subgroups. To this extent, students
try, and hegemony), learning and recall of with learning disabilities have putatively
large amounts of factual content, lecture met the state criteria for learning disabili-
and worksheet activities, and independent ties, which has typically meant a significant
study from text. Content-driven models typ- discrepancy between ability and achieve-
ically emphasize breadth over depth of ment (1 standard deviation or more), cou-
learning and the acquisition of factual mate- pled with exclusionary criteria such as ade-
rial. Content-driven models have gained quate sensory, intellectual, and emotional
much momentum during the current era of functioning; lack of cultural disadvantage;
standards-based learning and high-stakes and adequate opportunity to learn. Howev-
testing (Frase-Blunt, 2000). er, it is also clear that in many cases, stu-
dents identified by schools as having learn-
Scruggs and Mastropieri (1993) reviewed ing disabilities have not met state standards
science curriculum and characteristics of (e.g., MacMillan, Gresham, & Bocian,
students with special needs and concluded 1998); thus to the extent this is true, it is
that there are several potential advantages possible that samples we have employed
to constructivist approaches. These advan- have not all met state definitional standards
tages include emphasis on concrete, mean- and may have performed differently than
ingful experiences, emphasis on redundancy students identified using different proce-
and depth of learning, deemphasis of rote dures. Typically, we conducted our interven-
verbal learning, and use of performance as- tion research on students as they appeared
sessment, in which learners demonstrate in special education or inclusive classes and
their knowledge on relevant materials reported assessment data as they appeared
rather than exclusive reliance on paper-and- in school files (which may not always have
pencil tests. Potential challenges may in- been the same data on which placement de-
clude appropriate interaction with peers cisions were made), as indicators of current
and overreliance on learner “discovery” and functioning. In addition to IQ and achieve-
insight in concept acquisition. Although ment data, we have also included, when
content-driven models may include fewer of available, data on such variables as age, eth-
these latter challenges, they have in com- nicity, gender, years in special education,
mon the demands on semantic memory and and time per day in special education set-
independent learning of often abstract con- tings. We chose not to exclude any students
tent from texts, areas that are known to be from participating in classroom interven-
problematic for students with learning dis- tions, even when, in some cases, smaller
abilities. Mastropieri and Scruggs (1994b) numbers of students identified as having
evaluated science curriculum from several mild mental retardation were included in
school districts and concluded that vocabu- the classes. In most cases, effects were so
lary demands were particularly challenging pronounced (e.g., using mnemonic instruc-
in content-driven approaches. They con-
cluded that strategies for effective science

