374 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION
long unit on ecosystems (Mastropieri et al., discussed and students were encouraged to
1998). In this investigation, students created alter their own responses to reflect informa-
their own ecosystems, described their prop- tion based on the class discussion. In the
erties, and performed experiments on their guided-notes condition, whole-class lecture
ecosystems and observed outcomes. Com- and discussion were employed, and students
pared with general education fourth-grade were provided with guided notes to pro-
classes that spent the same time studying mote learning. At the end of the 8-week
ecosystems from textbooks, worksheets, and unit, analysis of test scores indicated that
paper-and-pencil projects, students using the students in the tutoring condition signifi-
activities-oriented materials scored much cantly outperformed students in the guided-
higher on tests of content recall and on per- notes condition on chapter tests and on the
formance-based measures. Interestingly, in cumulative unit tests. In addition, analysis
this investigation, students with disabilities, of end-of-year testing revealed that students
as a group scored near the average of the in- in the tutoring condition scored significant-
clusive class on all measures, and far above ly higher on the content covered during the
the mean of the textbook-condition classes. experimental unit, while students in the
Also, in the inclusive class, variables associ- guided-notes condition did not. This investi-
ated with effective inclusion were found to gation compares favorably with other peer-
be the same as those identified in the Scruggs tutoring studies in demonstrating the facili-
and Mastropieri (1994a) investigation. tative effect of pairs of students with
learning disabilities working together on
Peer Tutoring academic content (e.g., Cook, Scruggs,
Mastropieri, & Casto, 1985–1986; Mas-
Mastropieri, Scruggs, Spencer, and Fontana tropieri, Spencer, Scruggs, & Talbott, 2000;
(in press) evaluated the effectiveness of a Mathes & Fuchs, 1994; Scruggs & Mas-
peer tutoring procedure with embedded tropieri, 1998), and extends it to use of
strategy questioning, as compared with a reading comprehension strategies on a sec-
guided notes strategy in the study of high ondary content area text.
school world history by 16 students with
special needs, 15 of whom had learning dis- Mastropieri and colleagues (2002) report-
abilities. Using a procedure similar to that ed on an investigation that examined the ef-
employed by Mastropieri, Scruggs, Mohler, fects of integrating strategies to facilitate the
and colleagues (2001) in English classes, learning of complex chemistry content with-
students in the tutoring condition were as- in a peer tutoring delivery system in inclu-
signed to pairs of “admirals” and “gener- sive 10th grade chemistry classes. Classes
als.” At the beginning of tutoring, admirals were cotaught by a general education chem-
read one paragraph while generals listened, istry teacher and a special education teacher
and then students reversed roles. Following with disability-specific expertise along with
oral reading, students used summarization curriculum adaptation expertise. Partici-
strategies to promote reading comprehen- pants included 55 students, of whom 15
sion. Students asked each other after read- had disabilities. Fourteen of the students
ing, “What is the most important what or were classified as having learning disabili-
who in the text?,” followed by “What is the ties and one student was classified as having
most important thing about the what or emotional disabilities and Asperger’s syn-
who in the text?,” and “What is the summa- drome. The mean age of the sample was
ry sentence?” For each paragraph, students 197 months (SD = 8.1).
worked with their partners to develop re-
sponses to the questions, but each student Materials consisted of information identi-
wrote answers to the questions on his or her fied by the teachers as critical for the
own accompanying worksheet. The teacher statewide competency tests that would be
then employed a whole-class review session, administered at the end of the school year.
during which a blank summarization sheet The content was subdivided into relevant
was placed on the overhead projector and units of instruction and further subdivided
students were asked to supply their respons- such that five to seven major ideas were pre-
es to the questions. Differing responses were sented together in a single folder. Each sepa-
rate concept was included on a single tutor-
ing page and consisted of, for example, (a) a
Science and Social Studies 375
question asking the partner, “Who was specific objectives is a critical factor in
Mendeleev?”; (b) a strategy to help facilitate effective instruction.
the learning of the question; (c) a question 2. Maximized engagement. In all our inves-
asking, “What else is important to know tigations, we have made specific efforts
about Mendeleev?”; and (d) questions ask- to maximize engaged time on task, and,
ing for additional characteristics associated in fact, one specific advantage commonly
with the original question and answer. Ma- imputed to peer tutoring is its utility in
terials were further coded such that if a stu- maximizing opportunities to respond
dent knew the answer to the first question, (e.g., Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall,
tutoring partners would skip the strategy 1984).
and move directly to the questions asking 3. Concreteness and meaningfulness. From
for additional relevant information and mnemonic instructional strategies to ac-
characteristics. tive manipulation of science materials,
we have found that efforts to increase
Students were assigned to work with concreteness and meaningfulness have
partners for approximately 15 minutes dur- led to generally positive outcomes, on
ing each class to practice reviewing the con- verbal as well as nonverbal levels (e.g.,
tent area information together. Students Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1998).
with disabilities were assigned to work with 4. Active thinking. In most of our interven-
their typically achieving peers as partners. tion studies, we have actively promoted
Students recorded on sheets in their folders active thinking on the part of students
when they had practiced and mastered the with learning disabilities. This thinking
various items. When they successfully com- has taken many forms, from actively
pleted a folder containing the five to seven thinking about text structure to actively
items, they progressed to the next set of ma- retrieving steps of a mnemonic strategy
terials. Findings suggested that tutoring sig- to actively reasoning through scientific
nificantly enhanced performance, with gains problems and experiments. In each case,
over traditional instruction of 16% for nor- when active thinking is encouraged and
mally achieving students and 43% for stu- carefully supported, learning outcomes
dents with disabilities. are positive.
5. Explicit provision of learning strategies.
Summary of Consistent Findings Students with learning disabilities have
typically exhibited difficulty in both cre-
Our program of research has generally sup- ation and application of effective learning
ported those of others in identifying a num- strategies. However, when task-relevant
ber of treatments that are associated with learning strategies are explicitly demon-
positive outcomes in science and social stud- strated, practiced, and prompted, signifi-
ies education for students with learning dis- cant learning gains have been realized.
abilities. These variables are consistent with
the findings of Swanson and Hoskyn Overall, our findings have lent support to
(2000), who summarized a great volume of the model of effective instruction widely
intervention research in learning disabilities promoted in special education. This model
and concluded that combinations of direct has included careful task analysis and speci-
instruction and strategy instruction were fication, coupled with a variety of strategies
particularly effective. Following are some targeted to promote engagement, active
variables that have been consistently associ- thinking, and strategic learning. These in-
ated with positive outcomes in our research structional components appear to interact
(see also Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2002). favorably with the characteristics of learn-
ing disabilities.
1. Clearly specified instructional objectives.
Even though a variety of different treat- Competing Models
ments have been evaluated, all our re-
search to date has involved instruction At present, there are few clearly articulated
directed toward specific instructional ob- competing models of content-area instruc-
jectives. It seems clear that teaching to
376 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION
tion for students with learning disabilities. structional objectives, to promote learning
Much of our research has employed elements of science and social studies in students with
of behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist learning disabilities. These strategies are
models of learning; therefore, alternative ap- particularly effective when they address the
proaches may reflect a matter of balance. For characteristics of students with learning dis-
example, exclusively behavioral approaches abilities, deemphasizing learning weakness-
may be beneficial in maximizing student en- es, such as independent learning from lec-
gagement and reinforcing correct responding ture and text, and promoting relative
but may not sufficiently engage active think- strengths, such as visual memory, episodic
ing. Cognitive strategy instruction may in memory for learning activities, and nonver-
some cases promote accurate verbal re- bal comprehension.
sponding without sufficiently enhancing
comprehension of more complex concepts. Our most recent research has integrated
Activities-based instruction may be benefi- peer tutoring with text comprehension
cial only when on-task behavior is high and strategies, and to date outcomes have been
students are made clearly aware of the rela- positive, as compared with such alternatives
tionship between concrete phenomena and as guided notes. Some of the challenges for
the concepts underlying their interactions. It the immediate future include the develop-
has been seen, for example, that without the ment of appropriate tutoring materials and
implementation of appropriate teacher- learning strategies for more complex areas
effectiveness variables, activities-oriented of learning, such as high school chemistry.
science instruction may not be effective. Such content is notable not only for difficult
Brigham, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (1992) vocabulary (ionic and covalent bonding)
manipulated teacher enthusiasm across but for the complexity of the concepts un-
classes of middle school students with learn- derlying this vocabulary and the expecta-
ing disabilities, and found that even when an tions of prior knowledge and understand-
activities-oriented approach to instruction of ings. Nevertheless, some of our initial
atmospheric science was undertaken, teacher findings in this area have been positive and
enthusiasm was the strongest predictor of lead us to be optimistic for the future of re-
student learning and behavior. search in science and social studies for stu-
dents with learning disabilities.
It is also true that specific instructional
strategies are appropriate for specific in- References
structional objectives. For example, mne-
monic strategies are particularly effective Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second-
for promoting recall of relevant vocabulary language learning. American Psychologist, 30,
and factual information in science and so- 821–828.
cial studies. Text structure processing can be
helpful when learning involves independent Bakken, J. P., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E.
study from text. Activities involving manip- (1997). Reading comprehension of expository
ulation of content materials and coached science material and students with learning dis-
elaborations are helpful in promoting com- abilities: A comparison of strategies. Journal of
prehension of relevant concepts. Peer tutor- Special Education, 31, 300–324.
ing is effective in promoting core content
knowledge in practice activities. It seems Bay, M., Staver, J. R., Bryan, T., & Hale, J. B.
clear that truly effective teachers will exhib- (1992). Science instruction for the mildly handi-
it skills in all these areas, in addition to gen- capped: Direct instruction versus discovery teach-
eral teacher effectiveness skills (Mastropieri ing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29,
& Scruggs, 2002). 555–570.
Conclusions and Future Directions Benedetti, D. M. (1984). The effectiveness of an in-
structional adaptation on the acquisition of sci-
Overall, our own program of research has ence information by middle school learning dis-
convinced us of the need for a variety of abled students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
teaching strategies, linked to specific in- University of Washington, Seattle.
Bergerud, D., Lovitt, T., & Horton, S. (1988). The
effectiveness of textbook adaptations in life sci-
ence for high school students with learning dis-
abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(2),
70–76.
Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A.
Science and Social Studies 377
(1992). The effect of teacher enthusiasm on the Lovitt, T., Rudsit, J., Jenkins, J., Pious, C., &
learning and behavior of learning disabled stu- Benedetti, D. (1986). Adapting science materials
dents. Learning Disabilities Research and Prac- for regular and learning disabled seventh graders.
tice, 7, 68–73. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 31–39.
Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A.
(1995). Elaborative maps for enhanced learning Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shay-
of historical information: Uniting spatial, verbal, witz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., Schulte,
and imaginal information. Journal of Special Ed- A., & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning dis-
ucation, 28, 440–460. abilities. In C. E. Finn, Jr., A. J. Rotherham, & C.
Brophy, J. (1990). Teaching social studies for under- R. Hokanson, Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special edu-
standing and higher-order applications. Elemen- cation for a new century (pp. 259–287). Wash-
tary School Journal, 90, 351–417. ington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Cook, L. K. (1983). Instructional effects of text
structure-based reading strategies on the compre- MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Bocian, K.
hension of scientific prose. Unpublished doctoral M. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of
dissertation, University of California, Santa Bar- learning disabilities and school practices: An em-
bara. pirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabil-
Cook, S., Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & ities, 31, 314–326.
Casto, G. C. (1985–1986). Handicapped stu-
dents as tutors. Journal of Special Education, 19, Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Read-
483–492. ing comprehension instruction: Summarization
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & and self-monitoring training for students with
Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowl- learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58,
edge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 270–279.
23(7), 5–12.
Frase-Blunt, M. (2000). High stakes testing a mixed Mastropieri, M. A. (1995). L’instruzione mnemoni-
blessing for special students. CEC Today, 7(2), 1, ca é l’interrogazione elaborative: Strategie per
5, 7, 15. recordarsi e per pensare [Mnemonic instruction
Fulk, B. J. M., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. and elaborative interrogation: Strategies for re-
(1992). Mnemonic generalization training with membering and for thinking]. In C. Cornoldi &
learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disabili- R. Vianello (Eds.), Handicap e apprendimento:
ties Research and Practice, 7, 2–10. Ricerche e proposte di intervento [Handicap and
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R. V. learning: Research and proposals for interven-
(1984). Opportunity to respond and student aca- tion] (pp. 117–124). Bergamo, Italy: Juvenilia.
demic performance. In W. Heward, T. Heron, D.
Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Behavior analysis in Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1988). In-
education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH: Merrill. creasing the content area learning of learning dis-
Hallahan, D. P., & Cottone, E. A. (1997). Attention abled students: Research implementation. Learn-
Deficit Hyperactiviey Disorder. In T. E. Scruggs ing Disabilities Research, 4, 17–25.
& M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learn-
ing and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 13, pp. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1989a). Con-
27–68). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science/JAI. structing more meaningful relationships:
Horton, S., Lovitt, T., & Bergerud, D. (1990). The Mnemonic instruction for special populations.
effectiveness of graphic organizers for three clas- Educational Psychology Review, 1, 83–111.
sifications of secondary students in content area
classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1989b).
12–29. Mnemonic social studies instruction: Classroom
Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., Givens, A., & Nelson, R. applications. Remedial and Special Education,
(1989). Teaching social studies to high school stu- 10(3), 40–46.
dents with academic handicaps in a mainstreamed
setting: Effects of a computerized study guide. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Sci-
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 102–107. ence for students with disabilities. Review of Ed-
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1995). The nature of ucational Research, 62, 377–411.
learning disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
King-Sears, M. E., Mercer, C. D., & Sindelar, P. T. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1993). A
(1992). Toward independence with keyword practical guide for teaching science to students
mnemonics: A strategy for science vocabulary in- with special needs in inclusive settings. Austin,
struction. Remedial and Special Education, 13, TX: Pro-Ed.
22–33.
Lovitt, T., Rudsit, J., Jenkins, J., Pious, C., & Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994a). Issues
Benedetti, D. (1985). Two methods of adapting in intervention research: Secondary students. In S.
science materials for learning disabled and regu- Vaughn & C. Bos (Eds.), Research in learning dis-
lar seventh graders. Learning Disability Quarter- abilities: Theory, methodology, assessment, and
ly, 8, 275–285. ethics (pp. 130–145). New York: Springer Verlag.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994b). Text-
based vs. activities-oriented science curriculum:
Implications for students with disabilities. Reme-
dial and Special Education, 15, 72–85.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1996). Cur-
rent trends in science education: Implications for
special education. In C. Warger & M. Pugach
(Eds.), Curriculum trends, special education, and
reform: Refocusing the conversation (pp. 42–52).
New York: Teachers College Press.
378 EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best (1998). “A place where living things affect and
practices in promoting reading comprehension in depend on each other”: Qualitative and quantita-
students with learning disabilities. Remedial and tive outcomes associated with inclusive science
Special Education, 18, 197–213. teaching. Science Education, 82, 163–179.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & McLoone, B.,
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1998). Con- Levin, J. R. (1985). Facilitating learning disabled
structing more meaningful relationships in the students’ acquisition of science classifications.
classroom: Mnemonic research into practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 299–309.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mohler, L. J.,
138–145. Baranek, M. L., Spencer, V., Boon, R. T., & Tal-
bott, E. (2001). Can middle school students with
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). The serious reading difficulties help each other and
inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective in- learn anything? Learning Disabilities Research
struction. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall/Merrill. and Practice, 16, 18–27.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Spencer, V., &
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2002). Effec- Fontana, J. (in press). Promoting success in high
tive instruction for special education (3rd ed.). school world history: Peer tutoring versus guided
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. notes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Whedon, C.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & (1997). Using mnemonic strategies to teach infor-
Brigham, F. J. (1992). A complex mnemonic mation about U. S. presidents: A classroom-based
strategy for teaching states and capitals: Compar- investigation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20,
ing forward and backward associations. Learn- 13–21.
ing Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 96–103. Mastropieri, M. A., Spencer, V., Scruggs, T. E., &
Talbott, E. (2000). Students with disabilities as
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Boon, R., & tutors: An updated research synthesis. In T. E.
Carter, K. B. (2001). Correlates of inquiry learn- Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Educational
ing in science: Constructing concepts of density interventions: Advances in learning and behav-
and buoyancy. Remedial and Special Education, ioral disabilities (Vol. 14, pp. 247–279). Oxford,
22, 130–138. UK: Elsevier Science/JAI.
Mastropieri, M. A., Sweda, J., & Scruggs, T. E.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Butcher, K. (2000). Teacher use of mnemonic strategy in-
(1997). How effective is inquiry learning for stu- struction. Learning Disabilities Research and
dents with mild disabilities? Journal of Special Practice, 15, 69–74.
Education, 31, 199–211. Mathes, P. G., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). The efficacy
of peer tutoring in reading for students with mild
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., disabilities: A best-evidence synthesis. School
Fontana, J., Cole, V., & Gersen, A. (2002, July). Psychology Review, 23, 59–80.
Teacher–researcher partnerships to promote suc- Montague, M. (1998). Research on metacognition
cess in inclusive high school science and social in special education. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A.
studies classes. Paper presented at the annual U.S. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and be-
Department of Education Project Director’s havioral disabilities (Vol. 12, pp. 247–279). Ox-
Meeting, Washington, DC. ford, UK: Elsevier Science/JAI.
Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., &
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Hamilton, S. L., Cutter, J. (2001). Making science accessible to
Wolfe, S., Whedon, C., & Canevaro, A. (1996). all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive
Promoting thinking skills of students with learn- classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24,
ing disabilities: Effects on recall and comprehen- 15–32).
sion of expository prose. Exceptionality, 6, 1–11. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for
all Americans. New York: Oxford University
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. Press.
(1985). Mnemonic strategy instruction with Scruggs, T. E. (1988). Nature of learning disabili-
learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learn- ties. In K. A. Kavale (Ed.), Learning disabilities:
ing Disabilities, 18, 94–100. State of the art and practice (pp. 22–43). Boston:
Little, Brown/College Hill.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1988). Acqui-
(1986). Direct vs. mnemonic instruction: Relative sition and transfer of learning strategies by gifted
benefits for exceptional learners. Journal of Spe- and nongifted students. Journal of Special Educa-
cial Education, 20, 299–308. tion, 22, 153–166.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1989a).
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. Mnemonic instruction of learning disabled stu-
(1987). Learning disabled students’ memory for dents: A field-based evaluation. Learning Dis-
expository prose: Mnemonic vs. nonmnemonic ability Quarterly, 12, 119–125.
pictures. American Educational Research Jour- Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1989b). Re-
nal, 24, 505–519.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Levin, J. R.,
Gaffney, J., & McLoone, B. (1985) Mnemonic
vocabulary instruction for learning disabled stu-
dents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 57–63.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Magnusen,
M. (1999). Activities-oriented science instruction
for students with disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 22, 240–249.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mantzicopoulos,
P. Y., Sturgeon, A., Goodwin, L., & Chung, S.
Science and Social Studies 379
constructive elaborations: A model for content Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Levin, J. R.,
area learning. American Educational Research McLoone, B. B., Gaffney, J. S., & Prater, M.
Journal, 26, 311–327. (1985). Increasing content-area learning: A com-
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Class- parison of mnemonic and visual-spatial direct in-
room applications of mnemonic instruction: Ac- struction. Learning Disabilities Research, 1,
quisition, maintenance, and generalization. Ex- 18–31.
ceptional Children, 58, 219–229.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1993). Cur- Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., McLoone, B. B.,
rent approaches to science education: Implica- Levin, J. R., & Morrison, C. (1987). Mnemonic
tions for mainstream instruction of students with facilitation of learning disabled students’ memory
disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, for expository prose. Journal of Educational Psy-
14(1), 15–24. chology, 79, 27–34.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994a). The
construction of scientific knowledge by students Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Sullivan, G. S.
with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Educa- (1994). Promoting relational thinking skills:
tion, 28, 307–321. Elaborative interrogation for mildly handicapped
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994b). Suc- students. Exceptional Children, 60, 450–457.
cessful mainstreaming in elementary science
classes: A qualitative investigation of three repu- Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Sullivan, G. S.,
tational cases. American Educational Research & Hesser, L. S. (1993). Improving reasoning and
Journal, 31, 785–811. recall: The differential effects of elaborative inter-
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1995). Sci- rogation and mnemonic elaboration. Learning
ence and mental retardation: An analysis of cur- Disability Quarterly, 16, 233–240.
riculum features and learner characteristics. Sci-
ence Education, 79, 251–271. Sprague, D., & Behrmann, M. (2001). Zoning in on
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1998). Peer physics: Creating virtual reality environments to
tutoring and students with special needs. In K. aid students with learning disabilities. In T. E.