Science and Social Studies 367

tion) that it seemed unlikely that subgroups it is not realistic to suggest that one particu-
were not responding. And, in fact, mnemon- lar model of instruction or instructional
ic instruction has been seen to be effective strategy will accomplish all instructional
with many other types of students, includ- objectives in these areas. Instead, instruc-
ing normally achieving and “gifted” (Scrug- tional strategies must interact appropriately
gs & Mastropieri, 1988). When we felt with both the characteristics of learning dis-
there was reason to anticipate differential abilities and the characteristics of the cur-
responding to treatment (e.g., in our investi- riculum or content to be learned. Therefore,
gations of scientific reasoning), we exam- our own approach to science and social
ined the role of IQ in predicting outcomes. studies instruction has involved a variety of
instructional strategies and materials, de-
Designs pending on the particular instructional ob-
jectives being considered. Overall, our ap-
Most of our research was conducted as true proach to facilitating to content learning
“laboratory” experiments, classroom appli- has involved text-processing strategies,
cations, or teacher applications. For our ini- mnemonic strategies, elaborative interroga-
tial investigations into the efficacy of partic- tion, inquiry/oriented and activities-oriented
ular strategies (e.g., text processing, instruction, and peer tutoring.
mnemonic strategies, or coached elabora-
tions), we employed true experimental de- Text-Processing Strategies
signs, in which students were assigned at
random to individual treatments with re- Much of content-area instruction, as em-
searchers. Such designs seemed particularly ployed in schools, requires independent
appropriate at early stages of research. In study from texts, an area of great difficulty
later studies, when we taught students in for students with learning disabilities (Mas-
small groups, we assigned the groups at ran- tropieri & Scruggs, 1997). Although rela-
dom to treatment conditions, and used tively simple summarization strategies have
group performance means as the unit of been demonstrated to be effective in pro-
analysis. For our broader classroom appli- moting text recall (e.g., Malone & Mas-
cation studies, we used crossover designs, in tropieri, 1992), it seemed that more com-
which classrooms of students received both plex strategies could be useful for
treatments in counterbalanced order which processing content area texts. This hypothe-
controlled for the effects of treatment order sis was tested on a sample of 54 eighth-
and relative unit difficulty. In those investi- grade students with learning disabilities,
gations, each student served as his or her who were taught to study science text over
own control, so the effects of differential at- 3 days of individually administered sessions.
trition over the longer course of the treat- Bakken, Mastropieri, and Scruggs (1997)
ment were minimized (Mastropieri & developed a set of text processing strategies
Scruggs, 1994a). For teacher applications, a based on the type of text structure being
variety of designs were employed, including considered (see Cook, 1983). These strate-
within-subjects, pre–post, and group-com- gies included those appropriate for studying
parative designs. Although these designs text with main idea, list, or order structures.
typically lacked experimental rigor, they An example of a main idea paragraph is a
nevertheless provided an important link to description of acid rain, with supporting
actual teacher classroom practice. statements. An example of a list paragraph
is a main topic such as runoff, and a list of
Teaching and Learning Strategies attributes, such as amount of rain, slope of
the land, and amount of vegetation. An ex-
Science and social studies are complex con- ample of an order paragraph is a main top-
tent areas, involving a variety of facts, rules, ic, such as sedimentary rocks, followed by
concepts, procedures, and understandings specific steps in sequence, such as breaking
to be acquired. These may interact with par- up rock, moving pieces by water, erosion
ticular characteristics in these same types of building layers of material, and pressure
learning (Scruggs, 1988). As a consequence, from upper layers of rock. Students in the
text structure processing condition were

368 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

taught to identify these different types of studies texts when studying for later re-
text structure and to employ study strategies trieval.
appropriate to each. All conditions received
3 days of training. For example, if students Mnemonic Instruction
identified a paragraph as main idea, they
were taught to locate and underline the Many school programs in science and social
main idea, then to write down the main idea studies instruction actively promote factual
and supporting information in the student’s content and vocabulary knowledge as criti-
own words. If students identified a para- cal components of such instruction. Stu-
graph as list, they were taught to locate and dents with learning disabilities, many of
underline the general topic of the passage, whom experience difficulty in verbal learn-
then to write down the general topic and ing and memory, may find such programs
subtopics in the student’s own words. If stu- extremely challenging. Given the strong em-
dents identified a paragraph as order, they phasis on fact and vocabulary learning of
were taught to locate and underline the gen- such programs (Mastropieri & Scruggs,
eral topic of the passage, then to write down 1993), we have developed an extended pro-
the details with respect to the order identi- gram of applied research on the use of
fied in the passage. Students in the para- mnemonic strategies to promote such learn-
graph restatement condition received train- ing. Mnemonic instruction was thought to
ing in reading the paragraph and writing interact positively with the characteristics of
short restatements of the paragraph in their learning disabilities, because it enhances
own words. Over 3 days, they studied the meaningfulness and concreteness in learn-
strategy using the same materials studied in ing, and because it emphasizes relative
the paragraph restatement condition. In the strengths of students with learning disabili-
traditional instruction condition, students ties (memory for pictures, use of acoustic
practiced on the same passages by reading encoding and retrieval) and deemphasizes
the passages and answering questions. Stu- relative weaknesses (automatic semantic
dents were asked to recall the information processing, memory for abstract vocabu-
and were given corrective feedback as neces- lary) (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Levin, 1987).
sary.
One of the most commonly used
After 3 days of instruction, all students mnemonic strategies in this research is the
on the fourth day received a test involving keyword method (Atkinson, 1975). Using
studying new passages. On the fifth day, the keyword method, a concrete, acoustical-
students were given a transfer test on social ly similar keyword is created for a new vo-
studies passages. Students taught to use text cabulary word. For example, to promote re-
structure processing strategies significantly call that the scientific term ranidae refers to
and substantially outperformed students on the family of common frogs, a keyword is
other conditions on recall of central infor- created. In this case, “rain” would be a
mation and recall of incidental information good keyword for ranidae, because it
and on all transfer measures. Student scores sounds like the first part of ranidae and is
were particularly low in the traditional in- easily pictured. Next, an interactive illustra-
struction, suggesting that typical methods of tion is created in which the keyword and the
promoting content-area study skills are not definition are shown interacting. In the pre-
at all effective with students with learning sent instance, a frog could be shown sitting
disabilities. Student survey reports suggest in the rain. Learners are told to study the
that students also felt that the text structure picture and when asked the meaning of
processing strategy was effective, and that ranidae, first think of the keyword (“rain”),
traditional methods were not. Although the think of the picture with the rain in it (frog
passages were developed specifically for this in the rain), and retrieve the answer, frogs
investigation, and therefore may not have (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000, Chapter 10).
been entirely representative of content-area Mastropieri, Scruggs, Levin, Gaffney, and
passages typically found in textbooks, the McLoone (1985) employed the keyword
substantial effect sizes obtained suggest that method to teach vocabulary words to stu-
it is important to teach students how to dents with learning disabilities and found
identify the structure of science and social that students instructed mnemonically sig-