Topping & S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer assisted learning Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Technologi-
(pp. 165–182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. cal applications: Advances in learning and behav-
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2000). The ioral disabilities (Vol. 15, pp. 17–38). Oxford,
effectiveness of mnemonic instruction for stu- UK: Elsevier Science/JAI.
dents with learning and behavior problems: An
update and research synthesis. Journal of Behav- Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Epilogue: Toward and
ioral Education, 10, 163–173. emerging consensus about learning disabilities. In
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). On R. J. Sternberg & L. Spear-Swerling (Eds.), Per-
babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems spectives on learning disabilities: Biological, cog-
of identification and assessment of learning dis- nitive, contextual. (pp. 277–282). Boulder, CO:
abilities. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Westview Press.
Graduate School of Education.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Bakken, J. P., & Sullivan, G. S., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994). Social
Brigham, F. J. (1993). Reading vs. doing: The rel- competence of individuals with learning disabili-
ative effectiveness of textbook-based and inquiry- ties. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.),
oriented approaches to science education. Jour- Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities
nal of Special Education, 27, 1–15. (Vol. 8, pp. 171–214). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Sci-
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Boon, R. ence/JAI.
(1998). Science for students with disabilities: A
review of recent research. Studies in Science Edu- Sullivan, G. S., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E.
cation, 32, 21–44. (1995). Reasoning and remembering: Coaching
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Brigham, F. J., & thinking with students with learning disabilities.
Sullivan, G. S. (1992). Effects of mnemonic re- Journal of Special Education, 29, 310–322.
constructions on the spatial learning of adoles-
cents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabil- Swanson, H. L. (Ed.). (1987). Advances in learning
ity Quarterly, 15, 154–162. and behavioral disabilities: Memory and learning
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Levin, J. R. disabilities. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science/JAI.
(1987). Implications of mnemonic strategy re-
search for theories of learning disabilities. In H. Swanson, H. L. (1994). The role of working memo-
L. Swanson (Ed.), Memory and learning disabili- ry and dynamic assessment in the classification of
ties: Advances in learning and behavior disabili- children with learning disabilities. Learning Dis-
ties (pp. 225–244). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. abilities Research and Practice, 4, 190–202.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Levin, J. R., &
Gaffney, J. S. (1985). Facilitating the acquisition Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (2000). Intervention
of science facts in learning disabled students. research for students with learning disabilities: A
American Educational Research Journal, 22, comprehensive meta-analysis of group design
575–586. studies. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri
(Eds.), Educational interventions: Advances in
learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 14, pp.
1–153). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science/JAI.
U.S. Department of Education. (1991). America
2000: An education strategy. Washington, DC:
Author.
Veit, D. T., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A.
(1986). Extended mnemonic instruction with
learning disabled students. Journal of Education-
al Psychology, 78, 300–308.
This page intentionally left blank
IV
FORMATION OF
INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
This page intentionally left blank
23
Cognitive Strategies Instruction
Research in Learning Disabilities
Bernice Y. L. Wong
Karen R. Harris
Steve Graham
Deborah L. Butler
Cognitive strategies instruction research in (1982) focused on self-control components
learning disabilities (LD) reflects in general in strategy learning: planning and executing
the cognitive influence in education, and in the strategy, monitoring, and evaluating
particular the influence of cognitive strate- strategy use. Brown and Palincsar consid-
gies research in cognitive and educational ered these components to be essential in stu-
psychologies. “Cognitive strategies are cog- dents’ orchestration of strategy use.
nitive processes that the learner intentional-
ly performs to influence learning and cogni- With their respective associates, Paris and
tion. Examples include basic processes such Brown primed researchers in LD to attend
as using a rehearsal strategy to memorize a to these metacognitive components, beyond
list and metacognitive strategies such as rec- the specific strategy to be learned. Neglect-
ognizing whether one comprehends a pas- ing them would undermine students’ strate-
sage” (Mayer, 2001, p. 86). The goal of cog- gy acquisition, maintenance, and transfer.
nitive strategies instruction research in LD is Moreover, students must value strategy use,
the design and validation of strategies that otherwise they would not apply it when
enhance learning and performance in stu- needed despite having mastered it previous-
dents with LD. ly (Nolen, 1988). This valuing of strategy
use appears likely to arise if students per-
Broadly speaking, this research in LD was ceive not only the link between effective
shaped by the research of Scott G. Paris and strategy use and subsequent successful
the late Ann L. Brown. Specifically, Paris learning outcomes but also their own
and his associates highlighted the impor- agency in forging the link. Such perceived
tance of informing students of the rationale agency would also lead to correct attribu-
of the strategy to be learned, pointing out tions of successful learning outcome—that
the link between strategy use and enhanced it is students’ own strategy execution that
learning and performance, and the range resulted in their successful learning and not
and conditions of strategy application luck or teacher’s favor.
(Paris, Cross, & Lipson, 1984; Paris & Ja-
cobs, 1984; Paris & Newman, 1990; Paris This chapter summarizes cognitive strate-
& Winograd, 1990). Brown and Palincsar gies instruction research in LD in the last
two decades. We organize the research sum-
383
384 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
mary according to the age range of partici- MATHEMATICS
pants in the studies: children, adolescents,
and young adults, thus resulting in three Several important reviews of intervention
sections. Unifying/connecting these sections research for students with LD and others
are discernable commonalities in the in- who have difficulties with mathematics
structional procedures in cognitive strate- have been published (cf. Mastropieri, Scrug-
gies training. gs, & Chung, 1998; Mastropieri, Scruggs,
& Shiah, 1991; Miller & Brewster, 1992).
Strategy Instruction for Students with Many different approaches have been inves-
LD in the Elementary Grades tigated, yet surprisingly little programmatic
research has been done involving the use of
Research involving strategy instruction at multicomponent strategy instruction models
the elementary grade levels for students at the elementary-grade levels. Researchers
with LD has slowly but steadily increased have looked at the effects of some of the
over the past two decades. Though a com- common components of strategy instruction
prehensive review of this research is not models, such as reinforcement and goal set-
possible here, we note that this research has ting, self-instructions to deal with anxiety,
primarily focused in several areas: mnemon- self-instructional cues, self-monitoring, di-
ics, reading, mathematics, and composition. rect or explicit instruction in a math strate-
This section focuses primarily on strategies gy, or the use of mnemonics (cf. Mastropieri
instruction in composition, as this area has et al., 1991). Those few studies where inter-
received the broadest attention for students ventions have involved multicomponent
with LD. However, we note critical contri- strategy instruction models have focused
butions in the other areas first. primarily on problem solving (cf. Case,
Harris, & Graham, 1992; Jitendra & Hoff,
Mnemonics, Mathematics, and Reading 1995), although in at least one study using a
more complete strategies instruction ap-
MNEMONICS proach the focus was on improved calcula-
tion of basic facts (Miller & Mercer, 1993).
Research on teaching mnemonic strategies Further, Montague and her colleagues have
to students with LD has occurred across the demonstrated that strategy instruction mod-
elementary through secondary grades. The els have been successful with middle school
work of Mastropieri, Scruggs, and their col- and junior high school students (Montague,
leagues has been critical in this area. 1992; Montague, Applegate, & Marquard,
Mnemonic strategy approaches, including 1993; see also Hutchinson, 1993). Given
keyword, pegword, and symbolic represen- the generally positive results in studies that
tation strategies, have proven beneficial in have involved components common in
the development of language skills and con- strategy instruction models and in studies in
tent vocabulary across content areas, and in which strategy instruction models have been
comprehension of science and social studies used, this appears a fruitful area for future,
concepts (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1989; programmatic research.
Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1990, 1992). In
their meta-analysis of 24 studies involving READING
instruction in keyword and keyword–peg-
word mnemonics, Mastropieri and Scruggs Other chapters in this book deal with read-
reported an overall mean effect size of 1.62. ing both at the word level and in terms of
Although instruction in the use of mnemon- comprehension. Thus, we do not elaborate
ics has not always involved full-blown on the research in these areas here. We do
strategies instruction (and indeed may not note, however, that a great deal of strategies
always need to do so to be effective), the use instruction research has been conducted in
of strategy instruction stages and proce- the area of reading, particularly for improv-
dures has been recommended by these re- ing comprehension. Trabasso and Bouchard,
searchers (Fulk, 1994; Scruggs & Mas- authors of the review of reading comprehen-
tropieri, 1992). sion research in grades 2 through 8 for the
National Reading Panel (National Institute
Cognitive Strategies Instruction Research 385
of Child Health and Human Development, strategic abilities (Mann, 1998). Differences
2000), described comprehension strategies in self-regulatory abilities, as well as other
as learned procedures that allow active, com- areas, may also exist (Alexander, Garner,
petent, self-regulated, and intentional read- Sperl, & Hare, 1998). Thus, strategies in-
ing (Trabasso & Bouchard, 2002). They not- struction in comprehension may neither
ed that before the 1970s, explicit instruction produce differing results nor require differ-
in reading comprehension was not conduct- ing components, procedures, or time—for
ed, with students learning to comprehend students with LD as compared to other
text primarily through reading in the content poor readers. However, it may be premature
areas. Initial research in strategies instruc- to disregard the differences between these
tion in reading focused on single strategies groups when it comes to strategies instruc-
and then moved to a focus on combinations tion in reading. Further research on poten-
of strategies taught with multicomponent tial differences in responding to strategy in-
approaches, as the integrated use of multiple struction appears warranted.
cognitive strategies is critical to skilled read-
ing. Trabasso and Bouchard (2002) found Composition
two classes of multiple strategy instruction in
comprehension: reciprocal teaching (Palinc- Harris and Graham and their colleagues
sar & Brown, 1984) and transactional and Englert and her colleagues have devel-
strategies instruction (Pressley et al., 1992). oped strategy instruction models for com-
position. Englert and her colleagues refer to
Trabasso and Bouchard (2002) conclud- their approach as the cognitive strategy in-
ed, “The bottom line is that readers who are struction writing (CSIW) program (Englert,
given cognitive strategy instruction make Raphael, & Anderson, 1992; Englert et al.,
significant gains on comprehension com- 1991). Harris and Graham’s approach has
pared with students who are trained with come to be called self-regulated strategy de-
conventional instruction procedures” (p. velopment (SRSD; see Harris & Graham,
177). Much of this research, however, does 1999, for a more detailed discussion of the
not specifically involve students with LD. evolution of this model). Both models are
Exceptions include studies of reciprocal reviewed here.
teaching by Palincsar and others (cf. Palinc-
sar & Brown, 1984), and the reading com- SRSD
prehension procedure developed by Englert
and her colleagues (cf. Englert & Mariage, Harris and Graham’s first strategy instruc-
1991), and the studies using Harris and tion study for children with LD in the ele-
Graham’s self-regulated strategy develop- mentary grades was published in 1985.
ment model applied to reading comprehen- Arising from Harris’s early research on cog-
sion (Bednarczyk, 1991; Johnson, Graham, nitive-behavioral interventions for children
& Harris, 1997). As Mann (1998) noted, (Harris, 1980, 1982) and Graham’s (1982)
however, there is little or no attempt to dif- early work on children’s writing, and their
ferentiate between children identified as LD shared concern for children with LD who
and “garden-variety poor readers” in many struggle with writing, this strategy instruc-
studies and reviews of reading research. Re- tion model was initially referred to as self-
search indicating a lack of meaningful dif- control strategy training. Though the roots
ferences between these two groups in terms of, and continuing empirical and theoretical
of a phonological core deficit is the main bases for this approach are discussed in
reason for this lack of differentiation. greater detail elsewhere (Case, Mamlin,
Harris, & Graham, 1995; Harris & Gra-
This same research, however, has estab- ham, 1992), we note several critical influ-
lished differences between LD and other ences and components here.
poor readers in terms of receptive vocabu-
lary (perhaps due to the correlation between Four theoretical and empirical sources
IQ and vocabulary, as a discrepancy be- provided the initial foundation for this
tween IQ and reading ability is a defining model in the early 1980s. First, based on
characteristic for LD) and has also indicated Meichenbaum’s (1977) cognitive-behavioral
that children labeled as dyslexic or LD pos- intervention model, and its emphasis on So-
sess superior real-world knowledge and
386 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
cratic dialogue as well as stages of interven- sessment during and after strategies instruc-
tion, Harris and Graham developed their tion. Throughout SRSD instruction, stu-
initial stages of instruction and an emphasis dents are supported in the development of
on the role of dialogue/discussion in instruc- attributions for effort and the use of power-
tion. Second, the work of Soviet theorists ful writing strategies, knowledge of writing
and researchers (including Vygotsky, Luria, genres, self-efficacy, and high levels of en-
and Sokolov) on the social origins of self- gagement (Harris & Graham, 1992). Fur-
control and the development of the mind thermore, progression through SRSD in-
was influential and contributed to the self- structional stages (develop background
regulation and modeling components of the knowledge and skills, discuss it, model it,
model. Third, the work of Deshler, Schu- memorize the mnemonics, engage in sup-
maker, and their colleagues on the valida- ported/collaborative practice, and demon-
tion of acquisition steps for strategies strate independent performance) is criterion
among adolescents with LD (Deshler, Alley, based rather than time based, so that stu-
Warner, & Schumaker, 1981), steps that dents have the time they need to attain im-
were also influenced by the work of Me- portant outcomes.
ichenbaum and others, strongly influenced,
and continues to influence, the SRSD mod- Moreover, students with LD often experi-
el. Fourth, the work of Brown, Campione, ence difficulties with attention, impulsivity,
and their colleagues on development of self- memory or other areas of information pro-
control, metacognition, and strategies in- cessing, as well as significant academic diffi-
struction was also foundational (Brown, culties. Harris and Graham articulated an
Campione, & Day, 1981). underlying premise of SRSD early on—chil-
dren who face significant and often debili-
Though current models of strategies in- tating difficulties in academic areas would
struction have converged in many ways benefit from an integrated approach to in-
(Pressley & Harris, 2001), in the early tervention that directly addressed their af-
stages of its development the SRSD model fective, behavioral, and cognitive character-
differed from other strategies instruction istics, strengths, and needs (Harris, 1982;
models for students with LD in at least two Harris & Graham, 1992). An intervention
important ways. First, based in part on the model that allows the integration of knowl-
research on expertise in writing and re- edge gained from multiple theories and
search on children’s self-regulation (see models of teaching and learning—even
Alexander et al., 1998; Harris & Graham, competing models that may appear theoreti-
1992, for further detail), explicit instruction cally incompatible—allows the development
in and supported development of critical as- of intervention approaches that maximize
pects of self-regulation were integrated the strengths of each while addressing the
throughout the stages of instruction in the weaknesses in any given model through
SRSD model. These self-regulation compo- strengths inherent in others (Harris &
nents include goal-setting. self-assessment, Alexander, 1998). Researchers have found,
self-instruction, self-reinforcement, imagery, in fact, that a common characteristic of out-
and managing the writing environment. standing teachers is their ability to blend
models of instruction in just such ways
Second, Harris and Graham’s early expe- (Pearson, cited in Willis, 1993, p. 8; Press-
rience with strategies instruction with chil- ley, 1998).
dren with LD and the research base indicat-
ed these children, though a heterogeneous Another premise articulated early on in
group, often face additional challenges re- the development of the SRSD model was
lated to reciprocal relations among academ- that children who face serious struggles
ic failure, self-doubts, learned helplessness, with learning often need to be meaningfully
low self-efficacy, maladaptive attributions, engaged in more extensive, structured, and
unrealistic pretask expectancies, and low explicit instruction to develop skills, strate-
motivation and engagement in academic ar- gies (including self-regulation strategies),
eas. Thus, children’s attitudes and beliefs and understandings that their peers form
about themselves as writers and the strate- more easily (Graham, Harris, & Sawyer,
gies instruction they participate in became 1987). Explicitness and structure, however,
critical targets for intervention as well as as- do not equate with isolated skills training,
Cognitive Strategies Instruction Research 387
decontextualized learning of subskills, pas- variety of strategies and genres, the quality,
sive learning, or the gradual accruing of ba- length, and structure of students’ composi-
sic skills (Harris & Graham, 1994). Chil- tions have improved. Depending on the
dren’s perceptions of what they are doing strategy taught, improvements have been
and why they are doing it, as well as their documented in planning, revising, content,
teacher’s intentions, are critical. and mechanics. These improvements have
been consistently maintained for the majori-
Since 1985, more than 30 studies using ty of students over time, with some students
the SRSD model of instruction have been re- needing booster sessions for long-term
ported in the area of writing, involving stu- maintenance, and students have shown gen-
dents from the elementary grades through eralization across settings, persons, and
high school. In many of these studies, in- writing media. Improvements have been
struction has been conducted by the special found with normally achieving students as
and/or general education teachers in their well as with students with LD, making this
own classrooms, often as a part of writers’ approach a good fit for inclusive classrooms
workshop (cf. Danoff, Harris, & Graham, (cf. Danoff et al., 1993; De La Paz, 1999;
1993; De La Paz, 1999, 2001; De La Paz & De La Paz, Owen, Harris, & Graham,
Graham, 2001; MacArthur, Graham, 2000; MacArthur et al., 1996). In some
Schwartz, & Shafer, 1995; MacArthur, studies, improvements for students with LD
Schwartz, & Graham, 1991; MacArthur, have resulted in performance similar to that
Schwartz, Graham, Molloy, & Harris, of their normally achieving peers (Danoff et
1996; Sexton, Harris, & Graham, 1998). al., 1993; De La Paz, 1999; Sawyer et al.,
Teachers have been able to implement SRSD 1992).
and have found SRSD acceptable and bene-
ficial in their classrooms. Studies have been CSIW
undertaken to determine the contributions
of various components of the SRSD ap- Englert and her colleagues have published
proach and the stages of instruction (Danoff two influential studies with elementary stu-
et al., 1993; Graham & Harris, 1989b; dents with LD using their CSIW program
Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992). Studies (Englert et al., 1991, 1992). In CSIW,
have also been conducted by researchers in- “think sheets” are used to prompt students
dependently of Graham, Harris, and their to carry out specific activities during the fol-
colleagues (Albertson & Billingsley, 1997; lowing writing processes: planning, organiz-
Collins, 1992; Tanhouser, 1994). ing information, writing, editing, and revis-
ing. For example, the think sheet for
SRSD research has resulted in the devel- organizing information when writing direc-
opment of writing strategies, typically with tions for completing a task includes
the assistance of teachers and their students, prompts to identify where the activity will
for a variety of genres; these genres include take place, what materials are needed, and
personal narratives, story writing, persua- what steps are involved. A variety of fea-
sive essays, report writing, expository es- tures common to strategies instruction mod-
says, and state writing tests. SRSD has re- els are used to aid students in internalizing
sulted in significant and meaningful the strategies and the framework represent-
improvements in children’s development of ed in the think sheet, including teacher
planning and revising strategies, including modeling, self-instructions, gradually faded
brainstorming, self-monitoring, reading for support in using the procedures, and guid-
information and semantic webbing, generat- ing students to understand what they are
ing and organizing writing content, ad- learning, why it is important, and when it
vanced planning and dictation, revising can be used.
with peers, and revising for both substance
and mechanics (Harris & Graham, 1996). Results of these studies indicated that
both students with and without LD im-
SRSD has resulted in improvements in proved their knowledge of the writing
four main aspects of students’ performance: process and their writing abilities. In the En-
quality of writing, knowledge of writing, glert and colleagues (1991) study, students
approach to writing, and self-efficacy (Gra- with LD performed similarly to their peers
ham, Harris, MacArthur, & Schwartz,
1991; Harris & Graham, 1999). Across a
388 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
with disabilities on all five posttest writing this approach into the schools (Duffy, 2002;
variables. In their 1992 study, Englert and Harris & Alexander, 1998; Pressley & Har-
colleagues found that the quality of stu- ris, 2001). Much more needs to be under-
dents’ metacognitive knowledge was posi- stood about the relative contributions of the
tively related to measures of performance in components in these multicomponent ap-
both reading and writing. proaches. Harris and Graham (1992) noted
that strategy instruction provides teachers
Caveats and Future Directions and students with richly informative assess-
ment data, and research is needed to estab-
As many cognitive strategy instruction re- lish the role and functions of such assess-
searchers have articulated, academic compe- ment information for teachers, parents,
tency and literacy represent a complexity of students, and administrators.
skills, strategies, processes, and attributes.