Science and Social Studies 369

nificantly and substantially outperformed that experiment overall learning gains were
students taught using a direct instruction, lower in both mnemonic and comparison
rehearsal-based teaching strategy. Mas- conditions, and a substantial amount of time
tropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, and Brigham was needed to pretrain students in the use of
(1992) reported that keywords could be the mnemonic pegwords. In a related investi-
combined to facilitate learning of U.S. states gation, Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Whedon
and capitals. Fulk, Mastropieri, and Scruggs (1997) reported that students with learning
(1992) demonstrated that students with disabilities remembered significantly more
learning disabilities could be trained to gen- U.S. Presidents (e.g., Jackson = seventh pres-
erate their own mnemonic strategies in sci- ident) when using a mnemonic keyword–
ence and social studies to outperform stu- pegword strategy.
dents who studied using a rehearsal-based
study strategy (see also King-Sears, Mercer, To determine how much information
& Sindelar, 1992). could be included on one mnemonic picture,
Scruggs, Mastropieri, Levin, and Gaffney
Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Levin (1985) (1985) taught multiple attributes of miner-
added a pegword strategy to the keyword als, including hardness level, color, and use,
method to teach hardness levels of North to adolescent students with learning disabili-
American minerals, according to the Mohs ties. For example, to teach that wolframite
scale, to secondary students with learning was hardness level four, was black in color,
disabilities. Pegwords are rhyming proxies and used in the manufacture of (tungsten fil-
for numbers (e.g., one is bun, two is shoe, aments for) lightbulbs, students were shown
three is tree) and are used in teaching num- a picture of a black wolf standing on a tile
bered or ordered information. For example, floor, turning on a lightbulb. Students were
to teach that wolframite is hardness level taught, when asked to recall attributes of
four, a keyword was constructed for wol- wolframite, to think of the keyword (wolf),
framite (wolf), and a pegword was used for remember with the picture with the wolf in
four (floor). The interactive mnemonic illus- it, and remember the color (black wolf),
tration was a wolf on a floor. Students were hardness level (floor = four), and use (light-
taught, when asked the hardness level of bulbs). Students mnemonically taught attrib-
wolframite, to think of the keyword (wolf), utes of eight minerals greatly outperformed
think of the picture with the wolf in it, re- students taught by direct instruction or free
member there was a floor in the picture, and study. In a fourth condition, students were
retrieve the answer, four. Students taught taught attributes of only four minerals via di-
hardness levels of 14 minerals using this rect instruction and remembered a smaller
mnemonic technique substantially outscored proportion than students taught attributes of
students taught via direct instruction– eight minerals mnemonically. Later studies
rehearsal or a free study control. Students demonstrated that information about miner-
taught mnemonically retained their advan- als could be effectively coded into di-
tage over comparisons on a 24-hour recall chotomies (hard vs. soft, light vs. dark, home
task, remembering even more hardness levels vs. industrial use) (Mastropieri, Scruggs,
the second day than they had on the day of McLoone, & Levin, 1985), and whether
instruction. The population of students with such mnemonic illustrations could be incor-
learning disabilities was subdivided into stu- porated into text to facilitate prose recall
dents who scored relatively higher or lower (Scruggs, Mastropieri, McLoone, Levin, &
on tests of reading comprehension. No inter- Morrison, 1987). Veit, Scruggs, and Mas-
actions were observed between treatment tropieri (1986) demonstrated that mnemon-
and comprehension level. Further research ic strategies could be used effectively over
demonstrated the facilitative effect of multiple lessons with students with learning
mnemonic instruction when instruction was disabilities, and that color could be used to
delivered in small groups rather than indi- encode information (green = herbivore, red =
vidually (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Levin, carnivore). Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Levin
1986). In that investigation, it was seen in a (1987) found that other academic informa-
second experiment that students with mild tion employing different learning strategies,
mental retardation could also benefit from could be included in mnemonic instructional
the keyword–pegword strategy. However, in lessons. Finally, Scruggs, Mastropieri, Levin,

370 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

McLoone, Gaffney, and Prater (1985) with five students identified as having learn-
demonstrated in two experiments that ing disabilities. The teacher reported that
mnemonic instruction of dichotomous or while mnemonic strategies raised test per-
continuous attributes of minerals was supe- formance of normally achieving students
rior to conditions employing visuospatial from 83.3% to 88.9%, they raised the per-
displays as an organizing strategy. formance of students with learning disabili-
ties from 36.7% to 75%.
Scruggs and Mastropieri (1989a, 1989b)
attempted to broaden mnemonic instruc- Scruggs, Mastropieri, Brigham, and Sulli-
tional procedures to include other types of van (1992) investigated whether mnemonic
encoding in a model they referred to as re- illustrations could be helpful in facilitating
constructive elaborations. In this model, recall of spatial information from maps.
content is evaluated for concreteness and fa- Students with learning disabilities studied
miliarity, and appropriate strategies are de- maps with mnemonic pictures for place
veloped to address this content. That is, for names (Ticonderoga = tiger) or nonm-
information that is unfamiliar (e.g., Eddie nemonic pictures (e.g.,. a military fort). Stu-
Rickenbacker was a World War I flying dents who had studied the mnemonic maps
ace), mnemonic keywords (e.g., linebacker) were much more able to identify the loca-
or pegwords are employed as acoustic re- tions of battles of the American Revolution.
constructions. For information that is famil- In another study, Brigham, Scruggs, and
iar but abstract (e.g., U.S. foreign policy), Mastropieri (1995) demonstrated that
pictures representing symbols (e.g., Uncle mnemonic maps could be also effectively in-
Sam) are employed as symbolic reconstruc- clude narrative information from particular
tions. For information that employs familiar battles (e.g., a tiger with a cannon to repre-
and concrete vocabulary (e.g,. many World sent that American forces captured cannon
War I soldiers died of illness contracted in at Ft. Ticonderoga).
unhealthy trenches), this information is rep-
resented literally in mimetic reconstructions Overall, mnemonic strategy instruction
(e.g, sick soldiers in trenches). It was found has been associated with substantial posi-
that the model of reconstructive elabora- tive effects. Scruggs and Mastropieri (2000)
tions can be versatile in addressing different conducted a meta-analysis of all mnemonic
types of content and can facilitate learning instructional research with students with
and recall far better than direct teaching special needs (79% of the research studies
methods which do not employ mnemonics. were conducted with students with learning
Although that investigation employed true disabilities) and obtained an average effect
experimental methodology (students as- size of 1.59 (SD = .93) for mnemonic sci-
signed individually, at random, and treated ence instruction (n of effect sizes = 13), and
individually), later studies employed class- an average effect size of 1.53 (SD = .86) for
room applications of reconstructive elabo- mnemonic social studies instruction (n of ef-
rations in science and social studies to class- fect sizes = 13). These highly similar mean
es of students with learning disabilities, for effect sizes suggest that mnemonic instruc-
periods of instruction up to 8 weeks (Mas- tion is similarly facilitative in the two con-
tropieri & Scruggs, 1988, 1989b; Scruggs tent areas. In each case, the outcomes asso-
& Mastropieri, 1992). In an application of ciated with mnemonic instruction were
reconstructive elaborations in science learn- positive, leading to a nearly 2-to–1 learning
ing, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1992) report- advantage for mnemonic instruction over a
ed that students with learning disabilities variety of comparison conditions. Mean ef-
could effectively create their own mnemonic fect sizes were also highly similar for inves-
strategies, but that the classes progressed tigations conducted by Mastropieri, Scrug-
through the content at only one-third the gs, and colleagues and investigations
rate they did when teachers presented al- conducted by other researchers (e.g., King-
ready-constructed mnemonic illustrations. Sears et al., 1992).
Mastropieri, Sweda, and Scruggs (2000) de-
scribed a teacher application of mnemonic Coached Elaborations
strategy instruction, used by a fourth-grade
teacher of an inclusive social studies class, Within special education some debate exists
whether information should be presented