Clearly, no single intervention approach can Strategy Instruction for Students with
effect all aspects of performance or the com- LD in Secondary School
plex nature of school success or failure
(Duffy, 2002; Harris & Graham, 1992; In the 1980s, researchers at the Institute of
Pressley & Harris, 2001). Strategy instruc- Research in LD at the University of Kansas
tion is not a panacea but, rather, a powerful (KU-IRLD) spearheaded cognitive strategies
component of teachers’ instructional reper- development and research with adolescents
toires. Furthermore, strategy instruction and young adults with LD. In their research
continues to be an evolving approach, one they were guided by the conceptual notion
that must be informed by ongoing research of learning to learn (Alley & Deshler, 1979),
and development in teaching and learning. which focused on teaching students how to
A final important caveat is that meeting the learn instead of tutoring them to complete
goals of strategy instruction requires a care- immediate assignments or pass impending
fully thought out combination of compo- tests. The KU-IRLD researchers developed
nents, characteristics, and procedures, en- and field-tested numerous strategies that
acted by reflective, analytical teachers in a eventuated in the learning strategies curricu-
meaningful environment (Duffy, 2002; Har- lum. The latter contains three strands that
ris, 1982). promote, respectively, “acquisition, storage,
and expression of written information”
Many questions remain to be answered (Schumaker & Deshler, 1992, p. 28). These
regarding strategy instruction in the elemen- strands correspond to task demands that are
tary grades for students with LD and others faced by adolescents with LD in secondary
who struggle with writing, and promising schools. Moreover, KU-IRLD researchers
directions exist for future research. For ex- have streamlined the instructional method-
ample, though some studies and models ology for use in strategy training (see Schu-
have shown positive results, further im- maker & Deshler, 1992, pp. 30–32). We
provements in maintenance and generaliza- highlight only four of the seven steps be-
tion remain to be addressed. Many academ- cause they appear to be the kernel ones. Us-
ic needs of children with LD in the ing a thinking-aloud procedure, the instruc-
elementary grades have not yet been ad- tor models the cognitive strategy for the
dressed yet appear appropriate for strategy adolescent with LD. The adolescent is in-
instruction, such as learning in the content structed to verbally rehearse the strategy
areas, further aspects of mathematics, and steps until he or she can internalize them so
homework and study strategies. Two of the that self-instruction becomes covert. The
most intriguing questions are the long-term adolescent with LD practices the strategy on
results of strategy instruction and the devel- controlled (reading-age) materials. As he or
opment of self-regulation across the grades she attains mastery of it, he or she applies
and academic disciplines. Parents could also the strategy to grade-level curricular materi-
be partners in such long-term intervention. als and is also given increasing control in
Researchers have argued that a focus on strategy learning.
how teachers become adept at, committed
to, and supported in strategy instruction is Cognitive strategies developed at KU-
needed, as is more work aimed at filtering
Cognitive Strategies Instruction Research 389
IRLD cover reading comprehension (Schu- Drive home the message in the last sentence
maker, Deshler, Alley, Warner, & Denton,
1982), paragraph writing (Schumaker & Restate what your theme was about in the
Lyerla, 1991), sentence writing (Schumaker last sentence.
& Sheldon, 1985), error monitoring in writ-
ing (Schumaker, Nolan, & Deshler, 1985), Make sure you used working different from
content learning (Lenz, Bulgren, & Hudson, the first sentence.
1990), and opinion essay writing (Ellis &
Larkin, 1998). Space restrictions precludes Search for errors and correct
summarizing all of them. Instead, for illus-
tration purposes, selective attention is paid Look for different kinds of errors in your es-
to the DEFENDS strategy (Ellis & Colvert, say and correct them.
1996). Set editing goals.
Examine your essay to see if it makes
DEFENDS (Ellis & Colvert, 1996) is an sense.
expository writing strategy for defending a Ask yourself whether your message
point-of-view or opinion essay. The strategy will be clear to others.
steps elicit in students both cognitive and Reveal picky errors (capitalization,
metacognitive processes. DEFENDS involve punctuation, spelling, etc.)
the following steps: Copy over neatly.
Have a last look for errors.
Decide on goals and theme
The DEFENDS strategy is quite represen-
Decide who will read this and what you tative of the characteristics of cognitive
hope will happen when they do. strategies developed by the researchers from
KU-IRLD. Specifically, the strategy steps in
Decide on what kind of information you each are encapsulated in a mnemonic that
need to communicate facilitates retention by adolescents with LD.
More important, each letter in the mnemon-
Decide on what your theme will be about ic cues students to activate appropriate cog-
Note the theme on your planning form. nitive and/or metacognitive processes re-
quired in the execution of the strategy step.
Estimate main ideas and details Moreover, the mnemonic guides sequential
enactment of the strategy for the adolescent
Think of at least two main ideas that will with LD. Finally, to match learning needs of
explain your theme. adolescents with LD, the strategies are
structured. Obviously, this degree of struc-
Make sure the main ideas are different. ture may not be needed by adolescents with-
Note the main ideas on your planning form. out LD.
Note at least three details that can be used
Apart from KU-IRLD, on a much smaller
to explain each main idea. scale and exclusively focused on writing, is
Wong’s strategy research. Wong’s research
Figure best order of main ideas and details arose from Graham and Harris’s (1993) call
for more genre-specific writing strategies re-
Decide which main idea to write about first, search. In three consecutive studies, Wong
second, etc., & note on the planning and her associates validated three writing
form. strategies, respectively, for reportive, opin-
ion, and compare-and-contrast essays
For each main idea, note the best order for (Wong, Butler, Ficzere, & Kuperis, 1996;
presenting the details on the planning Wong, Butler, Ficzere, & Kuperis, 1997;
form. Wong, Wong, Darlington, & Jones, 1991).
Reportive essays involve adolescents writing
Make sure the orders are logical. about topics such as “the best birthday pre-
sent I could have” and “the most embar-
Express the theme in the first sentence rassing event in my life.”
The first sentence of your essay should state Several instructional principles and fac-
what the essay is about. tors underlay the design of Wong’s genre-
specific writing strategies. First and fore-
Note each main idea and supporting points
Note your first main idea using a complete
sentence; explain this main idea using the
details you ordered earlier.
Tell yourself positive statements about your
writing and tell yourself to write more.
Repeat for each of the main ideas.
390 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
most was the focus on instructing the ado- ates in students’ increased ability and effica-
lescents with LD in both declarative and cy in editing and revising their own papers.
procedural knowledge of the writing Such enhancements as editors and revisers
process, as prior research showed that they of their own writings suggest that students
often lack such knowledge (Englert et al., may well have developed some awareness of
1988; Graham, Schwartz, & MacArthur, audience’s need for clarity (Wong, Butler,
1993; Wong, Wong, & Blenkisop, 1989). Ficzere, Kuperis, & Corden, 1994; Wong et
Of importance was their need to understand al., 1996, 1997).
the relevance of planning and revising in
writing, and the recursive nature of the cog- Considerations of cognitive and metacog-
nitive processes in planning, writing, and re- nitive components in writing strategy in-
vising (Flower & Hayes, 1980). Then came struction are necessary but insufficient.
the consideration of meshing genre-specific Echoing the affective emphasis in the SRSD
strategies with junior high English curricu- model, these cognitive and metacognitive
lum. A good fit here was essential if the components underlying the design of Wong’s
strategy instruction was to profit those ado- writing strategies need the accompaniment
lescents with LD. Because short stories, nov- of affective components. Otherwise, the
els, plays, and poems comprise the English strategy instruction would not escape Za-
curriculum in junior high, three matching jonc’s (1980) criticism of its reflecting cold
genres for instruction appeared to be re- cognition. Indeed, Borkowski and colleagues
portive essays, opinion (persuasive) essays, (1992) advocated for including affective
and compare-and-contrast essays. components in strategy instruction. Heeding
Borkowski and colleagues, Wong included
Moreover, because writing involves self-efficacy and general attitudes toward
metacognitive as well as cognitive processes writing as the affective components to be
(Flower & Hayes, 1980), the question arises fostered in their strategy instruction.
on what metacognitive aspects of writing to
instruct adolescents with LD. Metacogni- Finally, Wong capitalized on educational
tion about writing includes but is not re- technology in strategy instruction. The ra-
stricted to the following: awareness of audi- tionale was that adolescents with LD would
ence need for clarity, felicity in choice of lose motivation to learn the writing strate-
words, a powerful introduction/conclusion, gies if they had to write and revise with pen
cadence, and so on (Wong, 1999). Although and paper. Using a word processing pro-
these metacognitive aspects are all interest- gram (Clarisworks) to write and revise on
ing, they vary in difficulty regarding cultiva- the microcomputer alleviates physical labor
tion in student writers. Furthermore, except entailed in using pen and paper. This, how-
for work by Wray (1994), to date there is ever, necessitated prior training of adoles-
no developmental research on them. How- cents with LD on keyboard skills.
ever, one aspect appears to be more
amenable to instruction, namely, awareness Instruction of the three genres of essays
of audience need for clarity. Research by differed in the following ways.
Graham and Harris (1993), as well as re-
ports from effective teachers, attest to stu- 1. Only the opinion and compare-and-con-
dents’ increased efficacy in editing and re- trast essays involved the use of plan
vising after conferencing with teacher or sheets.
peers. Through interactive dialogues in con-
ferences, teachers and/or peers pinpoint am- 2. The instructional targets differed across
biguities in the essay of the student writer, the genres. For reportive essays, clarity
question the latter on his or her commu- and thematic salience were targeted for
nicative intent, or seek more specific infor- instruction and enhancement. For opin-
mation from him or her. Through explana- ion essays, clarity and cogency of argu-
tions and/or elaborations, the student writer ments were the instructional targets. For
clarifies his or her communication intent or compare-and-contrast essays, clarity, ap-
furnishes the necessary details. Constant propriateness of ideas, and organization
repetition of such interactive dialogues in were the instructional targets. Appropri-
student–teacher/peer conferencing eventu- ateness of ideas referred to ideas that
pertained to comparisons or contrasts.
3. Only the instruction of reportive essay
involved the use of visualizing. Students
Cognitive Strategies Instruction Research 391
were instructed to use three steps in plan- enable junior and senior high adolescents
ning of this genre: with LD to solve one-, two-, and three-step
mathematical word problems. Montague
a. Search and select from their memory (1997) acknowledged that more research is
the event they want to write. For ex- needed to validate the component cognitive
ample, if they were going to write and metacognitive processes and strategies.
about the most embarrassing event in But she cited data from her own research
their lives, they would have to recall that indicated that successful problem-
all the embarrassing events that they solvers evidenced knowledge and effective
had experienced and choose, from use of those processes and strategies. More
them, the most embarrassing episode. important, when adolescents with LD were
instructed in the use of the combined cogni-
b. Having settled on their choice, they tive and metacognitive processes and strate-
would have to relive it in their mind’s gies, their problem-solving improved to the
eye as though they were playing a level of non-LD peers (Montague et al.,
videotape (with sound) with them- 1993).
selves as the main actors/actresses.
Cognitive strategies instruction in mathe-
c. They would have to activate the very matics is a timely new direction in LD be-
emotions associated with the event to cause of emergent data on the characteris-
be described. For the most embarrass- tics of students with LD with mathematics
ing event in their lives, they should problems (Bryant, Bryant, & Hammill,
feel a burning sensation on their 2000). But cognitive strategy research in
faces/necks! mathematics problem solving in students
with LD would profit from a concomitant
Wong and colleagues (1994, 1996, 1997) focus on their substantial math anxiety, be-
reported that their genre-specific writing cause these students suffer from crippling
strategies increased both quality and quanti- math anxiety that manifests in negative self-
ty of writing in adolescents with LD. How- talk and perceptions of ability to do well in
ever, compared to non-LD peers, the latter mathematics (Kamann, 1989).
needed to write more essays to reach a satis-
factory level of the instructional criteria per Kamann and Wong (1993) validated a
genre. coping strategy that effectively addressed
math anxiety in students with LD in lower
At the close of the 1990s, cognitive strate- and upper intermediate grades and enabled
gies research in LD showed an exciting de- these students to achieve well in mathemat-
velopment in mathematics problem solving. ics learning and performance. This coping
Designed originally by Montague and Bos strategy involves the following steps:
(1986), and subsequently honed in two in-
tervention studies (Montague, 1992; Mon- 1. Student assesses the situation (label the
tague et al., 1993), Montague and her asso- task and plan attack). Student then gen-
ciates validated a strategy for mathematics erates coping self-statements: What is it
problem solving for adolescents with LD. that I have to do? Look over the task and
This strategy consists of both cognitive and think about how I will work through it.
metacogntive components. The cognitive
processes and specific problem-solving 2. Student recognizes and controls negative
strategies include READ (comprehension), thoughts (Recognize that negative
PARAPHRASE (translation), VISUALIZE thoughts hurt my work. Control negative
(transforming), HYPOTHESIZE (planning), thoughts by replacing them with positive
ESTIMATE (prediction), COMPUTE (cal- thoughts). Coping self-statements in-
culation), and CHECK (evaluation). The clude: Recognition. OK I feel worried
metacognitive processes and strategies and scared. . . . I’m saying things that
(awareness and regulation of cognitive don’t help. . . . I can stop and think more
strategies) include SELF-INSTRUCT (strat- helpful thoughts. Controlling. Don’t
egy knowledge and use), SELF-QUESTION worry, remember to use my plan. Take it
(strategy knowledge and use), and SELF- step by step—look at one question at a
MONITOR (strategy control) (Montague, time. Don’t let my eyes wander to other
1997, p. 168). The goal of this strategy is to questions.When I feel fear coming on . . .
392 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
I take a deep breath, and think I am do- ing content (e.g., Andrews & Lupart, 1993;
ing just fine . . . things are going well. I Larkin & Ellis, 1998). Simultaneously, how-
can do this (I remember having learned ever, researchers described how independent
and mastered this kind of problem with and strategic learning also requires students’
my LD teacher in the resource room). I’ll explicit awareness and self-direction of cog-
just think through the questions and do nitive processing (Brown, 1980, 1987;
my best. Flavell, 1976; Wong et al., 1991). As a re-
3. Self-reinforcement (patting myself on the sult, strategy training approaches were de-
back for doing a good job).Reinforcing veloped to foster students’ metacognitive re-
self-statements include the following: I flection on learning activities (Butler,
did really well in not letting my anxiety 1998b; Harris & Graham, 1996), thereby
get the best of me. Good for me I did a bridging teacher-guided instruction and stu-
good job! I did a good job in not allow- dent-directed learning (e.g., Ellis, 1993).
ing myself to worry so much. Consistent with these theoretical principles,
in SCL teachers bridge content and process
Strategic Content Learning Instruction instruction in order to enhance students’
for Adolescents and Adults with LD learning processes, metacognition and self-
direction.
Strategic content learning (SCL) was devel-
oped in the early 1990s to promote strategic Second, SCL draws on models of self-
learning and problem solving by students regulated learning to characterize effective
with LD (see Butler, 1993, 1994, 1995). cognitive processing (Brown, 1987; Butler
Current research evaluates SCL as a model & Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 1989, 1994).
for supporting adolescents with LD (Butler, Models of self-regulation describe strategic
Jarvis, Beckingham, Novak, & Elaschuk, learning as comprising recursive cycles of
2001), but early studies were conducted task analysis, strategy implementation, and
with adults. This initial focus was selected self-monitoring (Butler & Winne, 1995).
because the problems experienced by stu- During task analysis, students locate cues
dents with LD extend into adulthood, and that define task demands and interpret what
because little research has been available re- is expected. Then they select, adapt, or in-
garding how to support students with LD in vent strategies to meet task demands. After
postsecondary settings (Vogel & Adelman, implementing strategies, self-regulated
1990). This section outlines theoretical learners self-monitor progress. They self-
strands that converged in the formation of evaluate by comparing outcomes (and feed-
SCL, SCL instructional guidelines, research back) to performance criteria and make
into SCL efficacy, and directions for future judgments about how to proceed. Research
research involving SCL. has shown that students with LD struggle
not only with strategy implementation but
SCL’s Theoretical Rationale also with interpreting tasks, monitoring,
and self-evaluation (see Butler, 1998b,
At least five theoretical strands converged in 1999; Wong et al., 1991). Thus, in SCL,
the development of SCL. First, one contri- strategic learning is fostered by guiding stu-
bution of educational psychology as a field dents to engage reflectively, recursively, and
has been to describe cognitive processes that successfully in cycles of self-regulation.
can be associated with enhanced perfor-
mance on academic tasks (e.g., Dole, Duffy, Third, SCL builds from research docu-
Roehler, & Pearson, 1991). An implication, menting that students’ knowledge and be-
borne out in research, is that student perfor- liefs mediate their approaches to learning
mance should improve when teachers struc- (Paris & Paris, 2001). For example,
ture instruction and academic work to cue metacognitive knowledge about tasks and
effective processing. Examples of instruc- strategies clearly influence students’ ap-
tional practices that guide effective learning proaches to tasks (Butler, 1998b; Wong et
include using advance organizers, concept al., 1991). Similarly, students’ perceptions
maps, or procedural facilitators while teach- of agency, reflected in task-specific percep-
tions of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1993;
Schunk, 1994) or attributional beliefs
(Borkowski, 1992; Weiner, 1974), can ei-
Cognitive Strategies Instruction Research 393
ther support or undermine their strategic Research suggests that students feel more
approaches. Research suggests that meta- ownership over strategies that they are in-
cognitive knowledge and self-perceptions of volved in constructing and that are person-
agency are fostered when students observe alized to meet their unique needs (Butler,
links between learning activities and out- 1995).
comes. Thus, in SCL, students are support-
ed to construct productive knowledge and To summarize, SCL is an approach to
beliefs by guiding them to self-regulate ef- strategy training that focuses on much more
fectively and then to self-monitor learning. than teaching strategies. Instead, SCL pro-
vides instructional principles for integrating
Fourth, SCL derives from an integration content and process instruction (see Butler,
of sociocultural and constructivist perspec- in press). Furthermore, by interweaving
tives. Research suggests that while students principles from diverse theoretical strands,
actively construct knowledge as they seek to SCL provides a simple framework for
make sense of experience, social contexts achieving multiple complementary objec-
provide the language and tools students em- tives. By promoting reflective and effective
ploy to construct understandings (Butler, self-regulation, SCL assists students to (1)
1998a; Stone, 1998). Furthermore, al- construct knowledge and beliefs critical to
though students do not come to instruction successful performance (e.g., domain-specif-
as self-regulating “blank slates” (Butler & ic knowledge, knowledge about tasks and
Winne, 1995), they do need to learn how to strategies, positive perceptions of agency),
channel extant self-regulating abilities in the (2) learn how to self-direct learning (e.g., in-
context of academic work. In this respect, terpret tasks and self-direct learning to
teachers play a key role in helping students achieve task objectives), and (3) learn how
to decipher the demands of academic tasks to select, adapt, or even invent personalized
and shape effective approaches to learning. strategies that they transfer across contexts
Building from this perspective, in SCL and time and over which they feel owner-
teachers scaffold instruction by building ship.
from students’ extant knowledge, beliefs,
and skills. Teachers complete ongoing func- SCL Instructional Guidelines
tional and dynamic assessments as a foun-
dation for guiding learning and shaping Descriptions of SCL instructional guidelines
self-regulation. are available elsewhere (see Butler, 1993,
1995, in press; Butler, Elaschuk, & Poole,
Fifth, researchers have defined numerous 2000) and so are only overviewed here.
influences on students’ independent transfer Note, however, that SCL does not provide a
of learned strategies. For example, one key strategies “curriculum,” nor is it something
influence, already discussed, is students’ that can be taught in a separate “lesson.”