Science and Social Studies 371

directly or whether students should be After treatment and a brief delay interval,
prompted and coached to create knowledge students were asked to recall the fact (e.g.,
for themselves (Mastropieri & Scruggs, “What did you learn about anteaters?”) and
2002). Learning of information about life the explanation for that fact (e.g, “Why
science under inquiry or direct instruction does that fact make sense?”). Scruggs and
procedures was directly investigated in a se- colleagues (1994) concluded that students
ries of investigations. Scruggs, Mastropieri, scored higher in the coached-elaboration
Sullivan, and Hesser (1993), investigating condition than in the other two conditions
the utility of the pegword method in pro- on immediate and delayed (1-week) recall.
moting recall of information about di- Students learned and recalled more infor-
nosaur extinction, found that students with mation when they were prompted to active-
learning disabilities, including a small num- ly reason through it themselves than when
ber of students with mild mental retarda- they were directly provided with the same
tion, comprehended better when prompted information. Explanation score was particu-
to explain the reasons given for dinosaur larly low in the no-explanation condition,
extinction (e.g., “why does this make suggesting the need for students with learn-
sense?”). Scruggs, Mastropieri, and Sullivan ing disabilities to practice active thinking
(1994) taught fourth- and fifth-grade stu- about academic content. However, there
dents with learning disabilities, including a was not a statistically significant difference
small number of students with mild mental on immediate fact recall between the
retardation, facts about animals, under coached-elaborations and provided-elabora-
three conditions. In the no-explanation con- tions groups; and only about half the stu-
dition, students were told the fact and dents were available for delayed recall test-
asked to repeat it (e.g., “Anteaters have ing, because of the end of the school year.
long claws on their front feet. What do Sullivan, Mastropieri, and Scruggs (1995)
anteaters have? Good, anteaters have long replicated and extended this study with a
claws on their front feet.”). In the provided- sample of 63 students with learning disabili-
elaboration condition, students were pro- ties, who had an average 15-point discrep-
vided with both the fact and the explana- ancy between IQ and language achieve-
tion (e.g., “Anteaters have long claws on ment, and a somewhat smaller discrepancy
their front feet, so that they can dig for between IQ and reading achievement. In
ants. What do anteaters have? Good, long that investigation, students in the coached
claws on their front feet. Why do they have elaboration condition outperformed stu-
long claws on their front feet? Good, to dig dents in other conditions on all measures,
for ants.”). In the coached-elaboration with the exception that the mean delayed
condition, students were not directly pro- explanation score was not significantly
vided with the explanation but a series of higher than that of the provided-explana-
prompts to lead them to the correct answer, tion condition. However, even in that com-
as in the following: parison, students in the coached-elaboration
condition outperformed provided-explana-
EXPERIMENTER: Anteaters have long claws on tion students by .60 standard deviation
their front feet. Why does it make sense that units.
anteaters have claws on their front feet?
In a test of independent use of coached
STUDENT: I don’t know. elaborations, Mastropieri and colleagues
EXPERIMENTER: Well, let’s think. What do we (1996) presented prose passages containing
facts about vertebrate animals to 29 sev-
know about anteaters. For example, what enth- and eighth-grade students with learn-
do they eat? ing disabilities. Students in the control con-
STUDENT: Anteaters eat ants. dition were told to read each sentence and
EXPERIMENTER: Good! And, where do ants try hard to remember the information. In
live? the experimental condition, students were
STUDENT: In holes in the ground. trained to ask themselves and answer
EXPERIMENTER: So, why does it make sense “why” questions about the information pre-
that anteaters have long front claws? sented in each sentence (e.g., “Why would it
STUDENT: So they can dig for ants. make sense that camels have two rows of
EXPERIMENTER: Good. To dig for ants. (trans-
lated from Mastropieri, 1995, pp. 122–123)