self-perceptions of agency. Students with Instead, SCL defines guidelines for integrat-
strong self-perceptions of agency are more ing content and process instruction within
likely to use strategies independently (Ban- classroom lessons, small- and large-group
dura, 1993). Other instructional practices discussions, or one-on-one support (see But-
associated with transfer, and incorporated ler, in press; Butler, Elaschuk, Poole, et al.,
in SCL, include embedding strategy training 2000).
in meaningful work (Palincsar & Brown,
1984; Pressley et al., 1992) and assisting SCL shares key instructional features
students to recognize the value of strategies with other empirically validated strategy
given task demands (Borkowski, 1992). training approaches. For example, as in rec-
SCL also requires students to articulate iprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown,
knowledge about strategic processing, in 1988), transactional strategies instruction
their own words. Mindful abstraction of (Pressley et al., 1992), and SRSD (Harris &
knowledge has been linked to a fuller un- Graham, 1996), teachers and students en-
derstanding about strategies and their use- gage in interactive discussions about strate-
fulness and thus to strategy transfer (Sa- gies while engaged in meaningful work.
lomon & Perkins, 1989; Wong, 1994). Furthermore, as in SRSD (Harris & Gra-
Finally, in SCL transfer is promoted by in- ham, 1996), attention focuses on support-
volving students in strategy construction. ing students’ metacognitive control over
394 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
strategy application. As in Ellis’s interactive be accomplished by shifting responsively be-
strategy instruction, SCL can be integrated tween working with students to complete
with content instruction to foster students’ tasks on-line and asking students to articu-
explicit awareness of effective learning late emerging knowledge as meaningful op-
processes (e.g., Ellis, 1993). And, as in all portunities arise. For example, when work-
current instructional models, SCL supports ing with a student one-on-one, an instructor
students’ construction of metacognitive might assist students to think through a
knowledge and motivational beliefs sup- math problem in order to solve it correctly
portive of strategic learning (Paris & Paris, (working together on-line) and then ask the
2001). However, SCL differs from most student to articulate strategies that also
strategy training models in that direct in- might work for the upcoming problem (op-
struction of strategies is deemphasized. In- portunistic reflection).
stead, students are guided to construct per-
sonalized strategies while completing A third instructional guideline is to treat
authentic academic tasks. students’ completion of academic tasks as
opportunities for collaborative problem
It follows that the central SCL instruc- solving. When collaborating, teachers’ roles
tional guideline is for teachers to approach shift from explaining or providing students
all academic tasks as opportunities to guide with solution strategies to guiding students’
self-regulation, so that students learn how thinking. Students assume control over their
to analyze tasks; define performance crite- own work and make decisions about strate-
ria; select, adapt, or invent effective strate- gies to use, whereas teachers’ roles are to
gies; self-monitor outcomes; and revise support students to make effective decisions
learning approaches. For example, when (e.g., by asking questions that cue effective
planning classroom lessons, teachers would processing or direct students’ attention to
first think about the lesson purpose, possi- important decision making cues) (Kamann
ble tasks and activities, and evaluation crite- & Butler, 1996). Similarly, teachers shift
ria. Then, to promote self-regulation, the from evaluating student performance to
teachers could weave into a lesson, activities supporting self-evaluation. Note, however,
designed to promote students’ active self- that in SCL, students are not left to discover
regulation. For example, they could struc- strategies for themselves. Rather, armed
ture opportunities for students to interpret with an understanding about effective cog-
task demands (e.g., ask students to analyze nitive processes for different kinds of tasks,
writing exemplars or interpret an assign- teachers structure assignments, ask ques-
ment description) and define performance tions, and/or guide discussions to cue effec-
criteria. Similarly, they could ask students to tive processing (i.e., procedural facilitation),
brainstorm strategies for meeting task de- while simultaneously supporting students to
mands. An alternative would be to support articulate and make decisions regarding ap-
students’ effective completion of assign- proaches they will use.
ments, in small or large groups, and then to
ask students to articulate strategies that ap- A final SCL instructional guideline is to
pear to be working. To support self-evalua- base instruction on ongoing dynamic assess-
tion, students could compare their work to ments of students’ knowledge, beliefs, and
performance criteria (before or after turning self-regulated approaches to tasks. Strate-
it in) and/or actively interpret instructor gies for continuous assessment include ask-
feedback (Butler & Winne, 1995). Then stu- ing questions, fostering discussion, observ-
dents could articulate advice to themselves ing students’ strategic approaches, and
(i.e., strategy revisions) for the next time collecting traces of students’ work (Winne
they complete a similar task. Note that each & Perry, 2000). Note that in a recent study
of these suggestions has been used by teach- (Butler, Novak, Beckingham, Jarvis, &
ers to structure classroom instruction (see Elaschuk, 2001), secondary teachers learn-
Butler, Jarvis, et al., 2001). ing to use SCL recognized how often they
made assumptions and provided directives
A second SCL instructional guideline is without understanding students’ difficulties,
that teachers should foster students’ con- even in one-on-one tutoring situations that
struction of knowledge and beliefs during they had thought were learner centered. In
cycles of self-regulated processing. This can contrast, after mastering SCL, teachers re-
Cognitive Strategies Instruction Research 395
ported having a greater understanding of A more recent study evaluated SCL when
student needs, improved listening skills, and used to support secondary students with
more positive relationships with students. LD. In a 2-year project completed in June
2001, teachers and researchers worked col-
SCL Research laboratively to adapt SCL instructional
guidelines in learning assistance/resource
Initial research on SCL efficacy included settings and inclusive classrooms. In the first
postsecondary students with LD. A se- year of the project, nine teachers from four
quence of studies was planned to evaluate schools adapted SCL to support 53 students
SCL efficacy when adapted for use within with a variety of learning difficulties (46%
common service delivery models at the post- with LD) in learning assistance or resource
secondary level, including one-on-one tutor- classrooms. A tenth teacher chose to adapt
ing by learning disability specialists or SCL to teach writing in her inclusive Eng-
teachers, peer tutoring, and small-group dis- lish/Humanities 9 classroom. As in previous
cussions. Note that participants in the post- SCL research, multiple, parallel case studies
secondary studies were a diverse set of stu- were embedded within a pre–posttest de-
dents, ranging in age from 18 years to late sign. The only addition was collection of
adulthood. Only a subset of students were data from comparison groups in both learn-
high school graduates pursuing college or ing assistance/resource and inclusive class
university degrees. Many were enrolled in settings.
vocational programs or academic upgrading
classes at the intermediate or high school Preliminary analyses of the first-year data
level (see Butler, 1993, 1995, 1998c; Butler, suggest that SCL is also a promising inter-
Elaschuk, & Poole, 2000; Butler, Elaschuk, vention for students at the secondary level
Poole, MacLeod, & Syer, 1997). (see Butler, Jarvis, et al., 2001). In end-
of-the-year interviews, teachers reported im-
Across the postsecondary studies, multiple provements in students’ confidence, knowl-
parallel case studies were embedded within a edge of task demands, strategies, self-
pre–posttest design. Research reports in- awareness, independence and self-direction,
clude summaries of outcomes associated and task performance. Teachers also de-
with SCL intervention (see Butler, 1993, scribed positive shifts in classroom climate
1995, 1998d), detailed analyses of instruc- when students worked more independently.
tional interactions (see Butler, Elaschuk, Preliminary analyses of questionnaire and
Poole, et al., 2000; Kamann & Butler, 1996), case study data provide converging evidence
and in-depth case study reports (see Butler, for teachers’ reports. Improvements were
Elaschuk, & Poole, 2000). In general, similar found in students’ perceptions of agency,
patterns of findings were observed across metacognitive knowledge, and strategic ap-
service delivery models. Analyses of ques- proaches to learning.
tionnaire and interview data revealed pre- to
posttest improvements in students’ self- Directions for Further Research on SCL
perceptions of competence and control and
metacognitive knowledge. Further, case One obvious direction for further research
study analyses suggested that students’ task on SCL is to conduct additional studies at
performance improved over time, and that the secondary level, within inclusive class-
students were actively involved in strategy rooms, learning assistance/resource settings,
construction, developed personalized strate- and/or alternative schools. A second direc-
gies linked to their unique strengths and tion is to explore SCL for use in upper ele-
needs, and transferred strategy use across mentary or intermediate contexts. A final
contexts and tasks. These outcomes were ap- direction is to examine how SCL instruc-
parent in the studies on peer tutoring but tional principles can be employed to sup-
were most consistent and powerful when port teachers’ professional development
SCL was used to structure one-on-one tutor- (i.e., as they learn to implement SCL) (see
ing and small-group discussions. Overall, Butler, Novak, et al., 2001). Future research
empirical research strongly supports SCL as in these areas will provide a fuller picture of
a model for providing support to students SCL’s applicability for supporting students
with LD at the postsecondary level. across contexts and across ages.
396 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
Epilogue continuum. From this perspective, re-
searchers simply vary structure in their
The preceding summaries clearly show ac- strategy designs as a function of student
tive cognitive strategy instruction research needs. A parallel line of research would be
in LD, primarily in the area of composing, a on the conditions of when more or less
major cornerstone of which is the research structured strategy instruction would fit the
ensuing from the SRSD model. In future needs of particular students with LD.
years, we foresee continual cognitive strate-
gies instruction research in composing as Second, a persistent research question in
well as exciting extensions into mathemat- cognitive strategy instruction research has
ics, social studies/history, and science. been how we can help students with LD to
be become strategic learners. We are keenly
In addition, we anticipate research in at aware that teaching students one or several
least two other areas. First, as mentioned cognitive and metacognitive strategies by no
earlier, cognitive strategies instruction re- means turn them into strategic learners who
search is always evolving. We highlight such consistently approach various tasks planful-
evolvement by pointing to the degree of ly and strategically and willingly expend ef-
structure in strategies. For example, on the fort at learning. A minimum requirement
one hand, we have more structured cogni- for making students with LD into strategic
tive strategies from KU. On the other hand, learners appears to involve immersing them
we have much less structure in Butler’s SCL in strategy instruction continuously across
approach. In SCL, there is no set script in curriculum. This had been attempted by
strategy instruction because the teacher’s Gaskins, Cunicelli, and Satlow (1992). At a
application of this approach involves an in- private school for students who might well
teraction between the student’s strategic be LD, Gaskins and colleagues ran a 3-year
repertoire and the task. The essence of ap- research project in which the school’s direc-
plying SCL lies in the teacher’s guiding/scaf- tor and supervisors of teachers all support-
folding the student to do a task analysis of ed strategy instruction across the curricu-
the task demands, and to guide/scaffold the lum. Teachers were actively encouraged to
student in devising a strategy to meet these join the project. In the main, Gaskins and
demands. Subsequently, the focus of SCL colleagues had much success in getting the
shifts from being cognitive to metacogni- teachers to learn to teach strategies and en-
tive. The teacher guides/scaffolds the stu- joy the collaborative spirit and professional
dent in self-monitoring and self-regulating growth. However, teachers who did not
task completion and self-assessment of the share the enthusiasm or took longer to join
learning/performance outcome.Thus, the the project felt stressed. They worried that
SCL approach affords the teacher much they had fallen out of favor with the direc-
flexibility as she uses her content, pedagog- tor of the school. There were also some stu-
ic, and strategic knowledge and teaching ex- dents who did not respond positively to the
perience to help the student devise a task- strategy instruction approach. But Gaskins
appropriate strategy. The approach also and colleagues’ project underscored an im-
affords the student with LD optimal oppor- portant point, namely, wholesale school-
tunities in developing into a self-regulated based cognitive strategy instruction depends
learner. However, the effectiveness of this on open and full support from the adminis-
approach appears to depend importantly on trators/principals.
the extant strategic repertoire of the stu-
dent. Because students with LD tend to be Undeniably, students who learn in the en-
deficient in cognitive and metacognitive vironment such as the Benchmark school of
strategies in learning, conceivably some of Gaskins and colleagues (1992) have the best
them may need more explicit and structured opportunities to become strategic learners
strategy instruction to build up a sufficient because of the intensity and extensity of giv-
strategy repertoire in order to benefit from en strategy instruction. However, there is at
an approach such as SCL. This contrast be- least another approach that we can adopt,
tween strategy structure in KU strategies one that may bring us similar results with-
and the SCL approach suggests that we out the negative concerns of teachers who
should treat/consider strategy structure as a may not wish to experiment with strategy
instruction. This approach is forming a
Cognitive Strategies Instruction Research 397
community of practice in which university friendship/rapport and because there would
researchers and classroom teachers join to be no top-down pressure from administra-
collaboratively develop ways to teach cogni- tors to teach strategies. Moreover, the net-
tive and metacognitive strategies. Using the work of colleagual support between univer-
community of practice concept in forming sity researchers and teachers can withstand
such a community, we deviate from the the absence of support from administrators.
original concept of Lave and Wenger When teachers from different but consecu-
(1991), who described their observations tive grades within the same school become
and analyses of established communities of members of this community of practice and
practice such as tailors. But our deviation engage in strategy instruction across the
appears acceptable because we maintain the curriculum, students with LD may have the
essence of such a community, that among most optimal environment in developing
members there is distributed knowledge/ex- into more strategic learners. Surely, research
pertise; that knowledge is socially construct- is called for on forming a community of
ed, mediated, and shared; and that meaning practice as one way to fostering strategic
is negotiated. learners.
As university researchers, Palincsar, Mag- References
nusson, Collins, and Cutter (2000) recruited
elementary teachers who shared an interest Albertson, L. R., & Billingsley, F. F. (1997, March).
in using inquiry learning in science educa- Improving young writers planning and reviewing
tion and formed a community of practice. skills while story writing. Paper presented to the
The goal was to collaboratively develop best annual meeting of the American Educational Re-
teaching practices to effect a principled sci- search Association, Chicago.
ence instructional approach called guided
inquiry learning supporting multiple litera- Alexander, P. A., Garner, R., Sperl, C. T., & Hare,
cies (GIsML). Similarly, Perry and Van- V. C. (1998). Fostering reading competence in
deKamp (2000) formed a community of students with learning disabilities. In B. Y. L.
practice with primary teachers interested in Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities
fostering self-regulation in the children. (pp. 343–366). New York: Academic Press.
Relating a community of practice to strat- Alley, G., & Deshler, D. (1979). Teaching the learn-
egy instruction research, university re- ing-disabled adolescent: Strategies and methods.
searchers would recruit teachers interested Denver, CO: Love.
in cognitive strategy instruction. They
would all commit time to meet and plan Andrews, J., & Lupart, J. (1993). The inclusive
strategy instruction regularly and to share classroom: Educating exceptional children. Scar-
experiences in strategy instruction. Simulta- borough, Ontario, Canada: Nelson Canada.
neously, the university researchers would
gather data from the teachers’ classrooms to Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cogni-
assess the efficacy of strategy instruction on tive development and functioning. Educational
student learning and student perceptions of Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
the benefits of strategy instruction. More-
over, teachers’ reactions to their experiences Bednarczyk, A. (1991). The effectiveness of story
in strategy instruction would be analyzed grammar instruction with a self-instructional
(e.g., through teachers’ reflective journals). strategy development framework for students
with learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral
A community of practice that pursues dissertation, University of Maryland, College
strategy instruction with single-mindedness Park.
may be a step in the right direction in our
attempt to immerse students in strategy in- Borkowski, J. G. (1992). Metacognitive theory: A
struction because, as community members, framework for teaching literacy, writing, and
supported by university researchers, the math skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25,
teachers will effect sustained and systematic 253–257.
instruction of cognitive strategies. More im-
portant, teachers in their own schools can Borkowski, J. G., Day, J. D., Saenz, D., Dretmeyer,
be the best recruiters of peers to join the D., Estrada, T. M., & Groteluschen, A. (1992).
community of practice because of extant Expanding the boundaries of cognitive interven-
tions. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary in-
tervention research in learning disabilities (pp.
1–21). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development
and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F.
Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading com-
prehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychol-
ogy, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and educa-
tion (pp. 453–481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
398 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive con- Investigating an application of strategic content
trol, self-regulation, and other more mysterious learning: Promoting strategy development in
mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe group contexts. Paper presented at the annual
(Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and under- meeting of the American Educational Research
standing (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Association. New Orleans, LA.
Butler, D. L., Jarvis, S., Beckingham, B., Novak, H.,
Brown, A., Campione, J., & Day, (1981). Learning & Elaschuk, C. L. (2001). Teachers as facilitators
to learn: On training students to learn from text. of students’ strategic performance: promoting
Educational Researcher, 10, 14–21. academic success by secondary students with
learning difficulties. Paper presented at the annu-
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Inducing al meeting of the American Educational Research
strategic learning from texts by means of in- Association, Seattle.
formed, self-control training. Topics in Learning Butler, D. L., Novak, H., Beckingham, B., Jarvis, S.,
and Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 1–17. & Elaschuk, C. L. (2000). Professional develop-
ment and meaningful change: towards sustaining
Butler, D. L. (1993). Promoting strategic learning an instructional innovation. Paper presented at
by adults with learning disabilities: An alternative the annual meeting of the American Educational
approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Si- Research Association, Seattle.
mon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and
self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis.
Butler, D. L. (1994). From learning strategies to Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.
strategic learning: Promoting self-regulated learn- Case, L., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Im-
ing by post secondary students with learning dis- proving the mathematical problem solving skills
abilities. Canadian Journal of Special Education, of students with learning disabilities and self-reg-
4, 69–101. ulated strategy development. Journal of Special
Education, 26, 1–19.
Butler, D. L. (1995). Promoting strategic learning Case, L., Mamlin, N., Harris, K., & Graham, S.
by post secondary students with learning disabili- (1995). Self-regulated strategy development: A
ties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, theoretical and practical perspective. In T. Scrug-
170–190. gs & M. Mastropieri (Eds.), Research in learning
and behavioral disabilities (pp. 21–46). Green-
Butler, D. L. (1998a). In search of the architect of wich, CT: JAI Press.
learning: A commentary on scaffolding as a Collins, R. (1992). Narrative writing of option II
metaphor for instructional interactions. Journal students: The effects of combining the whole-lan-
of Learning Disabilities, 31 (4), 374–385. guage techniques, writing process approach and
strategy training. Unpublished thesis, State Uni-
Butler, D. L. (1998b). Metacognition and learning versity of New York, Buffalo.
disabilities. In B. Y. L. Wong (ed.), Learning Danoff, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1993). In-
about learning disabilities (2nd ed.) (pp. corporating strategy instruction within the writ-
277–307). Toronto: Academic Press. ing process in the regular classroom. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 25, 295–322.
Butler, D. L. (1998c). A Strategic Content Learning De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy in-
approach to promoting self-regulated learning. In struction in regular education settings: Improving
B. J. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Develop- outcomes for students with and without learning
ing self-regulated learning: From teaching to self- disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and
reflective practice (pp. 160–183). New York: Practice, 14, 92–106.
Guildford Press. De La Paz, S. (2001). Teaching writing to students
with attention deficit disorders and specific lan-
Butler, D. L. (1998d). The Strategic Content Learn- guage impairment. Journal of Educational Re-
ing approach to promoting self-regulated learn- search, 95, 37–47.
ing: A summary of three studies. Journal of Edu- De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2001). Strategy in-
cational Psychology, 90, 682–697. struction in planning: Enhancing the planning be-
havior and writing performance of middle school
Butler, D. L. (1999, April). Identifying and remedi- students. Manuscript submitted for publication.
ating students’ inefficient approaches to tasks. De La Paz, S., Owen, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham,
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the S. (2000). Riding Elvis’ motorcycle: Using self-
American Educational Research Association, regulated strategy development to PLAN and
Montreal, Quebec, Canada. WRITE for a state exam. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 15(2), 101–109.
Butler, D. L. (in press). Individualizing instruction Deshler, D., Alley, G., Warner, M., & Schumaker, J.
in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice. (1981). Instructional practices for promoting
skill acquisition in severely learning disabled ado-
Butler, D. L., Elaschuk, C. L., & Poole, S. (2000). lescents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4,
Promoting strategic writing by postsecondary 415–421.
students with learning disabilities: A report of
three case studies. Learning Disability Quarterly,
23, 196–213.
Butler, D. L., Elaschuk, C. L., Poole, S., MacLeod,
W. B., & Syer, K. (1997, June). Teaching peer tu-
tors to support strategic learning by post-sec-
ondary students with learning disabilities. Papaer
presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian
Society for Studies in Education, St. John’s, NF,
Canada.
Butler, D. L., Elaschuk, C. L., Poole, S. L., Novak,
H. J., Jarvis, S., & Beckingham, B. (2000, April).
Cognitive Strategies Instruction Research 399
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989a). A compo-
P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: nents analysis of cognitive strategy instruction:
Research on reading comprehension instruction. Effects on learning disabled students’ composi-
Review of Educational Research, 61, 239–264. tions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81, 353–36l.
Duffy, G. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation
of strategies. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989b). Improving
Comprehension instruction: Research-based best learning disabled students’ skills at composing es-
practices (pp. 28–41). New York: Guilford Press. says: Self-instructional strategy training. Excep-
tional Children, 56, 20l–2l6.
Ellis, E. S. (1993). Integrative strategy instruction:
A potential model for teaching content area sub- Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1993). Teaching writ-
jects to adolescents with learning disabilities. ing strategies to students with learning disabili-
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 358–383, ties: Issues and recommendations. In L. J.
398. Meltzer (Ed.), Strategy assessment and instruc-
tion for students with learning disabilities: From
Ellis, E. S., & Colvert, G. (1996). Writing strategy theory to practice (pp. 271–292). Austin, TX:
instruction. In D. D. Deshler, E. S. Ellis, & B. K. Pro-Ed.
Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning
disabilities: Strategies and methods (2nd ed., pp. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C. A., &
127–170). Denver, CO: Love. Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing and writing instruc-
tion for students with learning disabilities: Re-
Ellis, E. S., & Larkin, M. J. (1998). Adolescents view of a research program. Learning Disability
with learning disabilities. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Quarterly, 14, 89–114.
Learning about learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp.
557–584). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Sawyer, R. (1987).
Composition instruction with learning disabled
Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1991). Making students: Self-instructional strategy training. Fo-
students partners in the comprehension process: cus on Exceptional Children, 20(4), l–ll.
Organizing the reading “POSSE.” Learning Dis-
ability Quarterly, 14, 123–138. Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & MacArthur, C. A.
(1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., & Anderson, L. M. process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy
(1992). Socially mediated instruction: Improving for students with and without learning disabili-
students’ knowledge and talk about writing. Ele- ties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4),
mentary School Journal, 92, 411–449. 237–249.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., An- Harris, K. R. (1980). The sustained effects of cogni-
thony, H. M., Fear, K. L., & Gregg, S. L. (1988). tive modification and informed teachers on chil-
A case for writing intervention: Strategies for dren’s communication apprehension. Communi-
writing informational text. Learning Disabilities cation Quarterly, 24, 47–57.
Focus, 3(2), 98–113.
Harris, K. R. (1982). Cognitive-behavior modifica-
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L., Antho- tion: Application with exceptional students. Fo-
ny, H., Stevens, D., & Fear, K. (1991). Making cus on Exceptional Children, 15 (2), 1–16.
writing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive
strategy instruction in writing in regular and spe- Harris, K. R., & Alexander, P. A. (1998). Integrat-
cial education classrooms. American Educational ed, constructivist education: Challenge and reali-
Research Journal, 28, 337–373. ty. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2),
ll5–l27.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of prob-
lem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of Harris, K. R., & Graham, S., (1992). Self-regulated
intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl- strategy development: A part of the writing
baum. process. In M. Pressley, K. E. Harris, & J. T.
Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics and literacy in school (pp. 277–309). New York:
of composing: Making plans and juggling con- Academic Press.
straints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),
Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hills- Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1994). Construc-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum. tivism: Principles, paradigms, and integration.
Journal of Special Education, 28, 233–247.
Fulk, B. M. (1994). Mnemonic keyword strategy
training for students with learning disabilities. Harris K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, writing process work: Strategies for composition
179–195. and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
Gaskins, L., Cunicelli, E. A., & Satlow, E. (1992). Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic
Implementing an across-the-curriculum strategies intervention research: Illustrations from the evo-
program: Teachers’ reactions to change. In M. lution of self-regulated strategy development.
Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 251–262.
Promoting academic competence and literacy in
school (pp. 407–426). San Diego, CA: Academic Hutchinson, N. L. (1993). Effects of cognitive strat-
Press. egy instruction on algebra problem solving of
adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning
Graham, S. (1982). Written composition research Disability Quarterly, 16, 34–43.
and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Ex-
ceptional Children, 14, 1–16. Jitendra, A. K., & Hoff, K. E. (1995). Schema-
based instruction on word problem solving per-
400 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
formance of students with learning disabilities. Mayer, R. E. (2001). What good is educational psy-
East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research chology? The case of cognition and instruction.
on Teacher Training. (ERIC Document Repro- Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 83–88.
duction Service No. ED 381 990)
Johnson, L., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). Meichenbaum, D. H. (1977). Cognitive behavior
The effects of goal setting and self-instruction on modification. New York: Plenum Press.
learning a reading comprehension strategy
among students with learning disabilities. Journal Miller, G. E., & Brewster, M. E. (1992). Developing
of Learning Disabilities, 30(l), 80–91. self-sufficient learners in reading and mathemat-
Kamann, M. P., & Butler, D. L. (1996, April). ics through self-instructional training. In M.
Strategic content learning: An analysis of instruc- Pressley, K. E. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Pro-
tional features. Paper presented at the annual moting academic competence and literacy in
meeting of the American Educational Research school (pp. 169–222). New York: Academic
Association, New York. Press.
Kamann, M. P., & Wong, B. Y. L. (1993). Inducing
adaptive coping self-statements in children with Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1993). Using a gradu-
learning disabilities through self-instruction ated word problem sequence to promote prob-
training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(9), lem-solving skills. Learning Disabilities Research
630–638. and Practice, 8, 169–174.
Larkin, M. J. & Ellis, E. S. (1998). Adolescents with
learning disabilities. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and
Learning about learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. metacognitive strategy instruction on mathemati-
557–584). Toronto: Academic Press. cal problem solving of middle school students
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, Disabilities, 25, 230–248.
UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cam-
bridge. Montague, M. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruc-
Lenz, K. B., Bulgren, J., & Hudson, P. (1990). Con- tion in mathematics for students with learning
tent enhancement: A model for promoting the ac- disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
quisition of content by individuals with learning 30(2), 164–177.
disabilities. In T. E. Scruggs & B. Y. L. Wong
(Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabili- Montague, M., & Bos, C. (1986). The effect of cog-
ties (pp. 122–165). New York: Springer-Verlag. nitive strategy training on verbal math problem
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & solving performance of learning disabled adoles-
Shafer, W. (1995). Evaluation of a writing in- cents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19,
struction model that integrated a process ap- 26–33.
proach, strategy instruction, and word process-
ing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 278–291. Montague, M., Applegate, B., & Marquard, K.
MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1993). Cognitive strategy instruction and mathe-
(1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strat- matical problem-solving performance of students
egy in special education classrooms. Learning with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 201–210. Research and Practice, 8, 223–232.
MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., Graham, S., Molloy,
D., & Harris, K. R. (1996). Integration of strate- National Institute of Child Health and Human De-
gy instruction into a whole language classroom: velopment. (2000). Teaching children to read: An
A case study. Learning Disabilities Research and evidence-based assessment of the scientific re-
Practice, 11(3), l68–l76. search literature on reading and its implications
Mann, V. (1998). Language problems: A key to ear- for reading instruction [Report of the National
ly reading problems. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Reading Panel] (NIH Publication No. 00–4769).
Learning about learning disabilities (pp. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-
163–201). New York: Academic Press. fice.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E. (1989). Con-
structing more meaningful relationships: Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motiva-
Mnemonic instruction for special populations. tional orientations and study strategies. Cogni-
Educational Psychology Review, 1(2), 83–111. tion and Instruction, 5(4), 269–287.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Chung, S.
(1998). Instructional interventions for students Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal
with mathematics learning disabilities. In B. Y. L. teaching of comprehension-fostering and com-
Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities prehension monitoring activities. Cognition and
(pp. 425–451). New York: Academic Press. Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Shiah, S.
(1991). Mathematics instruction with learning Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1988). Teaching
disabled students: A review of research. Learning and practicing thinking skills to promote compre-
Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 89–98. hension in the context of group problem solving.
Remedial and Special Education, 9(1), 53–59.
Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., &
Cutter, J. (2000). Making science accessible to
all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive
classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24,
15–32.
Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984).
Informed strategies for learning: A program to
improve children’s reading awareness and com-
prehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,
76, 1239–1252.
Cognitive Strategies Instruction Research 401
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefit of Schumaker, J. B., & Sheldon, J. (1985). The sen-
informed instruction for children’s reading tence writing strategy: Instructor’s manual.
awareness and comprehension skills. Child De- Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprise.
velopment, 55, 2083–2093.
Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-effica-
Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmen- cy and attributions in academic settings. In D. H.
tal aspects of self-regulated learning. Educational Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regula-
Psychologist, 25(1), 87–102. tion of learning and performance: Issues and edu-
cational applications (pp. 75–99). Hillsdale, NJ:
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom ap- Erlbaum.
plications of research on Self-Regulated Learn-
ing. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1990). The
case for mnemonic instruction: From laboratory
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacog- research to classroom applications. Journal of
nition can promote academic learning and in- Special Education, 24(1), 7–32.
struction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimen-
sions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Class-
15–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. room applications of mnemonics instruction: Ac-
quisition, maintenance, and generalization. Ex-
Perry, N. E., & VandeKamp, K. J. O. (2000). Creat- ceptional Children, 58, 219–229.
ing classroom contexts that support young chil-
dren’s development of self-regulated learning. In- Sexton, M., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1998).
ternational Journal of Educational Research, 33, Self-regulated strategy development and the writ-
821–843. ing process: Effects on essay writing and attribu-
tions. Exceptional Children, 64(3), 295–311.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that
works: The case for balanced teaching. New Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding:
York: Guilford Press. Its utility for the field of learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–364.
Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I. W., Schud-
er, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J., & Brown, R. Tanhouser, S. (1994). Function over form: The rela-
(1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional tive efficacy of self-instructional strategy training
instruction of reading comprehension strategies. alone and with procedural facilitation for adoles-
Elementary School Journal, 92, 513–555. cents with learning disabilities. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.
Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (2001). Cognitive
strategies instruction. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Devel- Trabasso, T., & Bouchard, E. (2002). Teaching
oping minds: A resource book for teaching think- readers how to comprehend text strategically. In
ing (3rd ed., pp. 466–471). Alexandria, VA: As- C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehen-
sociation for Supervision and Curriculum sion instruction: Research-based best practices
Development. (pp. 176–200). New York: Guilford Press.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads Vogel, S. A., & Adelman, P. B. (1990). Intervention
to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglect- effectiveness at the postsecondary level for the
ed phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, learning disabled. In T. Scruggs & B. Y. L. Wong
113–142. (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabili-
ties (pp. 329–344). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sawyer, R. J., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992).
Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy Weiner, B. (1974). An attributional interpretation of
instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects expectancy-value theory. In B. Weiner (Ed.), Cog-
on learning disabled students’ composition skills nitive views of human motivation (pp. 51–69).
and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychol- New York: Academic Press.
ogy, 84, 340–352.
Willis, S. (1993). Whole language in the ’90s.
Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1992). Valida- ASCD Update, 35(9), 1–8.
tion of learning strategy interventions for stu-
dents with LD: Results of a programmatic re- Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-
search effort. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), regulated learning. In P. Pintrich, M. Boekarts, &
Contemporary intervention research in learning M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation
disabilities: an international perspective (pp. (pp. 531–566). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
22–46). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1994). Instructional parameters
Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Alley, G. R., Warn- promoting transfer of learned strategies in stu-
er, M. M., & Denton, P. H. (1982). Multipass: A dents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabil-
learning strategy for improving reading compre- ity Quarterly, 17(2), 110–120.
hension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5,
295–304. Wong, B. Y. L. (1999). Metacognition in writing. In
R. Gallimore, C. Bernheimer, D. MacMillan, D.
Schumaker, J. B., & Lyerla, K. (1991). The para- Speece, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Developmental per-
graph writing strategy: Instructor’s manual. spectives on children with high incidence disabili-
Lawrence: University of Kansas Institute for Re- ties: papers in honor of Barbara K. Keogh (pp.
search in Learning Disabilities. 183–198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schumaker, J. B., Nolan, S. M., & Deshler, D. D. Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Ku-
(1985). The error monitoring strategy. Learning peris, S. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learn-
strategies curriculum, University of Kansas, ing disabilities and low achievers to plan, write,
Lawrence. and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 29(2), 197–212.
402 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Ku- W. (1991). Interactive teaching: An effective way
peris, S. (1997). Teaching adolescents with learn- to teach revision skills to adolescents with learn-
ing disabilities and low achievers to plan, write, ing disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research
and revise compare-and-contrast essays. Learn- and Practice, 6(2), 117–127.
ing Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(1), Wray, D. (1994). Literacy and awareness. London:
2–15. Hodder & Stoughton.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Prefer-
Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., Kuperis, ences need no inferences. American Psychologist,
S., & Corden, M. (1994). Teaching problem 35, 151–175.
learners revision skills and sensitivity to audience Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social-cognitive view
through two instructional modes: Student- of self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational
teacher versus student—student interactive dia- Psychology, 81, 329–339.
logues. Learning Disabilities Research and Prac- Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic
tice, 9(2), 78–90. self-regulation: A conceptual framework for edu-
cation. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman
Wong, B. Y. L., Wong, R., & Blenkinsop, J. (1989). (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and perfor-
Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of learning mance: Issues and educational applications (pp.
disabled adolescents’ composing problems. 3–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(4), 300–322.
Wong, B. Y. L., Wong, R., Darlington, D., & Jones,
24
Direct Instruction
Gary Adams
Douglas Carnine
The field of education has a long history of 0.75) as described in this chapter, Direct In-
wrangling about educational issues with struction programs must be considered ex-
each side often having little or no research tremely effective. Though most of these re-
evidence to substantiate their claims. A ma- views have focused on students who are
jor change has occurred in the last decade. It loosely described as at risk for school fail-
seems that there has been a heightened inter- ure, this chapter provides a meta-analysis of
est in looking at the actual research behind Direct Instruction with studies that limited
various claims. Some of these efforts have to those involving students with learning
been by researchers (e.g., Chall, 2000) and disabilities.
national organizations both individually
(e.g., the American Federation of Teachers, Any discussion about the research on Di-
www.aft.org/edissues/whatworks/index) and rect Instruction has to start with a clarifica-
collectively through funding of reports by tion of its definition. Although the term has
research groups such as the American Insti- been around for decades, it is still misused
tutes for Research (An Educators’ Guide to by many education professors and others.
Schoolwide Reform, www.assa.org/reforms) Direct Instruction is not teacher-directed in-
or the private or publicly funded meta- struction with an emphasis on lecturing.
analyses such as the one conducted by Teacher-directed instruction is often con-
Swanson, Lee, and Hoskyn (1999). Most re- trasted to what is described as “child-cen-
cently, the Direct Instruction model was se- tered instruction.” Direct Instruction is very
lected. teacher-directed, but the terms are not syn-
onymous. Also, Direct Instruction is not di-
One of the consistent finding of these re- rect instruction. The term “direct instruc-
views has been the superiority of Direct In- tion” is often associated with research
struction programs for achieving academic showing that certain educational techniques
success in comparison to other published and methods (pacing, choral responses, cu-
programs. These results match the meta- ing, etc.) have resulted in accelerated acade-
analysis about Direct Instruction conducted mic success. However, as Slavin (1989)
by Adams (Adams & Engelmann, 1996). notes, the research on Madeline Hunter’s
With effect sizes in the large range (over program showed that just training teachers
403
404 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
to use many direct instruction techniques Competent training requires training teach-
does not necessarily lead to improved stu- ers to mastery and providing the rationales
dent academic achievement. for the DI features. Many teachers are un-
able to receive training; training is not re-
When someone says that they have creat- quired for purchasing. For those teachers,
ed a Direct Instruction program, it means each DI program has a teacher’s guide de-
that the person has mixed up “direct in- scribing how the program should be taught
struction” with “Direct Instruction.” They with the program’s scope-and-sequence
usually describe how they have developed chart describing what will be taught.
several lessons based on direct instruction
principles. In contrast, Direct Instruction The next step is to assess the students us-
refers to published curricula developed by ing the program’s placement test. Students
Engelmann and associates. Each curriculum will be at different starting points because
usually contains one-half to 1 school year of of diverse skill levels. Students are grouped
lessons. A distinctive feature of these curric- homogeneously per program into groups of
ula is that have been field-tested with stu- usually no more than 14 students. The in-
dents using a three-stage curriculum-testing tent of this grouping is to ensure that stu-
process (Adams & Engelmann, 1996). dents are with other students at their cur-
Many teachers assume that most available rent skill level for that subject so that they
curricula have been field-tested on students are not overwhelmed because the content is
before publication; unfortunately, that is beyond them or bored because the content
not true. Unfortunately, most curricula are is below them.
written by curriculum developers and then
just published. No effort is made to see if The Lesson
the programs actually work with students.
This lack of effort leads to an interesting ob- Lessons last for 35–45 minutes and contain
servation that many important products in 12–20 tasks. The first part of lesson uses a
our lives must pass certain minimum stan- group format and then students complete
dards (e.g., automobiles, car seats, and their individual workbooks to practice the
toys), and yet in regard to one of the impor- skill being taught in the lesson. The teacher
tant activities in our children’s lives (their follows the lesson script, which is in the
education), the curricula they use are not program’s Teacher Presentation Book. What
tested on children before publication. the teacher says is printed in colored ink,
what the teacher does is in parentheses, and
Over the last three decades, many Direct the expected student response is in italics.
Instruction programs have been created. Also, the specific correction procedure is
Several have had multiple revisions. Appen- given. Corrections are treated as opportuni-
dix 24.1 provides a list of Direct Instruction ties for reteaching without the often typical
programs that are frequently used with stu- negative connotation; instead, the teacher
dents with learning disabilities. gives the correct answer and the students
then take turns to provide the correct re-
For those who are unfamiliar with Direct sponse. Some of the reasons scripting is
Instruction programs, the following are used are that it standardizes the wording
many characteristics of Englemann and as- from task to task across lessons and the
sociates’ Direct Instruction (DI) programs. length of each lesson is controlled based on
prior program field-testing experience.
Before Implementation Through using a script, the teacher can
quickly provide many succinct examples
Teachers are expected to be trained on how that are not too wordy.
to use each program before implementing
the program. Training is important because Probably one of the notable characteris-
many features must be implemented in a tics of DI lessons is brisk pacing. A lot of in-
specific way that may not seem intuitive. formation is covered and the rapid pacing
For example, when students make errors, has been shown to reduce the number of be-
teachers tend to slow down the lesson pac- havior management problems because stu-
ing. However, the pacing of DI lessons must dents are on task. Also, when complex tasks
be brisk (as supported by research studies).
Direct Instruction 405
are presented slowly, students have a more minutes. For secondary students with severe
difficult time understanding what is being reading deficits, this strategy is efficient be-
presented. To ensure that the pacing is cause students can master the necessary
brisk, the teacher uses signals to ensure that reading skills needed for reading and com-
the entire group responds at the same time. prehending English, history, science, and
From this pacing, the teacher can tell if the other textbooks. However, this strategy may
students understand what is being presented not fit many school situations. The Series
and can tell which students need more prac- Guide provides several other possible strate-
tice. The specific signals are described in the gies for implementations.
Series Guide. To ensure that all students un-
derstand the information, the teacher asks Following in this example, all the students
individual students to respond to designated who placed at a B1 Decoding level would be
exercises. in a group. In most special education pro-
grams, this means a group of less than 10
After the group exercises are presented, students. The students are grouped in a semi-
students complete exercises in individual circle around a teacher at the chalkboard
workbooks. The exercises match the content with the lowest readers in the middle of the
taught in the group lesson and demonstrates group so that they are easier to monitor.
each student’s mastery of the content. With the B1 Decoding Presentation Guide,
the teacher reads the script at a brisk pace.
Each program has a point system. This Some of lesson’s exercises include practice
system is not only for behavior management with segmenting and blending sounds. Other
but also the basis of student grading. Stu- exercises practice word identification on the
dents track their daily grades and, thus, chalkboard. Every few lessons, the teacher
know how well they are doing. Likewise, provides individual turns to ensure that all
teachers can tell when students lack certain students have mastered the content, and not
content, which needs to be retaught. just parroted other students’ responses.