372 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

eyelids?”). Results suggested that students lum movement. These prompts focused at-
in the condition performed similarly in re- tention on string length and rate of swing,
call of factual information; however, stu- had participants rearrange a series of pen-
dents trained in thinking skills produced dulums in order of length and evaluate
significantly more correct explanations of change in swing rate, and provided direct
that information than did students in the prompts regarding swing rate and length.
control condition. Student performance in Finally, students were provided directly with
both conditions was lower than observed in the rule and asked if they agreed that it was
previous studies in which students were di- accurate. Students were then given two
rectly coached and prompted to reason transfer tasks in which they were asked to
through school content. Across all investi- apply the rule. Analysis of results revealed
gations, it was concluded that appropriately that virtually all normally achieving stu-
structured coaching can result in higher per- dents constructed the appropriate rule ei-
formance than direct teaching and rehearsal ther immediately or with only one prompt.
techniques, and that the constructivist no- Half the students with learning disabilities
tion of learning can lead to at least some constructed the rule immediately, but all
positive outcomes for students with learning others required more extensive prompting.
disabilities. However, almost all the students with men-
tal retardation never constructed the rule in-
Differential Outcomes to dependently and required explicit provision
Inquiry-Oriented Instruction of the rule to proceed. Performance on the
generalization task was mixed. When asked
It was thought that students with learning to estimate the rate of swing on a new pen-
disabilities, with relative weakness in vocab- dulum, only 50% of the students with
ulary learning, text processing, and working learning disabilities were able to do so
memory, would potentially benefit from the (compared with 90% of normally achieving
concrete, nonverbal experiences provided students); however, when asked a question
by activities-oriented approaches. However, about how to slow the speed of a grandfa-
it was also thought that the emphasis on ab- ther clock that was running too fast, nearly
stract, inductive thinking found in construc- the same proportion of students with learn-
tivist approaches may prove to be a source ing disabilities (94.4%) answered correctly
of difficulty for students with learning dis- as did normally achieving students (95%).
abilities. This question was tested in two ex- In contrast, few students with mental retar-
periments evaluating possible differential dation responded correctly to either task.
learning outcomes in inquiry learning sci-
ence tasks. Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Butch- Since the students with learning disabili-
er (1997) presented middle school students ties who had exhibited difficulties on the
with learning disabilities, students with pendulum task tended to be those with low-
mental retardation, and normally achieving er psychometric intelligence, we planned an-
students a task in which, in a series of steps, other study that would examine inquiry
they were expected to infer the relationship learning in science across the range of IQ
between rate of swing of a pendulum and rather than across disability categories.
the length of the pendulum (i.e., increasing Mastropieri, Scruggs, Boon, and Carter
pendulum length negatively influences rate (2001) examined relative learning efficacy
of swing). All students were seen individual- on an inquiry task of principles of buoyan-
ly. Students with learning disabilities scored cy, in which students were asked to draw
an average of 15.5 standard score points relevant inductions about density and flota-
lower in reading achievement than on stan- tion (i.e., that more dense substances float
dardized tests of intelligence, whereas stu- on less dense substances). In this investiga-
dents with mental retardation had an aver- tion, normally achieving students and stu-
age IQ score of 60. After presentation of dents with “high-incidence disabilities” (48
pendulums of different lengths and calcula- were students with learning disabilities, and
tion of their rates of swing, students were 3 were students with autism or mild mental
presented with a number of prompts to elic- retardation) across a range of grade levels
it the inductive conclusion regarding pendu- (1–6). In this investigation, we were inter-
ested in the role of psychometric IQ and