What many teachers often do not realize is
An Example: Using Corrective Reading that the words in the exercise are being sys-
tematically introduced. Specific sounds and
The Corrective Reading program was devel- sound combinations are mastered based on a
oped for upper elementary and secondary underlying scope-and-sequence chart and
students with reading deficits. There are taught in a cumulative manner.
three levels (A, B, and C) of Decoding and
Comprehension; the B level is split into two The lesson is kept at a brisk pace because
parts (B1 and B2). Table 24.1 provides a the teacher is using signals to ensure that all
summary of content taught at each level as students are responding at the same time. If
adapted from the Corrective Reading Series that does not happen, the teacher models the
Guide (Engelmann, Hanner, & Johnson, correct response and restarts the task. One of
1999). the major noticeable differences between DI
programs and other programs is the empha-
The following scenario would be appro- sis on the positive. The assumption of DI
priate for a special education teacher at programs is that when you are learning
above the fourth-grade level. The Corrective something new you make mistakes. Thus the
Reading Series Guide contains the Correc- correction involves teacher modeling and
tive Reading Decoding and Comprehension then a reintroduction of the task. This is un-
Placement Tests, which can be reproduced. like other instruction, which often involves
The test is administered individually and it long, wordy corrections, which often inter-
takes approximately 10–15 minutes to ad- fere with the process of concept teaching.
minister both tests. In general, most students For an observer who does not know the re-
test one level higher in decoding than in com- search underpinnings behind Direct Instruc-
prehension. Because most students have de- tion, the use of a script and the rapid pacing
coding and comprehension deficits, the during the group instruction time may seem
teacher must figure out a teaching strategy. If artificial and “drill and kill.”
the teacher decides to provide instruction in
both decoding and comprehension instruc- After approximately 30 minutes of group
tion, each lesson takes approximately 45 work, each student does independent work.
The focus of the independent work involves
406 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
TABLE 24.1. Overview of the DI Corrective Reading Program
_L_e_v_el__A_ _D_e_c_o_d_i_n_g_: _6_5__le_s_s_o_n_s________________ _C_o_m__p_r_eh__en__si_o_n_:_6_0__l_e_ss_o_n_s_____________
Target students
Nonreaders or those in grades 3–12 Poor readers in grades 4–12 who can’t
who read so haltingly they can’t understand concepts underlying much of
understand what they read the material being taught
What is taught Word-attack skills: Phonemic awareness, Thinking skills: Deduction and induction,
sound–symbol identification, sounding analogies, vocabulary, true/false,
out, regular and irregular words, recitation, information (such as calendar
sentence reading skills)
Outcomes 60 wpm, 98% accuracy, reading at Some higher-order thinking skills and
about a 2.5 grade level many word definitions
_L_e_v_el__B_ Decoding: B1: 65 lessons; Comprehension: B1: 60 lessons;
Target students _B_2_:_6_5__le_s_s_o_n_s______________________ _B_2_:_6_5__le_s_s_o_n_s________________________
What is taught
Poor readers in grades 3–12 who do Poor readers in grades 4–12 who have
Outcomes not read at an adequate rate and who difficulty with conclusions,
confuse words contradiction, written directions
Decoding skills: Letter and word Comprehension skills: More advanced
discrimination, sound and letter reasoning, handling information,
combinations, word endings, story vocabulary, analyzing sentences, writing
reading, literal and inferential skills
comprehension
A variety of comprehension skills that
B1: 90 wpm, 98% accuracy, reading at can be applied in all school subjects; the
about a 3.9 grade level; B2: 120 wpm, ability to read information and learn
98% accuracy, reading at about a 4.9 new facts and vocabulary
grade level
L__e_v_el__C_ _D_e_c_o_d_i_n_g_: _1_2_5__le_s_s_o_n_s_______________ _C_o_m__p_r_eh__en__si_o_n_:_1_4__0_l_e_ss_o_n_s____________
Target students
Fair readers in grades 4–12 who have Students in grade 6 and up who do not
trouble with multisyllabic words and comprehend sophisticated text, do not
typical textbook material learn well from material they read, or
have trouble thinking critically
What is taught Skill application: Additional sound
Outcomes combinations, affixes, vocabulary Concept applications: Organizing and
development, reading expository text, operating on information, using sources
recall of events, sequencing, and of information, communicating
building reading rate information
Over 150 wpm, reading at about a 7.0 Ability to apply analytical skill to real-
grade level life situations and answer literal and
inferential questions based on passages
read
the same concepts taught in the just com- they make the shift from weak to competent
pleted lesson and other recently taught con- readers.
cepts using different exercises in their work-
books. From this independent practice, the The example gives highlighted decoding
teacher has an even clearer picture of each instruction. Reading, of course, is more
student’s progress. than decoding. The Corrective Reading
Comprehension program uses the same in-
Points are earned for both group and in- structional process. The content of this pro-
dividual work and these points are the basis gram focuses on information that students
for the student’s grade. Also, students are will need in school. For example, there is a
able to chart their reading rate. This process set of lessons in the B1 and B2 programs
is highly motivating for most students as that teaches fairly sophisticated anatomy
Direct Instruction 407
and physiology concepts. After completing were reviewed based on appropriate de-
B1 and B2, students who take biology scriptors (e.g., Direct Instruction, DISTAR,
should have an excellent chance of success directed instruction, Corrective Reading,
because they should have already mastered Reading Mastery, direct teaching, and direct
much of the course content. verbal instruction). For this chapter, this
search was updated with articles published
Supplementary Direct after 1995. Because the focus of this chapter
Instruction Information is students with learning disabilities, only
studies involving students with learning dis-
Appendix 24.2 provides the research studies abilities were included in this meta-analysis.
behind the various aspects of the Direct In- This means that studies in which students
struction model. For those who would like were described as being in general education
more information are referred elsewhere for courses but receiving remedial services were
underlying instructional design concepts excluded, as were studies involving students
(Engelmann & Carnine, 1991), Direct In- with other disabilities (e.g., mental retarda-
struction reading (Carnine, Silbert, & tion). The categorization information was
Kameenui, 1997) and Direct Instruction somewhat straightforward for studies con-
math (Stein, Silbert, & Carnine, 1997). ducted in the United States. The decision-
making process for the three studies that
The Advantage of Meta-Analysis over were not conducted in the United States was
Subjective Reviews much more difficult, because the Subjects
section did not provide a specific special ed-
The publication of reviews using an objec- ucation designation. The students were usu-
tive meta-analysis procedure as an alterna- ally described as needing remedial reading
tive to subjective reviews has exploded in services. (However, as will be shown later,
the last decade. Rosenthal (1981) provided the results for non-U.S. students were simi-
an early example showing the difference be- lar.) The result of this effort was to collect
tween subjective and objective ways of re- all studies with acceptable research method-
viewing research studies. He gave a set of ology involving students with learning dis-
seven research articles to two groups of uni- abilities.
versity professors and graduate students.
The research studies were on the topic of Some authors of meta-analyses include as
gender differences on task perseverance. It is many studies as possible on a topic, especial-
politically correct to assert that there are no ly on topics on which there are few research
differences between males and females in studies. Other authors argue that including
task persistence and, in fact, the majority of poorly designed studies misrepresents the ac-
the reviewers who were asked to subjective- tual results, because poorly designed studies
ly review the articles said that there were no may add highly variable data and possible
significant differences. In contrast, another bias. The meta-analysis described in this arti-
group of reviewers calculated effect sizes for cle is based on the latter approach. The fol-
each study. Their accurate conclusion was lowing was the criteria for exclusion in this
that there was a gender difference with fe- meta-analysis:
males being more persistent.
ț The studies lacked a comparison group.
The Process of Conducting a ț The studies lacked pretest scores.
Meta-Analysis ț The pretest scores of the DI and the com-
Collecting Studies parison groups of the studies showed sig-
nificant differences.
The starting point for this review was Re- ț The studies lacked the necessary mathe-
search on Direct Instruction: 25 years be- matical information for analysis (means,
yond DISTAR (Adams & Engelmann, standard deviations, and sample sizes).
1996). For that book, the ERIC and Psych- ț The studies lasted only one session.
Lit educational and psychological databases ț The Direct Instruction intervention was
combined with incompatible interven-
tions.
ț The studies involved single-subject re-
search methodology.
408 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
ț The studies were analyzing Direct In- as “small,” but they are educationally sig-
struction components (e.g., pacing). nificant. Effect sizes from 0.50 to 0.74 are
described as in the medium effect size
ț The studies did not involve published or range. Large effect sizes are effect sizes
prepublished Direct Instruction curricula above 0.75. This measurement system is
by Engelmann and associates. valuable when evaluating educational pro-
grams. For example, Stahl and Miller
Of the more than 300 articles, book (1989) conducted a meta-analysis on
chapters, and books on Direct Instruction, whole-language/language-experience stud-
only 17 were research studies that met the ies. They found that the average effect size
requirement for inclusion in this meta- was 0.09. Using the effect size framework,
analysis. In most meta-analyses, these de- this approach to reading would not be rec-
sign requirements excluded the majority of ommended because it is well below the 0.25
the research articles involving Direct In- effect size minimum for inclusion as an ef-
struction. fective classroom practice.
Effect Size Calculating Effect Size
The product of the meta-analysis is a state- The often-cited formula for calculating ef-
ment about the effect of a particular experi- fect size is
mental approach or intervention. The effect
is referenced to the normal distribution Effect size = ᎏmeSD– cmc
curve. This curve is divided into standard
deviations from the mean. Highest and low- The use of the standard deviation for the
est scores that are possible for any measur- control (comparison) group has been sug-
able characteristic in nature would be at the gested by Glass, McGaw, and Smith (1981)
extreme ends of the curve. because that is the standard deviation
scores of the existing traditional condition,
For educational purposes, an intervention and it is fairly stable. However, the use of
that changes the performance of students by pooled standard deviation (SDp) was used
one-quarter standard deviation is consid- in the current meta-analysis as recommend-
ered educationally significant. Educational ed by Hunter, Schmidt, and Jackson (1982).
significance is a much more important con- Rosenthal (1992) showed that SDp is a
cept than traditional statistically significant more stable and accurate and less influ-
differences. An outcome that creates a dif- enced by population variance. The formula
ference in mean scores between two groups is:
of one-quarter standard deviation is both
real and important, not a mere artifact of Effect size = ᎏmSe D– pmc
measurement or documentation of an in-
significant clinical improvement that is sta- An effect size of 0.00 means that there is
ble over a large population. For example, a no difference in mean scores between the
relatively small difference in reading pro- experimental condition and the control con-
gram scores may result in a statistically sig- dition. As mentioned earlier, a 0.25 effect
nificant difference if the researcher uses two size is described as a small effect size, but it
large samples of students, but clinically the means that it is an educational procedure
difference is insignificant. that teachers should use. An effect size of
0.50 is a medium effect size and 0.75 is a
The most effective description of the large effect size (and is rare in educational
magnitude of effect sizes is by Cohen research).
(1988) and others and has become the com-
mon standard. Effect sizes below 0.25 are In Research on Direct Instruction, the ef-
thought to be insignificant. Educationally, fect sizes were calculated two different
this means that the interventions are those ways. Because of the similarity of results no
that should not be used in the classroom. matter which unit of analysis was used (per
Effect sizes that should be used in class-
rooms should be at least 0.25. Effect sizes
between 0.25 and 0.49 are described as
small effect sizes. Again, they are described
Direct Instruction 409
individual effect size or per study) and size studies involving reading was 0.81 and the
limitations, the decision was made to use average effect size for the 7 studies involv-
the per-study score as the unit of analysis ing math was 1.08. Both scores are in the
for this meta-analysis. large effect size range. Unfortunately, the
data were not analyzed in such a way to
Meta-Analysis Results parse out the effect sizes specifically in re-
gard to decoding and comprehension in
The average effect size for the 17 studies reading achievement or calculation and
that included students with learning disabil- problem solving in math achievement.
ities in this meta-analysis was 0.93. This re- However, the effect size scores are suffi-
sult is similar to the results for students in ciently high to suggest that these programs
general education classrooms (0.82) and all should be the standard from which other
special education categories (0.84) in the reading and math programs should be com-
original meta-analysis conducted by Adams pared.
in 1996.
Variable 3. Type of Test: Compares Outcomes
In the following section, the average Measured on Norm-Referenced and
study effect size is provided with the num- Criterion-Referenced Assessment Instruments
ber of studies involved in parentheses. Al-
though there are 17 studies involved, some- There are two main types of tests. Norm-
times the total number of studies is above referenced tests include standardized tests
17. This is because some studies involved such as the Metropolitan Achievement Test.
more than one variable (e.g., math and Criterion-referenced tests include teacher-
reading DI interventions). made tests used mastery of the content be-
ing taught. The results of the analysis of
Variable 1. Age/Grade of the Students: test type are shown later. The average effect
Compares Elementary versus size for the 8 studies involving criterion-ref-
Secondary Students erenced measures was 1.14 and the average
effect size for the 11 studies involving
Studies provided age and/or grade informa- norm-referenced measures was 0.77. Both
tion about the students. Kindergarten stu- effect size score are in the large range and
dents were placed in the Elementary group the discrepancy is expected. Norm-refer-
and middle school/junior high school stu- enced tests usually have a wide range of
dents and adults in the Secondary/Adult items; some of which may not cover the
group. The average effect size for the 11 content being taught by the specific pro-
studies for the Elementary group was 0.73. gram. In contrast, criterion-referenced tests
The average effect size for the 6 studies in measure the content that is being covered
the Secondary/Adult group was 1.37. Based by the program.
on the effect size power system described
earlier, the effect size of the Elementary Variable 4. Type of Research Design:
group also reached a large effect size and Compares Causal-Comparative to
the Secondary/Adult group was a large ef- Experimental Research Designs
fect size. A possible reason for the discrep-
ancy in scores is because several of the sec- Two types of research designs were included
ondary/adult studies involved the use of DI in this analysis: causal-comparative and ex-
videodisc programs that proved to be pow- perimental. Although there are other vari-
erful interventions with effect sizes over ables, the main difference between the two
1.50. types of designs is that experimental design
studies uses random assignment of students
Variable 2. Subject: Compares Effect Sizes into DI or control groups. Causal-compara-
across Reading and Math tive design (sometimes described as quasi-
experimental design) studies used intact
The analysis of reading and math effect groups without random assignment. The
sizes shows large effect sizes for both sub- average effect size of the 5 causal-compara-
jects. The average effect size for the 12 tive studies was 0.90 and the average effect
410 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
size of the 12 experimental studies was which improves the fluidity of the instruc-
0.95. Both effect size scores are in the large tion presentations.
range. The difference in scores is insignifi-
cant. Variable 7. Fidelity of Implementation:
Compares Studies in Which Classroom
Variable 5. Duration of Intervention: Performance Is Monitored and Adjusted to
Compares Durations up to 1 Year Studies without Monitoring
and over 1 Year
Even though a particular intervention is
The duration of the intervention is an im- supposed to be used in the experimental
portant variable because some approaches condition, it is not necessarily being imple-
produce only short-term effects. The aver- mented. Studies in laboratory settings tend-
age effect size for nine studies that lasted up ed to have implementation checks. Studies
to a year was 1.08 and the average effect conducted in the “real world” were less
size for the eight studies that lasted over 1 likely to include implementation checks to
year was .77. The effect size for Direct In- ensure that the planned intervention was
struction was consistently large (over 0.75) conducted without changes in quality over
even for interventions that lasted over 1 time. Implementation checks include fol-
year. On the surface, this result may seem lowing schedules for starting and stopping
counterintuitive. It might be expected that instruction; following management proce-
the longer the intervention lasts, the larger dures; and using designated presentation
the effect. This, however, did not occur. techniques, correction procedures, firming
A possible reason is that often with inter- practices, and informal tests of individual
ventions lasting more than 1 year, there students. The average effect size for the 7
are multiple teachers, which has the possi- studies with fidelity checks was 1.05 and
bility of affecting the fidelity of implemen- the average effect size for the 10 studies
tation. without fidelity checks was 0.85. Both effect
sizes are in the large range.
Variable 6. Type of Teacher: Compares Results
Achieved by Experimental Teachers and Variable 8. Country: Compares Results in the
Regular Teachers United States to Results from Other Countries
An issue of concern is the potential of the An interesting issue is the country in which
intervention across a full range of teachers. the study was conducted. In general, studies
If a program is effective only when imple- conducted in the United States tended to
mented by highly trained, experimental have the technical components for inclusion
teachers who are “outsiders” who carry out in this meta-analysis. The average effect size
the specific DI intervention, its usefulness is for the 14 studies that were conducted in
limited because it may not have implications the United States was 0.89 and the average
for the normal classroom setting. These pro- effect size of the 3 studies that were not con-
grams are often described as laboratory ducted in the United States was 1.12. Again,
studies that are often conducted in artificial both effect sizes are in the large range. It
nonclassroom settings. The average effect might be questionable to overgeneralize too
size of the 6 studies involving regular teach- much from the three non-U.S. studies. How-
ers was 1.24 and the average effect size of ever, the result was similar to other compar-
the 11 studies involving experimental teach- isons—an effect size score in the large
ers was 0.77. One of the complaints by crit- range. There were many non-U.S. studies,
ics is that high achievement scores are ac- especially conducted in Australia. Unfortu-
complished through the use of specially nately, these studies were not included be-
trained instructors, but the actual results cause they lacked the research methodologi-
show that the studies involving the students’ cal requirements to be included in this
regular teachers had higher effect size meta-analysis.
scores. A possible reason for this result may
be that the regular teachers are more famil- Table 24.2 provides a summary of the re-
iar with their students’ behavior patterns, sults, including the studies that were includ-
ed per variable.
Direct Instruction 411
TABLE 24.2. Summary of DI Statistical Analyses with Citations
Meta-analysis Effect size Sample size Magnitude of
0.93 17 studies effect size
If calculated per study
(excludes follow-up studies) Large
Age/grade of students Elementary 0.73 11 studies Large
Secondary 1.31 6 studies Large
Studies 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15 12 studies Large
7 studies Large
Studies 2, 5, 7, 8, 16
8 studies Large
Academic subject Reading 0.81 11 studies Large
Math 1.08
Studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Studies 3, 6 7, 8, 11, 16
Type of test Criterion-referenced 1.14
Norm-referenced 0.77
Studies 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16
Studies 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Type of research design Causal-comparative 0.90 5 studies Large
Experimental 0.95 12 studies Large
Studies 1, 3, 10, 11, 14
Studies 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12,
13, 15, 16
Length of intervention Up to 1 year 1.08 9 studies Large
Studies 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16 Over 1 year 0.77 8 studies Large
Studies 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15
6 studies Large
Type of teacher Experimental 1.24 11 studies Large
Causal-comparative 0.77
Studies 4, 6, 7, 8, 16
Studies 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15
Fidelity checks Yes 1.05 7 studies Large
No 0.85 10 studies Large
Studies 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16
Studies 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15
Country United States 0.89 14 studies Large
Non-U.S. 1.12 3 studies Large
Studies 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Studies 1, 5, 9
Note. See p. 416 for a listing of the studies cited.
412 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
Summary the programs are taught, which in turn of-
ten depends on how well a school is orga-
No matter which of the eight variables were nized to support the use of the Direct In-
analyzed, the results (16 effect sizes) are struction programs. For example, when
consistently high favoring Direct Instruc- students begin the Corrective Reading pro-
tion. Almost all the effect sizes were in the gram, a placement test is given to determine
large range (over 0.75) from 0.73 to 1.26. the level at which students are to begin in-
These results should quiet critics who make struction. Once the students begin instruc-
subjective comments about the effectiveness tion, some students may progress at a much
of Direct Instruction. The research evidence faster rate than others. Ideally, these stu-
is simply overwhelmingly favorable. A re- dents should be grouped with other children
view of the research on other educational who can progress at the same rate. Schools
interventions shows that Direct Instruction which are organized to allow for flexible
programs should definitely be considered as grouping will allow for maximum progress
a standard for evidence-based best prac- by all students.
tices.