Science and Social Studies 373

grade level as predictors of inquiry science activities-oriented procedures. After 2
learning. We found that across all students, weeks of instruction, it was found that stu-
grade level was significantly correlated with dents learned and recalled substantially
all learning tasks, including preconceptions more in the activities-oriented condition, re-
of density/flotation, density/flotation score gardless of the unit being studied. Further-
on the learning task, and generalization more, although students recalled more vo-
score (rs = 0.25–0.43). These findings are cabulary in the activities-oriented condition,
consistent with the general science educa- vocabulary learning in both conditions was
tion literature (e.g., Driver, Asoko, Leach, very low, suggesting the need for additional
Mortimer, & Scott, 1994). Further, within vocabulary-enhancement strategies. Mas-
the special education sample, we found that tropieri, Scruggs, and Magnusen (1999) de-
IQ was significantly correlated with all as- scribed several teacher applications of activ-
pects of the learning task (rs = 0.40–0.53). ities-oriented instruction with students with
We subdivided the high-incidence disabili- learning disabilities and other special needs
ties population into IQ > 80 (n = 40) and IQ in areas including human anatomy, rocks
< 80 (n = 11) and observed that students in and minerals, and the nervous system. In all
the higher IQ group scored almost identical- cases, students outperformed students in
ly to the normally achieving students, and textbook conditions, or made significant
significantly higher than the lower IQ group pre–posttest gains. In a 2-year qualitative
on all measures. These two investigations, study of activities-oriented science instruc-
taken together, suggested that IQ, rather tion in special education classes of students
than learning disability status, predicted with learning disabilities and mild mental
learning on constructivist, inquiry-oriented retardation, Scruggs and Mastropieri
science tasks, and that most students with (1994a) reported that, with sufficient
learning disabilities, perhaps with some ad- teacher academic and behavioral support,
ditional prompting, could be expected to students responded positively to an activi-
function adequately on such tasks. Students ties and inquiry-oriented approach to sci-
with mental retardation or lower IQ, unlike ence instruction, which employed question-
students with learning disabilities, may ex- ing techniques similar to those employed in
hibit difficulty with such task presentations the coached-elaborations investigations
(see also Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1995). (e.g., Sullivan et al., 1995). Similar results
However, it should be remembered that were also reported by Bay, Staver, Bryan,
treatments in these investigations were ad- and Hale (1992).
ministered individually, and that the groups
may have performed differently in group In a long-term qualitative investigation of
learning contexts. science instruction in inclusive elementary
classes, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1994b)
Activities-Oriented Instruction found that students with special needs (in-
cluding students with learning disabilities)
Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken, and Brigham participated successfully. Further, it was
(1993) directly tested the relative benefits of found that, across classrooms and science
textbook and activities-oriented instruction content areas, successful inclusive instruc-
in science learning with four classes of mid- tion was found to be meaningfully associat-
dle school students with learning disabili- ed with (1) administrative support; (2) sup-
ties. All students studied units involving port from special education personnel; (3)
rocks and minerals and electricity according accepting, positive classroom environment;
to textbook-based or activities-oriented in- (4) appropriate (activities-oriented) curricu-
struction. For example, textbook-condition lum; (5) effective general teaching skills; (6)
students studied telegraphs and how they peer assistance; and (7) disability-specific
operated from textbooks and completed teaching skills.
worksheets, while activities-oriented condi-
tion students constructed and operated their The quantitative outcomes of activities-
own telegraphs. In this crossover design, all oriented instruction were tested in inclusive
students completed one unit using text- fourth-grade classes which included students
book-based procedures and one unit using with learning disabilities (in addition to men-
tal retardation, emotional disturbance, and
physical disabilities), studying a months-