To ensure that Direct Instruction is well
There are many reasons why these find- taught from classroom to classroom, an in-
ings should not be unexpected. The compo- frastructure of trainers and coaches skilled
nents of Direct Instruction programs are with Direct Instruction should be estab-
based on research studies. What is being lished. Teachers will need varying degrees of
taught is clearly explained in each program support in learning the techniques incorpo-
series guide. In fact, many special education rated into the Direct Instruction programs.
teachers use the scope-and-sequence chart For some teachers, a good deal of coaching
in each series guide as a source for creating will be needed to help them spot and imme-
their students’ individualized education diately correct student errors, pace the les-
plan goals and objectives. Also, many of the son quickly, and use positive behavior man-
programs (e.g., Corrective Reading) have agement techniques. Districts and schools
been revised several times with modifica- that can provide this support will find more
tions based on the newest educational re- consistent increases in student performance
search. with Direct Instruction.
One of the main reasons that these pro- On a purely scientific basis, it would be
grams are successful is that they are field- expected that Direct Instruction programs
tested on students. Many original lessons would be highly accepted based on proba-
are modified many times or abandoned dur- ble achievement scores. Instead, they are of-
ing the field-testing process. Teacher or stu- ten highly scorned. A major reason is one
dent confusion or the lack of student mas- of the main features of Direct Instruction
tery results in revision until the confusion is programs—the use of scripts. It is apparent
resolved and mastery is demonstrated. Then that many teachers hate to follow a script.
the curriculum is published. In contrast, Some teachers have never been told the ra-
other curricula are just published. When tionale behind the use of scripts (e.g., con-
teachers and students start using those cur- sistency of wording within and across
ricula, they become product testers without lessons). Other teachers believe that follow-
a way of having “bug fixes.” The bugs re- ing a script makes them less of a teacher be-
sult in teacher and student frustration and cause it is not their wording; it is the pro-
also a lack of student achievement. gram’s.
Though the findings in this meta-analysis This dislike for the scripting or other DI
clearly indicate the potential of the Direct program features has led to some interesting
Instruction programs to serve as powerful phone calls and e-mails to the first author
instructional tools to assist teachers in im- (G. A.) since the publication of Research on
proving the performance of students identi- Direct Instruction in 1996. A teacher or ad-
fied as learning disabled, using Direct In- ministrator will call or write and ask
struction is not a panacea. The student whether there are any studies involving a
learning that occurs for children in Direct particular Direct Instruction program (e.g.,
Instruction programs depends on how well Reading Mastery) with a particular type of
Direct Instruction 413
student (Hispanic) with a particular charac- ț Corrective Reading—Decoding and Compre-
teristic (e.g., middle class) in a particular hension—Levels A–C (Remedial third grade
setting (e.g., suburban schools). If the an- to adult): Each strand (decoding and compre-
swer is “no,” his or her response is often hension) has four levels. Placements into the
“Good, because I was to use the decoding and comprehension programs are
__________________ program.” Of course, based on student placement testing. In most
as this meta-analysis shows, the results of cases, students will be at two different pro-
Direct Instruction programs have consis- gram levels.
tently high effect sizes and yet the teacher or
administrator wants a rationale for using a Language
different program that has no evidence to
show that it works. ț Language for Learning—Levels A–B (Elemen-
tary): This program teaches the language skills
The consistency of findings leads to the needed classroom instruction (using complete
idea that Direct Instruction programs sentences, answering questions, and following
should be a standard for comparison to oth- directions).
er programs. That is, when a curriculum di-
rector wants to evaluate a proposed curricu- ț Language for Thinking (Grades 1–3): This
lum, an action research study should be program builds on Language for Learning and
designed to compare the proposed curricu- teaches making inferences, retelling accounts,
lum to the equivalent Direct Instruction cur- and determining means of sentences, and oth-
riculum. The study should involve the col- er concepts.
lection of student progress data and use the
parameters expected of sound research ț Reasoning and Writing—Levels A–F (Elemen-
methodology and be done on a small scale. tary, but has been used at a secondary level):
After the results are analyzed, a plan of This program combines the teaching of lan-
school- or districtwide implementation can guage, thinking, and writing skills.
be created. This is not assuming that the Di-
rect Instruction program will be superior; it Math
does assume that the evidence should drive
the decision-making process, instead of the ț Connecting Math Concepts—Levels A–F (Ele-
common practice of shifting from program mentary, but has been used at a secondary lev-
to program based on the fad at that time. el): This program teaches all math skills up to
The suggested process results in a scientific pre-algebra. Student placement should be
approach to program selection. The current based on placement test results.
process results in using teachers and stu-
dents as guinea pigs for educational deci- ț Corrective Mathematics—7 Levels from Addi-
sion making. tion to Ratios and Equations (Remedial third
grade to adult): These seven self-contained
Appendix 24.1. Direct programs teach Addition; Subtraction; Multi-
Instruction Curricula plication; Division; Basic Fractions; Fractions,
Decimals, Percents; and Ratios and Equations.
The following curricula are available through
SRA (1-888-772-4543 or http://sra4kids.com/ Writing
product_info/direct/).
ț Expressive Writing—Levels I–II (fourth grade
Reading and above): This program teaches writing
skills from sentence writing through sophisti-
ț Reading Mastery—Levels I–VI (Elementary): cated paragraph writing with copyediting.
The complete elementary reading program
that includes teaching both decoding and Spelling
comprehension skills. A student’s placement is
not based grade level; rather, placement is ț Spelling Mastery—Levels A–F (Elementary):
based on a student’s placement test results. This spelling program teaches high-utility
words, sound–symbol principles, and general
spelling strategies. This program is by grade
level (grades 1–6).
414 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
ț Corrective Spelling through Morphographs teacher presentation rate and praise on LD stu-
(fourth grade and above): This program teach- dents’ oral reading performance. British Jour-
es 500 predictable highly generalizable rules. nal of Educational Psychology, 55, 295–303.
Cursive Writing Positive and Negative Examples
ț Cursive Writing Program (Grades 3 and 4): This Carnine, D. (1980). Correcting word identifica-
program teaches clear cursive writing skills. tion errors of beginning readers. Education
and Treatment of Children, 3, 323–330.
Appendix 24.2. Direct Instruction
Component Analysis Carnine, D. (1980). Three procedures for pre-
senting minimally different positive and nega-
DI versus Non-DI Component Comparison tive instances. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 72, 452–456.
Carnine, D. (1981). High and low implementa-
tion of Direct Instruction teaching techniques. Carnine, D., Gersten, R., Darch, C., & Eaves, R.
Education and Treatment of Children, 4, (1985). Attention and cognitive deficits in
43–51. learning-disabled students. Journal of Special
Education, 19, 319–331.
Correction Procedure
Gersten, R. M., White, W. A. T., Falco, R., &
Carnine, D. (1980). Phonic versus whole word Carnine, D. (1982). Teaching basic discrimina-
correction procedures following phonic in- tions to handicapped and non-handicapped in-
struction. Education and Treatment of Chil- dividuals through a dynamic presentation of
dren, 3, 323–330. instructional stimuli. Analysis and Interven-
tion in Developmental Disabilities, 2,
Meyer, L. A. (1982). Relative effects of word- 305–317.
analysis and word-supply correction proce-
dures with poor readers during word-attack Granzin, A. C., & Carnine, D. (1977). Child per-
training. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, formance on discrimination tasks: Effects of
544–555. amount of stimulus variation. Journal of Ex-
perimental Child Psychology, 24, 332–342.
Group Size
Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., & Ralph, G.
Fink, W. T., & Sandall, S. R. (1978). One-to-one (1986). Generalization with precision: The
vs. group academic instruction with handi- role of negative teaching examples in the in-
capped and nonhandicapped preschool chil- struction of generalized grocery item selection.
dren. Mental Retardation, 16, 230–240. Journal of the Association of Persons with Se-
vere Handicaps, 11, 300–308.
Massed versus Spaced Practice
Horner, R. H., Eberhard, J. M., & Sheehan, M.
Kryzanowski, J., & Carnine, D. (1980). Effects R. (1986). Teaching generalized table bussing:
of massed versus spaced formats in teaching The importance of negative teaching exam-
sound–symbol correspondences to your chil- ples. Behavior Modification, 10, 457–471.
dren. Journal of Reading Education, 12,
225–229. Horner, R. H., & McDonald, R. S. (1982). Com-
parison of single instance and general case in-
Pacing struction in teaching a generalized vocational
skill. TASH Journal, 8, 7–20.
Carnine, D. W. (1976). Effects of two teacher
presentation rates on off-task behavior, an- Ross, D., & Carnine, D. (1982). Analytic assis-
swering correctly, and participation. Journal of tance: Effects of example selection, students’
Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 199–206. age and syntactic complexity. Journal of Edu-
cational Research, 75, 294–298.
Carnine, D., & Fink, W. T. (1978). Increasing the
rate of presentation and use of signals in ele- Sprague, J. R., & Horner, R. H. (1984). Effects
mentary classroom teachers. Journal of Ap- of single instance, multiple instance, and gen-
plied Behavior Analysis, 11, 35–46. eral case training on generalized vending ma-
chine use by moderately and severely handi-
Darch, C., & Gersten, R. (1985). Effects of capped students. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 17, 273–278.
Preteaching
Carnine, D. (1980). Preteaching versus concur-
rent teaching of the component skills of a mul-
Direct Instruction 415
tiplication algorithm. Journal for Research in Hollingsworth, M., & Woodward, J. (1993). In-
Mathematics Education, 11, 375–379. tegrated learning: Explicit strategies and their
Carnine, D. W. (1981). Reducing training prob- role in problem-solving instruction for students
lems associated with visually and auditorily with learning disabilities. Exceptional Chil-
similar correspondences. Journal of Learning dren, 59, 444–455.
Disabilities, 14, 276–279.
Kameenui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (1986). Paine, S., Carnine, D., & White, W. A. T. (1982).
Preteaching versus concurrent teaching of Effects of fading teacher presentation structure
component skills of a subtraction algorithm to (covertization) on acquisition and mainte-
skill-deficient second graders: A components nance of arithmetic problem-solving skills. Ed-
analysis of direct analysis. Exceptional Child, ucation and Treatment of Children, 5,
33, 103–115. 93–107.
Sequences Patching, W., Kameenui, E., Carnine, D., Ger-
sten, R., & Colvin, G. (1983). Direct instruc-
Carnine, D. (1980). Two letter discrimination se- tion in critical reading skills. Reading Research
quences: High-confusion-alternatives first ver- Quarterly, 18, 406–418.
sus low-confusion-alternatives first. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 12, 41–47. Visual Displays
Williams, P., Granzin, A., Engelmann, S., & Darch, C., & Eaves, R. C. (1986). Visual dis-
Becker, W. C. (1979). Teaching language to plays to increase comprehension of high
truly naive learner: An analog study using a school learning-disabled students. Journal of
tactual vocoder. Journal of Special Education Special Education, 20, 309–318.
Technology, 2, 5–15.
Sprick, R. S. (1979). A comparison of recall
Sound Separation scores for visual–spatial, visual–serial, and au-
ditory presentation of intermediate grade con-
Carnine, D. (1976). Similar sound separation tent. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
and cumulative introduction in learning letter versity of Oregon, Eugene.
sound correspondences. Journal of Education-
al Research, 69, 368–372. Wording
Use of Overt Steps Carnine, D. (1980). Relationships between stim-
ulus variation and the formation of miscon-
Adams, A., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1982). ceptions. Journal of Educational Research, 74,
Instructional strategies for studying content 106–110.
area texts in the intermediate grades. Reading
Research Quarterly, 18, 27–55. Williams, P. B., & Carnine, D. (1981). Relation-
ship between range of examples and of in-
Carnine, D., Kameenui, E., & Maggs, A. (1982). structions and attention in concept attainment.
Components of analytic assistance: Statement Journal of Educational Research, 74,
saying, concept training, and strategy training. 144–148.
Journal of Educational Research, 75,
374–377. References
Carnine, D., Kameenui, E., & Woolfson, N. Adams, G. L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Re-
(1982). Training of textual dimension related search on Direct Instruction: 25 years beyond
to text-based inference. Journal of Reading Be- DISTAR. Portland, OR: Educational Achieve-
havior, 14, 335–340. ment Systems.
Darch, C., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1984). Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. J.
Explicit instruction in mathematics problem (1997). Direct instruction reading (3rd ed.).
solving. Journal of Educational Research, 77, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
350–359.
Chall, J. S. (2000). The academic achievement
Dommes, P., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1984). challenge: What really works in the class-
Instructional procedures for increasing skill- room? New York: Guilford Press.
deficient fourth graders’ comprehension of
syntactic structures. Educational Psychologist, Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for
42(2), 155–165. the behavior change (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1991). Theory of
instruction. Eugene, OR: Association of Direct
Instruction.
416 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
Engelmann, S., Hanner, S., & Johnson, G. videodisc program. Journal of Educational
(1999). Corrective reading: Series guide. Technology Systems, 16, 151–169.
Columbus, OH: SRA McGraw-Hill. 7. Kelly, B., Carnine, D., Gersten, R., &
Grossen, B. (1986). Effectiveness of videodisc
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). instruction in teaching fractions to learning-
Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, disabled and remedial high school students.
CA: Sage. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8,
5–9.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. 8. Kelly, B., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1990).
(1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research Student error patterns as a function of cur-
findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. riculum design: Teaching fractions to reme-
dial high school students and high school
Rosenthal, R. (1992). Meta-analysis procedures students with learning disabilities. Journal of
for social research (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, Learning Disabilities, 23, 23–29.
CA: Sage. 9. Lewis, A. (1982). Experimental evaluation
of a Direct Instruction programme (Correc-
Slavin, R. (1989). PET and the pendulum: Fads tive Reading) with remedial readers in a
in education and how to stop it. Phi Delta comprehensive school. Educational Psychol-
Kappan, 70, 752–758. ogy, 2, 121–135.
10. Lloyd, J., Cullinan, D., Heins, E. D., & Ep-
Stahl, S. A., & Miller, P. D. (1989). Whole lan- stein, M. (1980). Direct Instruction: Effects
guage and language experience spproaches for on oral and written language comprehension.
beginning reading: A qualitative research syn- Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 70–76.
thesis. Research of Educational Research, 59, 11. Lloyd, J., Epstein, M. H., & Cullinan, D.
87–116. (1981). Direct Instruction for learning dis-
abilities. In J. Gottlieb & S. S. Strickart
Stein, M., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D. (1997). De- (Eds.), Developmental theory and research
signing effective mathematics instruction: A in learning disabilities (pp. 41–45). Balti-
Direct Instruction approach (3rd ed.). Upper more: University Park Press.
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. 12. Richardson, E., Dibenedetto, B., Christ, A.,
Press, M., & Winsberg, B. (1978). An as-
Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). sessment of two methods for remediating
Interventions for students with learning dis- reading deficiencies. Reading Improvement,
abilities: A meta-analysis of treatment out- 15, 82–94.
comes. New York: Guilford Press. 13. Sexton, C. W. (1989). Effectiveness of the
Distar Reading I program in developing first
Studies Cited in Table 24.2 graders’ language skills. Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 82, 289–293.
1. Branwhite, A. B. (1983). Boosting reading 14. Stein, C. L., & Goldman, J. (1980). Begin-
skills by Direct Instruction. British Journal ning reading instruction for children with
of Educational Psychology, 53, 291–298. minimal brain dysfunction. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 13, 52–55.
2. Campbell, M. (1981). A study of Corrective 15. Summerell, S., & Brannigan, G. G. (1977).
Reading as an effective and appropriate pro- Comparison of reading programs for chil-
gram for reading disabled, learning handi- dren with low levels of reading readiness.
capped secondary students. Report present- Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 743–746.
ed to Faculty of School of Education, San 16. Woodward, J., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R.
Diego State University. (1988). Teaching problem solving through a
computer simulation. American Educational
3. Darch, C., Gersten, R., & Taylor, R. (1987). Research Journal, 25, 72–86.
Evaluation of Williamsburg County Direct 17. Woodward, J., Carnine, D., Gersten, R.,
Instruction Program: Factors leading to suc- Gleason, M., Johnson, G., & Collins, M.
cess in rural elementary programs. Research (1986). Applying instructional design princi-
in Rural Education, 4, 111–118. ples to CAI for mildly handicapped students:
Four recently conducted studies. Journal of
4. Darch, C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1987). Teach- Special Education Technology, 8, 13–26.
ing LD students critical reading skills: A sys-
tematic replication. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 10, 82–91.
5. Gregory, R. P., Hackney, C., & Gregory, N.
M. (1982). Corrective Reading programme:
An evaluation. British Journal of Education-
al Psychology, 52, 33–50.
6. Hasselbring, T., Sherwood, R., Bransford, J.,
Fleenor, K., Griffith, D., & Goin, L. (1987–
1988). Evaluation of a level-one instructional
25
Cooperative Learning for Students
with Learning Disabilities:
Evidence from Experiments,
Observations, and Interviews
Joseph R. Jenkins
Rollanda E. O’Connor
Cooperative learning (CL) refers to “the in- not surpasses that of any other approach to
structional use of small groups so that stu- teaching. A decade ago, Johnson and John-
dents work together to maximize their own son (1992) tallied over 550 experimental
and each other’s learning” (Johnson, John- and 100 correlational studies on this in-
son, & Holubec, 1993, p. 6). CL originated structional approach, and those numbers
in theories of group dynamics (Deutsch, have surely grown since. CL has captured
1962; Lewin, 1935) and social interdepen- the interest of researchers and practitioners
dence (Johnson, 1970). It is based on the because of its potential for both promoting
idea that establishing positive interdepen- academic learning and teaching a host of in-
dence among members of a learning group terpersonal skills and dispositions that fos-
encourages individuals to help each other ter social competence, friendships, and tol-
learn (Johnson, 1970). Different theoretical erance.
perspectives offer different interpretations of
how CL facilitates learning. Behaviorists In addition, CL offers teachers a unique
emphasize the reward-produced motivation- strategy for managing instruction in hetero-
al aspects of CL in which reinforcement for geneous classrooms, where learners’ abili-
any group member is contingent upon all ties, knowledge, and backgrounds vary
members meeting a learning criterion, there- broadly, and the range of achievement levels
by increasing the likelihood that members in typical classrooms exceeds five grade lev-
will engage in behaviors that lead to mutual els (Jenkins, Jewell, Leicester, Jenkins, &
learning. In contrast, social constructivists Troutner, 1990). Faced with such hetero-
emphasize how scaffolded, dialogical inter- geneity, teachers confront a difficult chal-
actions among more and less skilled peers lenge in attempting to engage all students in
lead to the construction of new knowledge high-quality learning activities, even the
and ways of thinking (Vygotsky, 1978). lowest achievers (e.g., those with learning
disabilities) who on their own are unable to
Among approaches to classroom instruc- perform some of the more difficult class-
tion, CL stands out by virtue of its extraor- room assignments. Not many approaches to
dinarily large research base, which rivals if instruction are built for classroom condi-
417
418 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
tions this demanding. Indeed, most instruc- classroom behavior during CL, and (3) in-
tional approaches view individual differ- terviews with teachers who use CL or coop-
ences as a nuisance to be controlled through erative group work. In these studies, stu-
individualized instruction (Wang & Birch, dents with LD are school identified using
1984) or ability groups (Carnine, Silbert, & state guidelines.
Kameenui, 1990). By contrast, in CL indi-
vidual differences are viewed as resources Experimental Studies of Cooperative
that can be exploited in the pursuit of learn- Learning for Students with LD
ing (Johnson & Johnson, 1986; Slavin,
1990; Stevens & Slavin, 1995a, 1995b). Students with disabilities were rarely includ-
ed in studies of CL in the 1960s and 1970s,
The peer support inherent in CL serves as perhaps because the movement toward
a compensatory mechanism, enabling strug- mainstreaming and inclusion was barely un-
gling learners to overcome obstacles they der way. Through the late 1980s, researchers
might not overcome working alone. Peer and practitioners tested CL approaches with
support can materialize in a variety of forms, more diverse kinds of students, including
as when more capable or better-informed students with disabilities. They found that
peers clarify the nature of an assignment, in- the outcomes for students with disabilities
terpret complex instructions, model perfor- were not uniformly superior under this
mance, explain ideas, give feedback and cor- arrangement. Tateyama-Sniezek (1990) re-
rections, take responsibility for difficult viewed studies in which separate analyses
parts of the assignment, scaffold problem- were performed on the outcomes of children
solving efforts, and provide encouragement. with disabilities. Only seven of these studies
compared the learning of students with high
More than other disability groups, stu- incidence disabilities across cooperative and
dents with learning disabilities (LD) have noncooperative instructional formats, and of
been caught in the cross-currents of three these seven, only three reported significant
reform movements: more rigorous academic differences favoring CL over independent
standards, access to the general education conditions for students with LD. Of the three
curriculum, and inclusion of students with reporting significant differences, only two
disabilities in general education classrooms. held students with LD individually account-
In these circumstances, finding effective able for their learning.
ways to help students with LD has not been
easy. Researchers have sought answers in Tateyama-Sniezek (1990) wrote, “The
various forms of peer-mediated instruction only firm conclusion is that the opportunity
(Englert et al., 1995; Fuchs et al., 1997; Pal- for students to study together does not
incsar & Brown, 1984), of which CL is one guarantee gains in academic achievement”
alternative. Many educators perceive CL as (p. 436). Despite her warning to proceed
special education–friendly, providing the with caution, Wood and colleagues (1993)
kind of supportive learning environment claimed that there was ample support for
students with LD need to succeed in the ed- using CL in the classroom as an inclusion
ucational mainstream (Alberg, 1991; John- strategy for students with disabilities. But of
son & Johnson, 1980; Mainzer, Mainzer, the benefits they cited from reviews by Lehr
Slavin, & Lowry, 1993; Slavin, 1990; Slavin (1984), Slavin (1983a, 1983b), and Johnson
& Stevens, 1991; Slavin, Stevens, & Mad- and Johnson (1987), none addressed acade-
den, 1988; Thousand & Villa, 1991; Will, mic improvement for students with learning
1986, Wood, Algozzine, & Avett, 1993)— disabilities. Since Tateyama-Sniezek’s review
thus, the continuing interest in CL for stu- was published, more experimental studies
dents with LD. have been conducted to examine the effects
of CL for students with LD.
In this chapter we review research on the
use and effectiveness of CL for students Mathematics
with LD, considering three sources of infor-
mation. These include (1) experimental In a pair of studies, Xin (1996) compared the
studies conducted in general and special ed- math outcomes of 211 third- and fourth-
ucation settings that compare academic
learning with and without CL, (2) observa-
tional studies of teachers’ and students’
Cooperative Learning 419
graders, including 41 with LD, following 20 grades, and assist each other with correc-
weeks of instruction on the computer in tions as needed. Although accuracy (ES =
which students worked either individually or 0.55) and completion of assignments (ES =
in cooperative teams. First, students in each 0.64) improved for CHT students relative to
condition received 30 minutes of teacher-led controls who completed the same home-
instruction, which was jointly planned by work by themselves, the groups did not
the general and special education teacher differ in mathematics achievement on the
and included a worksheet that students com- California Achievement Test (ES = –0.44,
pleted independently. Next, children worked favoring the control). Eight weeks of inter-
either individually (the control) or in cooper- vention, however, are rarely sufficient to
ative dyads (CL) for 20 minutes in the com- yield significant effects on standardized
puter lab, using software that was coordinat- achievement tests, regardless of the treat-
ed with their class textbook. In the CL ment.
treatment, the computer lab time was fol-
lowed with groups of four students (two Writing
partner teams) that checked answers to
worksheets and provided support for mak- Students with disabilities tend to have diffi-
ing corrections. In the control condition, culties in writing mechanics, such as capital-
teachers conducted the checking. The teach- ization and punctuation, as well as with
ing teams shifted between cooperative and production of essays, stories, and reports.
individual practice conditions weekly to de- Targeting writing mechanics, Malouf, Weiz-
crease the potential for teacher effects. In the er, Pilato, and Grogan (1990) tested CL in
third-grade study, outcomes favored chil- the context of computer-assisted writing
dren in CL groups; in the fourth-grade study, practice. Working in pairs, 36 middle school
no differences were found. The results for students with LD received teacher-led gram-
children with LD were not analyzed sepa- mar instruction, introductory worksheets,
rately at either grade level; however, means and computer games in which they applied
and standard deviations for the children the taught skills. Experimental and control
with LD were reported. For third-graders groups differed in the structure of the pair
with LD, a moderate effect (ES = 0.35) ap- work. In the control group, pairs were told
peared to favor children who worked in CL to work independently and were taught in-
teams; for fourth-graders with LD, that dependent work skills, such as paying atten-
trend was strongly reversed (ES = –1.3). tion, working carefully, and taking turns on
Thus, it is difficult to generalize about CL’s the computer. Quizzes were scored individu-
effectiveness from these studies. ally and rewards given for individual scores.
In the experimental group, pairs were
Homework affects grades and achieve- taught CL skills (e.g., asking questions,
ment (Foyle & Bailey, 1988), and many stu- catching partners’ errors, and explaining).
dents with LD have difficulty completing During teacher-led guided practice, students
homework assignments correctly, if at all. were encouraged to work together on their
To help middle school students with LD worksheets. During the computer games,
complete homework, O’Melia and Rosen- they generated a single score for their
berg (1994) used Cooperative Homework shared session, and rewards on the quizzes
Teams (CHT), a form of Team Assisted In- were given for the averaged score across the
dividualization (TAI; Slavin, Madden, & two papers. Although both groups im-
Leavey, 1984) that incorporates individual proved on writing mechanics, they did not
accountability and team rewards. CHT differ significantly (ES = 0.23).
built on TAI by providing collaborative op-
portunities for students to grade and make In a second study, Malouf and colleagues
corrections to mathematics homework. In (1990) replicated the experiment with 66
an 8-week study, students with high-inci- fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students with
dence disabilities (primarily LD) received LD in self-contained special education class-
math instruction from special education rooms. Again, CL did not significantly add
teachers and completed their homework in- to students’ learning of writing mechanics
dependently. On the following day, students (ES = 0.09). In both studies, CL pairs en-
met in CHTs to check homework, report gaged in significantly more interactions and
420 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
keyboard sharing than did pairs who Utay and Utay (1997) combined CL with
worked independently. Thus, it appears that cross-age peer tutoring to improve the writ-
CL had indeed occurred but did not im- ing skills of students with LD in grades 2 to
prove the performance of the students over 6. The 72 children all received instruction in
independent learning conditions. word processing and writing skills in a com-
puter lab. The researchers formed matched
Wong and colleagues conducted several pairs of students based on pretests of writ-
studies of CL as an arrangement to encour- ing ability and randomly assigned one stu-
age students to write better structured and dent from each pair to one of two forms of
more elaborate essays. In a study of middle writing practice: either independent work
school students with LD who had poor on the computer (the control) or cross-age
writing skills, Wong, Butler, Ficzere, and writing teams that were supposed to assist
Kuperis (1996) restructured special educa- each other with their storywriting assign-
tion English classes from independent work ments. The specific elements of the CL were
to work in cooperative dyads. The instruc- not specified. Although the children work-
tional vehicle was an essay-writing strategy ing in cross-age pairs appeared to enjoy this
that included models of generating opinions experience, their writing ability at the close
and evidence, plan sheets for structuring ar- of the experiment did not differ significantly
guments, prompt cards, and peer editing. from that of students who worked more in-
After instruction from their teachers, stu- dependently.
dents used the procedures in pairs to write
six essays spaced across the school year. Reading
Their performance was compared with that
of students with LD in special education Most studies of CL in reading have been
English classes that used the same curricu- conducted in the context of Cooperative In-
lum, without the essay-writing strategy and tegrated Reading and Composition (CIRC)
the cooperative grouping. On posttests that and Success for All (SFA). Although we in-
students took independently, differences troduce these studies here, they confound
clearly favored the students who worked co- CL with other instructional variables, re-
operatively on their essays (ES = 2.5), and sulting in a mix of treatments.
these results maintained on a follow-up test
1 week later. Unfortunately, the design of Slavin (1996) recommended an intensive
this study did not allow the researchers to preventive approach he termed “never-
tease apart the influence of the cooperative streaming,” in which students would be
dyads from the strategy instruction. identified early in their school careers and re-
ceive immediate and continued intervention
In another study of strategic writing, as needed to prevent large achievement lags
Wong, Butler, Ficzere, and Kuperis (1997) from developing in the early years. SFA
applied a modification of their genre-specif- (Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1992)
ic essay structure to teach high school stu- was modeled on that philosophy. The read-
dents with LD to collaboratively plan com- ing package included schoolwide regrouping
pare-and-contrast essays. Following the across grades for 90 minutes daily so that
phases of modeling and collaborative plan- children read materials at appropriate read-
ning, students wrote essays independently ing levels, comprehension lessons taught at
and revised them after meetings with their the level of children’s receptive language,
teacher. The analysis of results was based on shared reading with teachers, and coopera-
writing improvement, rather than compari- tive learning. Tutorial support for 20 min-
son with a control group or a non-CL con- utes daily was also offered immediately to
dition. Although writing quality improved children who made less than average
(ES = 1.33), again the design could not dis- progress in the first years of school. Slavin
tinguish between the contributions of strate- and colleagues (1992) reported decreased in-
gy training and CL. The authors acknowl- cidence of referrals to special education;
edged this confound and suggested that the however, children who were identified for
observed changes resulted from the dialogue special education services needed additional
and negotiation that occurred during the support beyond that offered by SFA.
planning and revising processes—whether
with peers or with teachers. In a 2-year study using the same ap-
Cooperative Learning 421
proach in reading along with CL in math, five instructional sessions, researchers gave
Stevens and Slavin (1995a) reported that, limited guidance as students took turns with
following 1 year of treatment, elementary the teaching role. After students achieved
students with disabilities did not differ sig- competence with the procedures, they were
nificantly in achievement from controls. At randomly assigned either to cross-age tutor-
the end of the second year, however, they ing (in which trained students tutored a
significantly outperformed controls in read- sixth grader) or to CL groups of three to
ing vocabulary (ES = 0.24) and comprehen- five students who practiced the comprehen-
sion (ES = 0.26) and in mathematics compu- sion strategy for an additional 12 days. The
tation (ES = 0.59), but not math two peer-assisted approaches did not differ
applications. In a similar quasi-experiment significantly in outcomes (ES = –0.06 and
that employed CL in the context of CIRC, –0.38 on the Gates–McGinitie and compre-
Stevens and Slavin (1995b) found signifi- hension passages, respectively), although
cant reading effects for both general and both groups gained in reading comprehen-
special education students in the CIRC sion Scores from weekly comprehension
treatment, relative to control students who tests were graphed across all phases of the
received traditional reading instruction. For experiment, and students made small,
students with disabilities (primarily in LD), steady gains across both treatments. The
effects on reading vocabulary and compre- steepest increases, however, occurred across
hension were 0.33 and 0.20, respectively, the 15 days of training, in which instruction
after 2 years in the program. CIRC includes was delivered by the researcher.
90 minutes of daily reading instruction us-
ing materials at appropriate reading levels, Mixed Models
instruction in word lists, word meanings,
spelling, comprehension, reading-related Jenkins, Jewell, Leicester, Jenkins, and
writing, the writing process, reading at Troutner (1991) tested CIRC (Stevens,
home, and CL. In this study, the special and Madden, Slavin, & Farnish, 1987) for stu-
general educators co-taught for 30 minutes, dents with LD in grade 6. The school re-
in addition to CIRC. The authors attributed structured instructional arrangements in the
gains for mainstreamed students to the general education classes, but despite funda-
coaching, feedback, and instructional mod- mental changes observed in the delivery of
els provided by peers without disabilities. services (in-class services from a special edu-
However in this study, students in CIRC cator combined with daily CL groups), stu-
classrooms received small-group reading in- dents with disabilities in CL classes did not
struction from the general educator, 30 min- differ from counterparts in a control school
utes of in-class support from the special ed- (that used traditional pullout instruction)
ucator, and CL groups across the school on social behavior or on most academic
year, whereas control students received 30 measures. The only significant effects fa-
minutes of pullout instruction from the spe- vored children in traditional pullout classes
cial educator. on a MAZE task (a measure of reading rate
and comprehension, ES = –1.2)).
In one of the few studies that compared
CL to another form of peer mediation, In a subsequent study, Jenkins, Jewell,
Klingner and Vaughn (1996) compared CL Leicester, O’Connor, Jenkins, and Troutner
and cross-age peer tutoring, using reciprocal (1994) implemented CIRC, peer tutoring in
teaching to develop reading comprehension. reading, and in-class support from special
Participants were 26 seventh- and eighth- education staff in grades 2–6 classrooms,
grade students with LD who spoke English along with small-group direct instruction
as a second language. For 2 days, re- for the lowest readers in grades 1 and 2. At
searchers modeled the comprehension strat- the end of 1 year, special education students
egy, guided students in discussions of key in the experimental school did not differ
features of the strategy, and used a cue sheet from controls on two of three reading mea-
to prompt the strategy. For the next eight sures but did register significantly larger
sessions, researchers provided guidance and gains than controls on Metropolitan
feedback to students as students took turns Achievement Test reading vocabulary (ES =
“teaching” with the strategy. For the last 0.72) and comprehension (ES = 0.71). The
422 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
behavior of students in special education, as peer-assisted support, no significant differ-
measured on the Walker McConnell scale, ences were found.
did not differ as a result of long-term use of
CL. Based on findings of experimental stud-
ies, it is difficult to gauge the extent to
In a study of collaborative strategic read- which CL advances the achievement of stu-
ing, Klingner, Vaughn, and Schumm (1998) dents with LD. To begin with, there are too
assigned fourth-grade classes that included few studies of CL implemented over an ex-
students with LD to a condition which com- tended period in which its contributions can
bined strategy instruction and CL, or to a be isolated from other instructional vari-
control condition in which students received ables. A larger research base is also needed
instruction based on the teacher’s manual. to assess the influence of participants’ age
Both conditions used the same history text- and grade level, types of learning activities,
book unit for 11 instructional sessions. The and the CL model used.
researchers spent three sessions teaching
students collaborative strategic reading, In addition, LD researchers have over-
which consists of a preview of the material looked CL’s effects on retention, and trans-
for the day, “click and clunk” to monitor fer to new learning tasks has been generally
comprehension of words and concepts, “get ignored. If Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of so-
the gist” to restate the main idea of each cially constructed knowledge and thinking
paragraph, and “wrapup” to summarize the extends to school learning, we might expect
day’s reading. Although experimental and CL (with its encouragement of peer dis-
control groups did not differ significantly course) to assist students with LD in con-
on an end-of-unit test, the CL group signifi- necting new ideas to an array of diverse
cantly outperformed controls on the knowledge structures, and in acquiring gen-
Gates–McGinitie reading test. In a separate eralized thinking strategies that they can ap-
analysis of outcomes for students with LD, ply to a broad range of problems. However,
differences were not significant. there is little evidence in the LD research
base for better retention and transfer of
Klinger and colleagues (1998) analyzed knowledge and skills learned through CL,
audiotapes of students’ conversations to de- mainly because so few studies have attended
termine groups’ use of the various strategy to these dimensions of learning. These issues
components. Students spent considerably deserve examination. Considering the ex-
more time discussing content during CL, al- tant research base on LD, we find ourselves
though peers provided little feedback or in agreement with McMaster and Fuchs
modeling for lower achievers during the (2002), who concluded, “The evidence of
previewing step of the strategy. Groups CL’s impact on students with LD remains
made good use of the “click and clunk” and inconsistent” (p. 19).
“get the gist” portions of the strategy. The
authors noted the importance of a knowl- Observational Studies of Cooperative
edgeable teacher or adult for clarifying Learning for Students with LD
meanings of unfamiliar vocabulary and con-
cepts and suggested that monitoring the Working in peer-mediated teams is expected
multiple CL groups was sometimes difficult. to contribute to the development of social
competence, interpersonal attraction, and
In these mixed models, cooperative learn- friendships (Cohen, Lotan, & Catanzarite,
ing was one feature of a complex treatment 1990). Wood and colleagues (1993), in their
that usually included other features with review of the uses of CL in literacy instruc-
solid research evidence to support them, tion for students with LD, concluded that
such as peer tutoring (Delquardi, Green- “perhaps the greatest benefit of cooperative
wood, Whorton, Carta, & Hall, 1996; learning is that when it is used effectively,
Fuchs et al., 1997), cross-age tutoring (Jenk- no student is ignored or forgotten” (p. 375).
ins & Jenkins, 1981), or strategy instruction Some researchers have designed studies to
(Graham & Harris, 1997; Palincsar & investigate specifically what happens among
Brown, 1986). In none of these models was students who work in CL groups.
cooperative learning tested as the indepen-
dent variable. Moreover, in the cases in Concerned about the variable results re-
which CL was tested against other forms of
Cooperative Learning 423
ported for children with disabilities in CL cooperative behaviors, teachers’ skill in
arrangements, O’Connor and Jenkins monitoring CL groups distinguished more
(1996) examined factors related to how stu- and less successful student experiences.
dents with LD engaged in CIRC-based CL Some teachers provided ways for groups to
reading lessons. Across 2 years, they ob- monitor their own instances of participation
served children with LD who were paired and helping. As they monitored child and
with average-performing children (grades group functioning, some teachers also made
3–6) in the same general education class- public statements validating the contribu-
rooms. To assess the quality of CL partici- tions of the children with LD, which served
pation for students with LD, O’Connor and to raise the status of students who may be
Jenkins noted types of learning activities, less valued by their classmates (Cohen,
amount and kind of help students received 1994). Unless teachers succeeded in estab-
(and from whom), and amount and kind of lishing cooperative norms, groups tended to
contributions they made to group efforts. exclude lower-skilled children from partici-
Students with disabilities offered fewer con- pation.
tributions than did students without disabil-
ities and received more help. O’Connor and Jenkins also observed a
potentially significant side effect of using
Nevertheless, the assistance provided by CL as an inclusion strategy for students
peers during CL may not be sufficient to en- with LD. To prepare students for participa-
able the participation of students with LD tion in their group, teachers sometimes ex-
in the group’s activities. Against expecta- changed reading practice for listening to a
tions, O’Connor and Jenkins observed sev- story read by an adult or with a tape
eral instances of adults (most often a teach- recorder. To finish partner reading in time
ing assistant or special educator) joining a to complete written assignments, the more
CL group in which a student with LD ap- skilled partner sometimes performed most
peared to have difficulty with the reading of the reading aloud while the student with
requirements of the group’s work. When LD looked on. The cognitive abilities and
this occurred, it invariably altered the char- academic skills of students with LD place
acter of the group’s participation. Some- them at risk for immediate difficulties in the
times the adult directed the student’s work, classroom and influence their ability to con-
cutting the child off from his or her team- tribute to team assignments. In these cases,
mates. Sometimes the adult assumed the the very procedures that enabled students
role of group leader, controlling the struc- with LD to participate in CL robbed them
ture and character of the other group mem- of opportunities to build reading skill.
bers’ participation.
In another observational study, Beaumont
Overall, O’Connor and Jenkins (1996) (1999) examined the interactions of stu-
classified only 40% of these students (first dents with disabilities in a second-grade
year) and 44% (second year) as participat- bilingual, full-inclusion classroom, in which
ing successfully in cooperative groups. students were heterogeneously grouped for
Analyses disclosed that differences in class- academic work and encouraged through
room practices (e.g., selection of partners, room rules and mottos to help each other
the establishment of a cooperative ethic, and to ask for help from peers when it was
and teacher monitoring) and individual dif- needed. About one-third of the students in
ferences among special education students this class had a disability, and Beaumont ro-
(reading performance and social compe- tated observations across these children
tence) were related to successful CL experi- during 150 hours spread across the school
ences for students with disabilities. For year. After the first 3 months of document-
teachers, finding suitable partners for chil- ing conversations among students, requests
dren with LD was among their stiffest chal- for help, and help received and denied, she
lenges, and in this endeavor they were not concentrated her observations on three stu-
always successful. Moreover, although most dents with disabilities, including one boy
of the teachers taught cooperative behaviors with a diagnosis of LD. This boy, despite his
early in the school year, teachers of the more strong verbal ability and outgoing nature,
successful students with LD reinforced these was identified as a social isolate in the class-
behaviors frequently. Related to establishing room, as were the other two children Beau-
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Handbook of Learning Disabilities ( PDFDrive )
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Handbook of Learning Disabilities
- 1 - 50
- 51 - 100
- 101 - 150
- 151 - 200
- 201 - 250
- 251 - 300
- 301 - 350
- 351 - 400
- 401 - 450
- 451 - 500
- 501 - 550
- 551 - 600
- 601 - 618
Pages: