Strategy Instruction in Reading Comprehension: An Intervention Study For Students With Learning Disabilities

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/215757766
Strategy instruction in reading comprehension: An intervention

study for students with learning disabilities
Article · January 2007
CITATIONS READS
42 4,848
2 authors:
Faye Antoniou Elmar Souvignier

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens University of Münster
27 PUBLICATIONS 120 CITATIONS 54 PUBLICATIONS 534 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
web-based Progress monitoring / curriculum-based measurement View project
Progress Monitoring in Schools View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Faye Antoniou on 27 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:34 PM Page i
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal
Editorial Board
Co–Editors Production Editor Design Editor
GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS KIRSTEN MCBRIDE MARY LAITY
University of Crete
TERESA ALLISSA CITRO
Learning Disabilities Worldwide
Consulting Editors
MARGARET BEEBE-FRANKENBERGER DORIS JOHNSON EDWARD POLLOWAY
University of Montana Northwestern University Lynchburg College
ROBERT BROOKS JAMES LEFFERT DEANNA SANDS
Harvard Medical School University of Massachusetts, Boston University of Colorado at Denver
JUDITH CARTA DANIELA LUCANGELI DAVID SCANLON
Juniper Gardens Children’s Project University of Padua, Italy Boston College
DONALD DESHLER LARRY MAHEADY BENNETT A. SHAYWITZ
University of Kansas SUNY at Fredonia Yale University, Child Study Center
GEORGE DUPAUL HOWARD MARGOLIS SALLY E. SHAYWITZ
Lehigh University CUNY/Queens College Yale University, Child Study Center
LINDA ELKSNIN MARGO MASTROPIERI RITA SHERBENOU
The Citadel George Mason University ETS RW Educational Group
NICK ELKSNIN NANCY MATHER MARGARET SNOWLING
The Citadel University of Arizona University of York, UK
FRANCO FABBRO PETER MCDONALD GARY SIPERSTEIN
University of Udine, Italy Eagle Hill School University of Massachusetts, Boston
ANGELA FAWCETT TIM MILES KEITH STANOVICH
University of Sheffield, UK University of Wales, UK University of Toronto, Canada
DOUG FUCHS MARJORIE MONTAGUE LEE SWANSON
Vanderbilt University University of Miami University of California, Riverside
RUSSELL GERSTEN PAUL MORGAN HARVEY SWITZKY
Instructional Research Group Pennsylvania State College University of Northern Illinois
DOUGLAS GLASSNAP SUSAN MORTWEET VANSCOYOC MELODY TANKERSLEY
University of Kansas Children’s Mercy Hospital Kent State University
STEVEN GRAHAM JOHN NEZLEK GARY A. TROIA
Vanderbilt University College of William & Mary Michigan State University
CHARLES GREENWOOD FESTUS OBIAKOR CHERYL UTLEY
Juniper Gardens Children’s Project University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Juniper Gardens Children’s Project
NOEL GREGG ANTHONY J. ONWUEGBUZIE SHARON VAUGHN
University of Georgia University of South Florida University of Texas
ELENA GRIGORENKO SUSANA PADELIADU MARJA VAURAS
Yale University University of Thessaly, Greece University of Turku, Finland
CHERI HOY PETE PETERSON MARIA ZAFEIROPOULOU
University of Georgia Johnson County Community College University of Thessaly, Greece
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:34 PM Page ii
Dress for Success.
Landmark School is recognized internationally as a leader in the field of language-based

learning disabilities, and our students find success. In fact, 90% of our high school
graduates go on to college. A coed boarding and day school for grades 2-12, we
emphasize the development of language and learning skills through our individualized
approach and daily one-to-one tutorials.
ACADEMIC YEAR PROGRAM

Boarding and Day • Daily 1:1 Tutorials • Grades 2-12
SUMMER PROGRAM
Six-week Boarding & Day • Daily 1:1 Tutorials • Grades 1-12
OUTREACH PROGRAM
Professional Development • Publications • Online Courses
Landmark School
Embracing Potential. Empowering Lives.

Educating students with language-based learning disabilities.
Post Office Box 227 • Prides Crossing, Massachusetts 01965-0227 • 978.236.3000 • fax 978.927.7268
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:34 PM Page iii
Contents
Research Paper
Self-Regulated Strategy Development: A Validated
Model to Support Students Who Struggle with Writing — 1
Tanya Santangelo & Karen R. Harris and Steve Graham
Research Paper
Place Value and Mathematics for Students with
Mild Disabilities: Data and Suggested Practices— 21
John F. Cawley, Rene S. Parmar, Lynn M. Lucas-Fusco,
Joy D. Kilian & Teresa E. Foley
Research Paper
Strategy Instruction in Reading Comprehension: An
Intervention Study for Students with Learning Disabilities
Faye Antoniou and Elmar Souvignier — 41
Research Paper
The Effect of Asymmetry on the 2x2 Kappa Coefficient:
Application to the Study of Learning Disabilities — 59
Teresa Rivas-Moya & María-José González-Valenzuela
Research Paper
Story Mapping and Its Effects on the Writing Fluency and
Word Diversity of Students with Learning Disabilities — 77
Daqi Li
Mission Statement
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal (LDCJ) is a forum for research, practice, and opinion
regarding learning disabilities (LD) and associated disorders. The mission of the journal is to provide the
most up-to-date information on diagnosis and identification, assessment, interventions, policy, and other
related issues on LD. The journal intends to inform and challenge researchers, practitioners, and individ-
uals who are involved with learning disabilities.
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:34 PM Page v
Publisher
Learning Disabilities Worldwide (LDW) LDW WEBSITE: http://www.ldworldwide.org
P. O. Box 142, Weston, MA 02493
Subscription Rates—bi-annual publication—US currency only—includes shipping and handling
Membership Type *Regular *Online
US LDW Members $35 $30
US Non-Members $55 $50
Int’l Canada, Europe, S. America members $55 $30
Int’l Canada, Europe, S. America non-members $75 $50
Int’l all others members $75 $30
Int’l all others non-members $95 $50 * Regular subscription receives hard
copies of Learning Disabilities: A
US Institutional $135 $100
Contemporary Journal (LDCJ).
Institutional Canada, Europe, S. America $150 $100 Online subscription will access the
Institutional all others $170 $100 LDCJ via the Internet
Editorial Policy
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal (LDCJ) is a forum for research, practice and opinion papers
in the area of learning disabilities (LD) and related disorders. The following types of articles are appropri-
ate for submission to LDCJ.
1. Empirical Studies. Research studies using experimental or non-experimental designs and descriptive
works are appropriate as long as there is a relevance to learning disabilities. Studies that include samples
of students at risk of learning problems and in general underachievement are also appropriate.
Comparative works that include other disorders such as mental retardation and low incidence disabili-
ties may also be considered for publication (as long as there is relevance to low achievement and/or
LD). The size of the submissions must be between 15-25 typewritten, double-spaced pages (including
tables, figures, references, appendices and/or other supplements). References must be used judiciously.
Figures and pictures must be camera-ready.
2. Review Papers. Reviews of issues related to LD are appropriate for the journal. The size of the submis-
sions must be between 15–25 typewritten, double-spaced pages.
3. Brief Research Reports. Brief research works maybe accepted in the journal if space permits and if
there are substantial reasons to suggest that the full report should not be published. Such special cases
may be preliminary findings and pilot works, replication studies, etc. The length of brief reports must
be between 8–12 typewritten, double-spaced pages.
4. Special Issues. Authors may submit a proposal for a special thematic issue in a particular area, relevant to
LD. Initially, authors must submit a proposal of 4-8 typewritten double-spaced pages that provides an
outline of the area, and describes the goals and importance of the issue for the field of LD, along with the
suggested contributions. The author(s) will act as Guest Editor(s) and will be responsible for inviting
other works and for regulating the review process. They will also work closely with one of the co-editors
in this process. Authors are encouraged to consult the co-editors, prior to submitting their proposal, in
order to verify appropriateness and relevance of the topic to the LD field.
5. Practice Papers. These are reports of practical nature that have relevance and importance to educators,
practitioners, and researchers. They may describe innovative instructional practices, behavior modification
programs, etc. The length of these reports must be between 8-15 typewritten, double-spaced pages.
6. Opinion Papers. These papers may address issues of policy, legislation, mandates and laws relevant to the
LD population, etc. They may be the basis for a forum for discussion by other members of the field of LD.
7. Research Methodology Reports. The purpose of these reports is to convey methodological and/or data
analytic advances that have particular relevance for the LD field. The length of these reports must be
between 8–15 typewritten, double-spaced pages.
Manuscript Preparation
Authors must adhere to the writing guidelines described in the 5th Edition of the Publication Manual of the
American Psychological Association (2001). For sample guidelines authors may visit APA at
http://www.apastyle.org. With their submission, authors must send a cover letter indicating the title and
length of the paper and must state that their work is not currently under review in another journal.
Authors should include two title pages (one with title only) and the other with full author information.
Manuscripts will be sent for a blind review to 2–3 members of the editorial board. Authors will be notified
of the editorial decision with a formal letter from one of the co-editors. If the manuscript is accepted,
authors will be asked to send it electronically as a document in Word—Figures and diagrams should be
individual black & white PDF files (both PC and Mac formats are acceptable) and they will also need to fill
in a copyright waiver form.
Submission (4 copies) may be sent via regular mail to either Georgios D. Sideridis, Ph.D., or to Teresa Citro, at
Learning Disabilities Worldwide, PO Box 142 Weston, MA 02493. Authors are also encouraged to send their
contributions electronically to: tcitro@ldworldwide.org. The editors reserve the right to make final editorial
changes to the manuscripts (without, however, altering the content of the original submission).
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page vi
Education Professionals and Parents

Join us on Cape Cod this August for
a series of informative professional
development courses! All courses
earn Massachusetts Professional
Development Points.
Summer 2007
Professional
Development Courses
Holiday Inn, Falmouth
August 20, 2007, 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM
• What is Orton-Gillingham?
August 21-22, 2007, 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM

Choose one course:
• Nancibell® Visualizing and Verbalizing® Program
• Educational Evaluations
August 23, 2007

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

NEEDHAM • S U D B U RY • DANVERS
w w w. c o m m l e a r n . c o m
vi
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 1
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 5(1), 1–20, 2007 Copyright @ by LDW 2007
Self-Regulated Strategy Development:

A Validated Model to Support Students
Who Struggle with Writing
Tanya Santangelo1
Rowan University
Karen R. Harris and Steve Graham
Vanderbilt University
Many students find writing extremely difficult and frustrating because

they are not able to learn and apply the strategies used by skilled writers.
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is a comprehensive, flexible
model that explicitly helps students learn to manage the writing process.
An extensive body of research has documented that SRSD consistently
increases content knowledge, writing quality, strategic behavior, self-regu-
lation skills, self-efficacy, and motivation among students of varying ages
and ability levels, but especially those with learning disabilities. Further,
these improvements are maintained over time and generalized across set-
tings, genres, people, and media. In this article, common challenges with
writing are reviewed, the SRSD model is presented, and an illustration of
how a persuasive writing strategy was taught to a small group of fifth- and
sixth-grade students is offered.
Key Words: Inclusive Practices, Strategy Instruction, Writing Instruction,
Learning Disabilities, Self-Regulation
riting is an extremely powerful tool in our culture because it facilitates com-

W munication across distance and time, makes it possible to gather and preserve
information, allows knowledge about a topic to be refined and extended, and pro-
vides a flexible medium for artistic, political, spiritual, and self-expression
(Applebee, 1984; Diamond, 1999; Durst & Newell, 1989; Graham & Harris, 2000a).
However, even expert writers frequently lament the difficult and complex aspects of
planning, composing, evaluating, and revising (Zimmerman & Reisemberg, 1997)
that are necessary for effective communication. Therefore, it is not surprising that
many students, especially those with learning disabilities, experience difficulty with
writing (Graham, 1990; McCutchen, 1988; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986; Thomas,
Englert, & Gregg, 1987). For example, results of recent evaluations conducted as part
of the National Assessment of Education suggest that only one out of every five high
school seniors acquired the required writing knowledge and skills (Greenwald,
Persky, Ambell, & Mazzeo, 1999; Persky, Daane, & Jin, 2003).
1. Please address correspondence to: Tanya Santangelo, Rowan University, Department of Special Education,
201 Mullica Hill Road, Glassboro, NJ 08028; E-mail: Santangelo@rowan.edu
1
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 2
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 5(1), 1–20, 2007
Clearly, many students would benefit from high-quality instruction that

explicitly teaches the strategies used by highly skilled writers. Self-Regulated Strategy
Development (SRSD) is an evidence-based model that has been shown to consis-
tently achieve that goal (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). Over the
last 20 years, more than 25 studies have documented that SRSD improves writing
knowledge, strategic behaviors, self-regulation skills, and motivation with many dif-
ferent populations of students, including those with learning disabilities (Danoff,
Harris, & Graham, 1993; De La Paz, 1999; Graham & Harris, 1989a).
In this article, an overview of SRSD is presented. First, the basic definition
of a strategy is offered. Then, the most common difficulties students experience with
writing are reviewed. Next, the stages and components of SRSD instruction are
described, and a classroom illustration is provided. (Expanded descriptions of these
topics and other writing strategies may be found in Writing Better: Effective Strategies
for Teaching Students with Learning Difficulties Graham & Harris, 2005 and at
http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/casl/srsd.html)
AN INTRODUCTION TO WRITING STRATEGIES
A strategy can be generically defined as a set of operations or actions that a
person consciously undertakes to accomplish a desired goal (Alexander, Graham, &
Harris, 1998). Central to that definition are the tenants that a strategy involves (a)
purposeful behavior, including a conscious decision about a plan of action; (b) pro-
cedural knowledge required to implement the plan; and (c) willingness, effort, and
persistence to achieve the desired goal. All these elements contribute to the power
and benefit of utilizing strategies within the context of writing (Graham & Harris,
2005; Harris & Graham, 1996).
First, writing strategies, such as those taught with the SRSD model, help
simplify and organize the myriad complex tasks required throughout the writing
process. Second, they define a course of action for successfully completing all, or
part, of a writing assignment. Third, they make the mental operations that occur
during planning, composing, evaluating, and revising visible and concrete. This is
particularly salient because contemporary approaches to writing instruction (e.g.,
Writer’s Workshop) encourage students to plan, draft, edit, revise, and publish their
written work, yet surprisingly little attention is devoted to explicitly teaching these
processes (Graham & Harris, 1997a). Finally, strategies effectively enhance students’
knowledge about writing genres and devices, the writing process, and their capabili-
ties as writers (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). To fully understand
the necessity of and rationale underlying the use and benefit of SRSD instruction, it
is critical to first understand why writing is such a difficult task for many students.
COMMON CHALLENGES WITH WRITING
Writing is an extremely challenging process for many students, especially
those with learning disabilities. In most cases, this is due to difficulties acquiring, uti-
lizing, and managing the strategies that are used by skilled writers (De La Paz,
Swanson, & Graham, 1998; Graham & Harris, 1996, 2000b; Harris & Graham, 1999;
Zimmerman & Reisemberg, 1997). Specifically, many students (a) have limited
knowledge of writing, (b) utilize an ineffective writing approach, (c) do not engage
2
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 3
in advance planning, (d) have difficulty generating content, (e) rarely make mean-
ingful revisions, (f) struggle with transcription, (g) evidence minimal persistence,
and (h) have an unrealistic sense of self efficacy (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris &
Graham, 1996). In the next section, each of these challenges will be discussed.
Knowledge of Writing
Skilled writers have extensive knowledge about writing genres, devices, and
conventions, and they are intimately familiar with the elements and characteristics
associated with good writing (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). In
contrast, many students who struggle with writing, especially those with learning
disabilities, lack contextual knowledge and believe good writing is related to form
and mechanics, rather than substance or process (Englert, Raphael, Fear, &
Anderson, 1988; Graham, Schwartz, & MacArthur, 1993; Wong, Wong, &
Blenkinsop, 1989). For example, when asked to describe good writing, students with
learning disabilities responded, “Spell every word right,” “Write as neat as you can,”
“Put your date and name on there,” and “Be sure to hold your pencil right.” When
asked to describe what should be included in a story, a typical response is, “... Main
character, a subject, predicate, and main idea.” Unfortunately, this incomplete
knowledge is directly reflected in students’ writing, as basic story elements are fre-
quently omitted (Graham & Harris, 1989a).
This pattern is illustrated by one student who took great care and effort to
neatly rewrite her essay about summer vacation, but clearly did not understand how
to logically or completely describe her experiences.
One day, I was running in the field. It was very hot and leaves was falling.
There are lots of hills and nice green grass. There are huge trees that are full
of leaves. There were lots of flowers in the garden. It was a bit of shade. Lots
of bushes that has leaves on it. And the summer was nice.
Approach to Writing
Skilled writers apply a multidimensional writing approach that involves
planning, composing, evaluating, and revising (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris &
Graham, 1996). In contrast, many students who struggle with writing, especially
those with learning disabilities, focus solely on generating content (Graham, 1990;
Thomas et al., 1987). Such a unidimensional approach, aptly named “knowledge-
telling,” involves writing down all information that is perceived to be somewhat
topic-related. Each preceding phrase of a sentence is used to spawn the next and
minimal attempts are made to evaluate ideas, reorganize the text, or consider con-
straints imposed by the topic or audience (McCutchen, 1988). Consequently, stu-
dents’ papers typically contain of a list of ideas, rather than a well-organized, com-
prehensive discussion of the topic. The following two examples illustrate the
“knowledge-telling” approach.
Lack of vitamin A is not as bad as lack of vitamin B which in turn will not
have so many bad effects as will the lack of vitamin C and so on down the
alphabet.
People are composed of girls and boys, also men and women. Boys are no
good at all until they grow up and get married. Men who don’t get married
are no good either. Boys are an awful brother. They want everything they
see except soap.
3
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 4
Planning in Advance
Prior to creating a draft, skilled writers devote a significant amount of time
to planning and developing goals that subsequently guide what they say and do. In
contrast, students who struggle with writing, especially those with learning disabili-
ties, rarely utilize advance planning strategies (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris &
Graham, 1996). Even when specifically directed to plan in advance, they devote lit-
tle time or effort to this phase of the writing process (MacArthur & Graham, 1987).
Instead, their thought processes are spontaneously episodic, with each preceding
idea serving as the stimulus for the following (Graham & Harris, 1989b). The plans
they develop often resemble a first draft, consisting of a series of sentences that are
just rewritten in subsequent phases of the writing process. The approach of a fifth-
grade student to writing a report on forest fires clearly illustrates this pattern. Even
after being instructed to “take your time to gather information and plan your paper,”
the student quickly glanced through one book and did not make any notes related
to organization or content. Within just a few minutes she created the following draft
that included two facts she happened to remember (i.e., “Some forest fires were
good... Yellow Stone Park was a place where lots of fires occurred”).
What I know about forest fires is that they began by lightning or by some-
body throwing match and forget to put it out. Sometimes because they
throw cigarettes or they forget to put the camping fire out. And I thought
that forest fires were all bad for forest. What I didn’t know was that some
forest fires were good for the forest and that Yellow Stone Park was a place
where lots of forest fires occurred.
Generating Content
During the initial phases of writing, skilled writers frequently generate
more content than they need and then eliminate superfluous ideas or information
through the revision process (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). In
contrast, students who struggle with writing, especially those with learning disabili-
ties, frequently produce inordinately short stories that contain little elaboration or
detail (Graham, Harris, MacArthur, & Schwartz, 1991). Most likely, this occurs
because students have difficulty retrieving information from memory, utilizing out-
side sources, and translating their ideas into written form (Graham, 1990). The note
an 11th-grade student with a learning disability left on the desk of a special education
teacher poignantly illustrates this challenge (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Note written by an 11th-grade student with a learning disability.
4
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 5
Revising
Skilled writers engage in extensive evaluation and revision processes that
iteratively improve their compositions (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham,
1996). In contrast, many students who struggle with writing, especially those with
learning disabilities, experience difficulty evaluating and revising their text
(Fitzgerald, 1987; MacArthur, Graham, & Harris, 2004). Specifically, less than 20%
of the revisions made by struggling writers represent substantive changes to the orig-
inal text; they primarily involve making word substitutions, correcting spelling and
usage errors, and rewriting the paper to make it look neater (MacArthur & Graham,
1987; MacArthur, Graham, & Schwartz, 1991). Furthermore, although many stu-
dents can articulate appropriate and beneficial revisions, approximately two thirds
of the changes that do alter the text have a neutral or negative effect (Graham, 1997;
MacArthur et al., 1991; MacArthur & Graham, 1987). The following “revised” para-
graph illustrates how seemingly evident errors remain unnoticed.
George Washington is one of my favorites like when he didn’t let the British
know he was out of bulits [sic] and kept firing. I read many things on him
in a book. It was a brown one for 14 days. I am glad he comes but once a
year.
Transcription Skills
Many students who struggle with writing, especially those with learning
disabilities, have difficulty transcribing their thoughts into written form (Graham &
Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). They routinely misspell words, have difficul-
ty with capitalization and punctuation, and produce letters very slowly (Graham et
al., 1991). This leads to fluency rates that are nearly half those of their peers who are
successful writers (Weintraub & Graham, 1998). Because students devote so much
attention and effort to transcription, writing content becomes minimized or forgot-
ten, and many aspects of the writing process are compromised (Graham, 1999;
Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Goleman, 1982). Transcription difficulties also make it chal-
lenging for anyone, including the author, to read the paper.
Persistence
Whereas skilled writers devote significant time and effort to composing,
many students who struggle with writing, especially those with learning disabilities,
put minimal time and effort into the writing process (Graham & Harris, 2005;
Harris & Graham, 1996). For example, when 10- to 12-year-old students with learn-
ing disabilities were asked to write an essay expressing their opinions on a topic, they
typically spent 6 minutes or less writing their papers (Graham, 1990). Their compo-
sitions began with either “yes” or “no,” included one or two brief reasons, and
abruptly ended without a resolution or concluding statement. This pattern is illus-
trated by one student’s response to the essay prompt, “Should children have to go to
school in the summer?”
No because it will be too hot. And you will miss fun things and going
swimming.
Because students with learning disabilities also evidence difficulty producing multi-
ple statements about familiar subjects, the absence of content should not be solely
attributed to a lack of motivation (Graham & Harris, 2005).
5
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 6
Self-Efficacy
Research suggests that some students with learning disabilities are overly
confident about their writing abilities (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham,
1996). For example, Graham et al. (1993) found that students with and without
learning disabilities were equally confident about their ability to get and organize
ideas for writing, transcribe ideas into sentences, sustain their writing effort, and
correct mistakes on their papers. This level of confidence may reflect the fact that
students had not developed the skills necessary to accurately assess their abilities. It
may also be the result of their desire to project a sense of confidence to cover up
embarrassment about their difficulties with writing (Alvarez & Adelman, 1986;
Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005). In one respect, unrealistically high self-assess-
ments may protect students’ self-esteem. However, there is also the risk that students
will fail to allocate the necessary time and effort to improve their writing skills; they
believe good writers, like themselves, do not need to plan or exert much effort to
write well (Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992).
TEACHING WRITING STRATEGIES
The remainder of this article will focus on how to effectively teach writing
strategies. First, the SRSD model will be introduced and the six instructional stages
will be briefly described. Next, considerations related to maintenance, generaliza-
tion, and evaluation will be presented. Then, the essential characteristics related to
instructional practices and environments will be discussed. Following that, an exam-
ple of how a strategy for planning and writing a persuasive essay was taught to fifth-
and sixth-grade students is presented.
The ancient Chinese proverb “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember, I
do and I understand” eloquently characterizes the ideal process for teaching writing
strategies (Graham & Harris, 2005). Describing how to use a strategy and discussing
why it is effective is essential, but it is only the start. Students need to have the strat-
egy modeled and they need to be provided with supported opportunities to practice
using the strategy. This systematic and structured approach is especially important
for students with learning disabilities, who typically require more intense and explic-
it instruction to successfully master strategy usage (Brown & Campione, 1990; Reeve
& Brown, 1985; Wong, 1994).
It is also critical to consider issues related to motivation and attitude. For
example, students who have relied on a knowledge-telling writing approach must be
convinced that the new strategy is beneficial. Achieving this goal can be especially
challenging if students have previously experienced some success using the knowl-
edge-telling approach to complete certain types of writing assignments (e.g., a per-
sonal narrative) (Ellis, 1986). However, this incongruence should be directly
addressed to ensure students enter instruction believing the new strategy is both
valuable and realistic for them to learn and use (Salomon & Globerson, 1987).
THE SRSD INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL
Self-Regulated Strategy Development is a flexible instructional model used
to teach writing strategies and a variety of self-regulation techniques (e.g., goal set-
ting, progress monitoring, self-instructions, self-statements) (Graham & Harris,
6
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 7
2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). SRSD can be effectively implemented by one teacher,
but is adaptable enough to be implemented by multiple adults in a variety of
instructional environments (e.g., small group, whole class). Research on nearly 20
different strategies targeting various writing processes and genres has shown that
SRSD consistently increases content knowledge, strategic behaviors, self-regulation
skills, self-efficacy, and motivation among students of varying ages and ability levels
(Graham & Harris, 2003; Harris & Graham, 1999). In addition, SRSD has been
found to be especially effective for students with learning disabilities because the
instructional procedures and writing strategies specifically target the most common
difficulties experienced by this population of students (Ellis, 1986; Graham &
Harris, 1997b, 2003; Harris, Graham, & Deshler, 1998; Wong, 1994).
Instructional Stages
The SRSD instructional framework includes six stages that guide students’
acquisition and application of a writing strategy and the corresponding self-regula-
tion procedures (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). The stages pro-
vide general guidelines for teaching writing strategies, but can (and should) be
reordered, combined, modified, and repeated to meet the needs of teachers(s) and
student(s). Table 1 provides an overview of the six SRSD stages.
Table 1
Stages of Instruction in the Self-Regulated Strategy Development Model (Graham &
Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996)
Stage Description
1. Develop Background Knowledge Students are taught any background knowledge
or skills needed to use the strategy successfully.
2. Discuss It Students examine their current writing
performance and discuss the purpose and
benefits of the new strategy.
3. Model It The teacher models how to use the strategy and
self-regulation techniques.
4. Memorize It Students memorize the steps of the strategy.
5. Support It Students practice using the strategy with fading
levels of teacher support and scaffolding.
6. Independent Performance Students use the strategy with little or no support.
Note. These stages are designed to be flexible and should be combined, repeated, or
reordered, as needed.
Stage one: Develop background knowledge. The focus during the introduc-
tory stage is on ensuring that students have the knowledge and skills to successfully
understand, learn, and apply the strategy and self-regulation techniques. Underlying
this goal is the teacher’s ability to identify and assess these prerequisites.
Stage two: Discuss it. During the beginning of this stage, the teacher and
students examine and discuss current writing performance, any existing strategies
being used, and students’ perceptions of the writing process. Next, the new strategy
is introduced and its purpose, benefit, and use are explored. Students are then asked
to make a commitment to learn the strategy and act as collaborative partners in this
7
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 8
endeavor. Throughout this stage, special attention should be given to examining stu-
dents’ maladaptive beliefs and behaviors and ways to reverse those negative effects
should be introduced. This is also the perfect time to introduce the concept of
progress monitoring and begin discussing the techniques that will be used to evalu-
ate the strategy.
Stage three: Model it. This stage focuses on demonstrating how to effective-
ly use the strategy and accompanying self-regulation procedures. “Think-aloud”
techniques and visual aids have been found to enhance the modeling process. It is
also critical to explicitly highlight the benefits of using self-instructions (e.g., “Okay,
now I need to ask myself ...”) and self-talk (e.g., “I’m doing a great job with listing
my reasons ...”). After the teacher has modeled how to use the strategy, the benefits
and challenges should be discussed and suggestions about how the strategy might be
modified to make it more appropriate, effective, or efficient can be considered.
This is also an ideal time for each student to develop and record the per-
sonal self-statements he or she plans to use to regulate strategy use, the writing task,
or other interfering behavior (e.g., “I can do this!”). Finally, the concept of goal set-
ting should be introduced, and each student should develop individual performance
goals for improving his or her writing (e.g., “I will include all the story parts”).
Depending on how quickly students grasp the key concepts, teachers may choose to
provide additional models of how to use the strategy and self-regulation techniques.
Stage four: Memorize it. During this stage, students memorize the steps of
the strategy, relevant mnemonic devices, and their personalized self-statements.
Within that context, it is acceptable for students to paraphrase the information, as
long as the original meaning is maintained. If necessary, instructional aids may be
used to help students memorize the strategy and self-regulation procedures (e.g., a
poster with the strategy steps or index cards that list self-statements).
Stage five: Support it. During this stage, students practice using the new
strategy and self-regulatory techniques that were introduced (e.g., progress monitor-
ing, goal setting, self-statements, and self-instructions). To meet the needs of indi-
vidual students, teachers should offer scaffolded assistance. Examples of support stu-
dents might require include direct instruction that targets how to use one step in a
strategy, remodeling, reminders to use self-regulation techniques, additional oppor-
tunities to practice and receive corrective feedback, or extra positive reinforcement
and praise. During this stage, students should be encouraged to work cooperatively,
because peer support is a helpful way to initially learn and apply a strategy. The ulti-
mate goal of this stage is to develop students’ skill in applying the strategy, such that
they no longer require assistance from the teacher, support from their peers, or
instructional aids.
Stage six: Independent performance. During this stage, students independ-
ently use the writing strategy. After students demonstrate they can consistently use
the strategy and self-regulation techniques, the teacher can consider whether it is
appropriate to fade the use of goal-setting and progress monitoring processes.
Maintenance and Generalization
Ultimately, the goal of SRSD is for students to appropriately apply strate-
gies over time, across settings, and with a variety of tasks. To promote generalization
and maintenance, it is critical that teachers help students see exactly how the strate-
8
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 9
gy improves their writing and then use that context to prompt them to apply it over
time. Similarly, students should be encouraged to identify other settings and tasks
where the strategy would be beneficial and to consider ways to modify the strategy
to increase its utility. Goal setting and progress monitoring can then be used.
Evaluation
Although there is a substantial research base documenting that the SRSD
instructional model and strategies improve students’ writing knowledge, perform-
ance, and self-efficacy, it is important to understand that there is never a one-size-
fits-all answer in education (Graham & Harris, 2005). Strategies that are highly
effective with some students may not be as effective with others. Strategies that are
highly endorsed and successfully taught by one teacher may not be equally success-
ful when taught by another teacher. Additionally, in some cases strategy instruction
may have unintended consequences. For example, one teacher noticed that after she
introduced the SCAN revision strategy, one student’s first drafts became consider-
ably shorter than they were prior to instruction (Graham & Harris, 2005). When
questioned about the situation, the student explained, “SCAN makes me add more
ideas later, so why write a lot the first time?” Fortunately, the teacher recognized this
pattern and was able to understand and appropriately address the student’s decision.
For these reasons, comprehensive evaluation is a critical component of
strategy instruction. Not only does evaluation provide evidence that a particular
writing strategy is successful, but it also gives teachers insight about the instruction-
al process in order to make modifications that maximize student growth. This reflec-
tive practice is especially important because when teachers do not change ineffective
practices, students tend to either devalue the strategy or interpret their lack of
progress as a reflection of incompetence. The following six principles highlight ways
to ensure that evaluation is comprehensive and effective.
Principle one: Evaluation reflects established efficacy. The breadth and
depth of evaluation should directly reflect the established effectiveness of the strate-
gy. In other words, an untested strategy or instructional technique requires more
thorough and formal evaluation than strategies that have been documented as effec-
tive. Conversely, strategies and teaching methods that have been previously validat-
ed need less scrutiny. Teachers’ levels of experience and effectiveness with strategy
instruction should also be used to determine how much data to collect.
Principle two: Evaluation is a collaborative process. It is essential that stu-
dents and teachers collaboratively evaluate writing strategies and the procedures
used to teach them. For students, high levels of engagement provide concrete evi-
dence that a strategy is beneficial and that their efforts are worthwhile. Active partic-
ipation also increases students’ levels of self-awareness and sense of ownership. For
teachers, collaborative evaluation represents a practical way to reduce the amount of
work involved in the evaluation process. One technique that helps achieve this goal
is to have students assess changes to their written products. For example, after being
taught a strategy to increase the number of revisions they make, students can count
and record these data before, during, and after strategy instruction.
Students should also be encouraged to share their perceptions about a
strategy and the instructional methods used to teach it. For example, at critical
points in the writing process, they can complete a journal entry that reflects on top-
9
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 10
ics such as: Do you think the strategy is helpful? Are there parts of the strategy that
you find difficult to use? and, Do you need help using the strategy? Similar topics
may also be explored during a class discussion, if appropriate. Either way, the infor-
mation can be used in conjunction with other data sources to help teachers deter-
mine appropriate levels of support and necessary instructional adaptations. After
students gain experience using a strategy, they can reflect again on the process and
outcomes. Relevant questions at this point might include: What did you like about
the strategy that you learned? What did you not like about the strategy you learned?
In what ways did the strategy help you write better? Will you continue to use the
strategy? What did you like about the teaching procedures used to learn the strate-
gy? and How could we change the teaching procedures to make them better?
However, because students’ evaluations are not always accurate, the information
should be synthesized with data from other sources to understand the overall effica-
cy of the strategy.
Principle three: Evaluation is multidimensional. Clearly, evaluation should
target changes in students’ writing performance. However, there are two other areas
that should also be assessed. First, it is important to evaluate students’ strategic
behaviors during each of the writing processes (e.g., Has the amount of time devot-
ed to planning increased? and Are they making more meaningful revisions?).
Second, it is critical to monitor students’ levels of confidence as writers, their atti-
tude during writing tasks, and their perceptions about the writing process.
Principle four: Evaluation is a continuous process. Evaluation should occur
throughout the instructional process so responsive adjustments can be made based
on students’ day-to-day progress. One technique that helps teachers achieve this goal
is to maintain a running record of informal observations. Such notes might reflect
on the following: What went well during instruction? What aspects were problemat-
ic? and Which students have difficulty independently applying the strategy? Another
technique is to have students keep the work they do during strategy instruction in a
writing folder. Then, by reviewing each student’s work, teachers can easily monitor
student progress, identify areas of need, and determine which students have mas-
tered the criteria necessary to move to the next stage of instruction.
Principle five: Evaluation targets how strategies are being used. It is also
important to evaluate whether students are effectively using the strategies that they
have been taught. Over time, some students intentionally modify a strategy or how
they use it. For example, they might decide to eliminate a step that they deem to be
too hard, too easy, or not beneficial. Other students may make unintentional
changes, such as reordering steps or incorrectly using self-regulation techniques.
Although some modifications may be useful and can be permitted, others are poten-
tially counterproductive and must be addressed because they render the strategy
ineffective. The most direct way to monitor how students use a strategy is to careful-
ly and frequently observe what they do as they write.
Principle six: Evaluation promotes maintenance and generalization. It is
also critical to evaluate whether students are successfully applying strategies over
time and in new situations. For example, to assess if knowledge about a strategy is
maintained, periodically ask students to explain the purpose of the strategy and reit-
erate its basic steps. If they cannot do this, it is unlikely they are using the strategy
10
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 11
effectively. Students can also be given a log and asked to document each time they
use a strategy and record ways they modified it for new tasks. When students are
taught a writing strategy that can be applied in several different content areas or
classrooms, it is also extremely beneficial to involve other teachers in the evaluation
process to determine if the strategy is being successfully generalized.
Ultimately, the goal is to offer additional support to students who need it
(e.g., discussions about the purpose and importance of a strategy, targeted
reminders to use a strategy with certain tasks and in certain situations).
Essential Characteristics
The six instructional stages, the strategies for maintenance and generaliza-
tion, and the principles that guide evaluation are all important elements of the SRSD
model. However, eight essential characteristics related to instructional processes and
environments significantly influence success with SRSD. These include (a) enthusi-
asm, (b) active collaboration, (c) individualization, (d) criterion-based instruction,
(e) authentic writing tasks, (f) a supportive environment, (g) constructive feedback,
and (h) predictability (Graham & Harris, 2005). Each of these essential characteris-
tics will be briefly discussed.
Enthusiasm. Prior to SRSD instruction, many students who struggle with
writing, especially those with learning disabilities, view the process as irrelevant,
arduous, and frustrating (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). To help
such students overcome these negative perceptions and reconceptualize writing as a
powerful and essential form of communication, teachers should strive to be “conta-
giously enthusiastic” throughout all stages of SRSD instruction. Specifically, it is
important to emphasize the value of writing and to focus on helping students see
how their efforts will help them become good writers.
Active collaboration. Students should be actively involved during all stages
of SRSD instruction (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 1996). By assum-
ing an active role in learning and applying the strategy being taught, students’ moti-
vation and sense of ownership in the writing process is increased, and they under-
stand how effort and dedication improve writing performance. It is also essential
that students have meaningful opportunities to collaborate with teachers and their
peers.
Individualization. The SRSD instructional framework is specifically
designed to be responsive to students’ unique needs (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris
& Graham, 1996). Although the model consists of six stages, they are intended to be
used as flexible guidelines and should be adjusted to ensure that every student’s writ-
ing is improved. As previously noted, many students with learning disabilities
require more intense, explicit, and individualized instruction to master strategy
usage (Brown & Campione, 1990; Reeve & Brown, 1985; Wong, 1994). Examples of
ways to meet students’ unique needs include reteaching the prerequisite skills and
processes needed to use the strategy effectively; offering additional explanations
about the strategy; remodeling how to apply all, or part, of the strategy; developing
instructional aids to help students remember the strategy steps and self-regulation
techniques; and providing extended feedback and support while students practice
using the strategy.
11
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 12
Criterion-based instruction. Effective SRSD instruction is based on per-

formance criteria, rather than time (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham,
1996). Students need to progress through each instructional stage at their own pace,
advancing to the next stage only when they have met the criteria for doing so. In
some instances, it will also be necessary to reorder, combine, or repeat stages to help
students master the key concepts.
Authentic writing tasks. Involving students in authentic writing tasks that
are aimed at real audiences is another effective way to increase motivation and strat-
egy usage (Graham & Harris, 1997a, 1997b). For example, the writing performance,
self-regulation skills, and attitudes among fourth-grade students were significantly
improved when they assumed responsibility for cleaning up a local stream. As part
of this project, students used SRSD planning and revising strategies as they learned
to write letters to local politicians and influential citizens, to write an article in the
local newspaper, and to write a grant that ultimately helped fund their project.
Because the tasks were authentic, meaningful, and relevant, students’ levels of inter-
est flourished and their writing abilities improved dramatically.
Supportive environment. Classroom environments that are supportive,
pleasant, and non-threatening develop students’ passion for writing, and they also
increase the likelihood that students will apply the strategies they have learned
(Graham & Harris, 1994). This is particularly important for students who struggle
with writing, many of whom need to overcome the lingering effects of previous
experiences when they felt unsuccessful and frustrated throughout the writing
process. Examples of strategies that help create an enjoyable and inspiring environ-
ment include establishing an exciting mood during writing time; encouraging stu-
dents to take risks when writing; developing writing assignments that are compati-
ble with students’ interests; allowing students to select their own writing topics or
modify assigned topics; providing opportunities for students to arrange their own
writing space; encouraging students to help each other as they plan, write, revise,
and edit their work; holding conferences with students about goals, advances, and
setbacks on current projects; asking students to share works in progress and com-
pleted papers with each other; praising students for their accomplishments, effort,
and use of writing strategies; reinforcing students’ efforts and accomplishments by
“showcasing” work in prominent places; and consistently modeling and promoting
an “I can do this” attitude.
Constructive feedback. It is also critical to understand that placing too
much attention on students’ writing errors can negatively impact performance, per-
ceptions, and motivation (Graham, 1982). Circling every misspelled word and usage
error in red pen and writing things such as “AWK” above every clumsy phrase or sen-
tence can make students more aware of their limitations and less willing to write.
Similarly, writing should never be used as a punishment because it only reinforces
students’ negative attitudes about the process (Graham & Harris, 2005).
Predictability. Finally, the role of predictability in successfully promoting
the use of writing strategies should not be overlooked, nor underestimated (Graham
& Harris, 2005). Establishing a consistent writing routine where students plan, draft,
revise, edit, and publish their work is a very powerful technique for three reasons.
First, it provides students with plenty of opportunities to apply the various strategies
12
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 13
they have been taught. Second, it creates the flexibility needed for teachers to indi-
vidualize and differentiate instruction. Finally, a predictable writing routine contin-
ually reminds students that writing is a highly prioritized, meaningful activity.
TEACHING THE THREE-STEP STRATEGY WITH TREE
To illustrate one of the many ways SRSD can be implemented, a description
of how a special education teacher taught a persuasive writing strategy to a small
group of fifth- and sixth-grade students with learning disabilities is now offered
(Sexton, Harris, & Graham, 1998). The three-step strategy with TREE is designed to
help students identify what they want to accomplish, generate an outline that
includes all the basic parts of an essay, consider the quality of their evidence, and
modify their outline as they draft (see Table 2). In Step 1, students establish their
purpose for writing by identifying their audience and their goal for writing the
paper. In Step 2, they use a series of genre-specific prompts to generate, evaluate, and
organize reasons that support their argument. The mnemonic TREE reminds them
to outline ideas related to each essay element (i.e., a topic sentence that states your
opinion, supporting reasons for that opinion, and ending). It also encourages them
to freely brainstorm ideas and then “examine each reason;” crossing out those that
would be less convincing to a reader. Next, they organize their notes by numbering
which idea they plan to introduce first, second, third, and so forth. Finally, in Step 3,
students use this plan as a guide to “write and say more.”
Table 2
Three-Step Strategy with TREE (as Presented in Graham & Harris, 2005)
Step 1: Think.
Who will read my paper?
Why am I writing this paper?
Step 2: Plan what to say using TREE.
Note Topic Sentence
Note Reasons
Examine Each Reason- Will My Reader Buy It?
Note Ending
Number which idea will go first, second, third, and so on.
Step 3: Write and say more.
The six students who will be highlighted in this example were members of
a combined fifth- and sixth-grade classroom in an inclusive school. Their writing
class was team taught by Marva, a special education teacher, and John, a general edu-
cation teacher. Students in this class were familiar with working in small groups led
by either Marva or John because they were frequently regrouped for different peri-
ods, subjects, and topics. Marva and John collaboratively selected these six students
for SRSD instruction because each had difficulties with persuasive writing, displayed
a low level of motivation, and had maladaptive beliefs about the causes of writing
success and failure. While receiving small-group instruction with Marva, the stu-
dents continued to participate in the classroom’s primary writing program, Writers’
Workshop (Atwell, 1987).
13
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 14
Stage One: Develop Background Knowledge

Marva began SRSD instruction by having the students discuss what they
already knew about writing persuasive essays. Because they were not familiar with
the three basic elements required in an opinion paper (i.e., topic sentence, support-
ing reasons, and conclusion), she explicitly highlighted and explained each one. The
students then located and discussed examples using books they had previously read
and essays they had written. To further reinforce these concepts, Marva posed a
number of hypothetical topics (e.g., “Do you think teachers should assign home-
work?”) and had students collaboratively brainstorm ideas for each essay element.
This was an especially important aspect of developing background knowledge
because these concepts serve as prompts for generating content during Step 2 of the
strategy.
Stage Two: Discuss It
Following that initial lesson, Marva held individual conferences to talk
about each student’s approach to writing and to introduce the new strategy they
would be learning. They discussed how using the three-step strategy with TREE
would help them improve their persuasive writing skills and established an overar-
ching goal (e.g., “To write a better paper by having all the parts and using really, real-
ly convincing reasons.”). Next, Marva introduced students to the concept of progress
monitoring with self-assessment, by explaining they would be monitoring whether
the strategy helped them write better essays. Each student selected at least two pre-
viously written essays from their portfolios and determined how many of the
required elements were included. Marva demonstrated how to graph this informa-
tion using an essay she had written, and then made sure each student was able to cor-
rectly locate and graph their own data. This self-regulation procedure not only helps
students monitor the completeness of their stories, but also visually reinforces the
benefits of using the strategy. Throughout these individual conferences, Marva
emphasized how each student would actively collaborate with the teacher and his or
her peers to learn the strategy and then practice using it to write opinion essays on
“cool topics.”
Marva then reconvened the small group and asked students to expand their
previous discussion about what makes a good persuasive essay. Here again, she
explicitly focused on the importance of including all elements of an essay and eval-
uating the relevance of reasons used to support an opinion. She then introduced the
three-step strategy with TREE and gave each student a colorful index card that list-
ed the steps and the mnemonic. She prompted them to explain why each step of the
strategy would be important and rearticulate why and how the strategy could be
used (e.g., “Any time you want to tell someone your opinion, like when you write a
letter to the newspaper,” “If you want someone, like your parents or teacher, to
believe you have a good idea.”). Building on what was discussed during the individ-
ual conferences, Marva reemphasized that successfully learning the strategy and
improving their writing depended students’ effort and active collaboration.
Stage Three: Model It
During the third lesson, Marva shared her own opinion on a topic and used
the “think aloud” technique to model how to use the strategy to develop this idea
into an essay. Students participated in this activity by helping her identify goals (i.e.,
14
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 15
“Write a great essay that includes all the parts and convinces my reader”), make a
plan that includes notes reflecting each element, consider (and then accept or reject)
possible ideas to support the premise, and write a first draft on large chart paper.
Working together, the students accepted and rejected possible ideas to support
Marva’s premise. To emphasize the importance of allowing an essay to evolve and to
improve it with new ideas, Marva purposefully had students help her make several
changes to her initial plan as she wrote. Once the first draft was completed, Marva
modeled how to make sure all the elements were included and had students collab-
oratively improve and elaborate on each of her ideas.
While modeling how to use the strategy, Marva explicitly used a variety of
self-statements to guide her through the writing process. These included the follow-
ing: “What do I need to do first?” (Problem definition); “First, I need to think of my
topic sentence” (Planning); “Let my mind be free and take my time; good ideas will
come to me” (Brainstorming); “Does this idea make sense?” (Self-evaluation); “What
a great ending” (Self-reinforcement); and “I can do this!” (Coping). She also fre-
quently verbalized attributions that associated success with writing to effort and
using the strategy (e.g., “If I work hard and follow the steps, I’ll write a great essay!”).
After creating a final draft, Marva graphed the results and praised herself for achiev-
ing her goal by saying, “I included each story part because I worked hard and fol-
lowed the strategy!” She also used this opportunity to have the students talk about
how self-statements impact writing. They volunteered examples of positive and neg-
ative phrases they used before the strategy was introduced and they identified the
ones Marva modeled. She listed all of the positive ideas on the board and each stu-
dent recorded the ones they planned to use on another colorful index card (e.g.,
“How am I doing so far?,” “I can do this if I try!,” “Work hard-Write better!,” and
“Slow down and take my time.”).
Stage Four: Memorize It
In the next mini-lesson, Marva explained that using the strategy would be
easier if each student memorized the three steps, the mnemonic TREE, and his or
her personalized self-statements. They accomplished this task by rehearsing the
information individually and with partners, and then quizzing one another.
Memorization was easy for most of the students, but Marva found she had to pro-
vide some students with extra practice opportunities and support.
Stage Five: Support It
Students then began practicing using the strategy, self-statements, and
progress monitoring procedures to write opinion essays. Based on her previous
experience, Marva anticipated that writing an outline (Step 2 of the strategy) would
be the most difficult task for the students in her small group. Consequently, she
assumed the role of lead collaborator when they began their first essay. As they
planned together, Marva intentionally made a few errors (e.g., forgetting a strategy
step) because it allowed students to identify and discuss the cause and impact of her
mistakes. Marva also modeled how to make corrections and avoid frustration by
using positive self-statements (e.g., “I need to try to follow all of the strategy steps,
so I can write a good essay. I know I can do it!”). As students continued practicing
with the strategy, Marva encouraged them to set a goal before writing each essay (i.e.,
include all the parts of TREE) and then monitor their progress by counting and
15
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 16
graphing the elements they included in their final draft. Students reviewed each
other’s papers and provided feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the argu-
ments. As students became comfortable using the strategy, Marva provided less
intrusive, individualized assistance. For example, a few students needed help to
effectively use their self-statements, some required additional modeling about how
to carry out a process (e.g., generate more possible supporting reasons), some need-
ed to revisit the underlying rationale for a particular step, and others were encour-
aged to expand and enhance the information they included in their first drafts.
Reliance on the index cards listing the strategies and self-statements diminished over
time.
Stage Six: Independent Performance
All six students were able to independently use the three-step strategy with
TREE and the self-regulation procedures effectively after writing three or four essays.
As students continued to use the strategy with new assignments, Marva provided
positive and constructive feedback as needed. Marva also told students that they
were no longer required to set goals or graph their progress, but encouraged them to
do so as a way to ensure they continued to write persuasive essays that were interest-
ing, convincing, and complete.
At this time, Marva held a small-group conference to discuss and evaluate
strategy use. All six students said they were glad they learned the three-step strategy
with TREE because it significantly improved their persuasive writing skills and their
perceptions of the writing process. For example, one student explained that he now
told himself “to try harder” when writing, and that allowed him to write essays that
were longer and more convincing. Another said she learned how to improve her
papers by asking herself, “Is my paper good enough?” This student’s positive percep-
tions are validated by comparing writing samples completed before and after SRSD
instruction. Prior to learning the three-step strategy with TREE, she was given the
prompt, “Should students have to go to school during the summer?,” and wrote “No,
because we went to for 180 and we need to have fun in the summer, and rest our
brains before we start school again.” After only a few sessions of SRSD instruction,
she was given the prompt “Should there be rules in school?,” and used the three-step
strategy with TREE to produce the following paragraph.
I think school rules are necessary. If there were no rules, people would be
doing whatever they want. Not listening to the teacher and eating gum, and
screaming, and jumping on furniture. That is why we have rules. So the kids
can obey them and we will have a nice school. So that is why I think rules
are necessary.
FINAL THOUGHTS
SRSD leads to significant and meaningful improvements in writing knowl-
edge and skills because students learn strategies that help manage the writing
process (Graham & Harris, 2003; Harris & Graham, 1999). SRSD also leads to
increased motivation and self-regulation (Harris, Graham, Reid, McElroy, & Hamby,
1994; Sexton et al., 1998). This occurs for several reasons. First, students’ active col-
laboration throughout instruction enhances their sense of ownership over the strat-
egy and allows them to understand why strategy use is beneficial. Second, infusing
16
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 17
self-regulation techniques into instruction helps students see how their efforts and
attitudes influence learning. Finally, enthusiastic teaching, promoting an “I can do
this...” attitude, and offering frequent praise foster students’ belief in their ability to
improve (Graham & Harris, 2005).
Achieving positive outcomes with SRSD requires teachers to devote time
and effort to learning the model and implementing it with integrity. This investment
is consistently described as worthwhile (De La Paz, Owen, Harris, & Graham, 2000;
Graham, Harris, & Troia, 1998; Mason, Harris, & Graham, 2002; Sexton et al., 1998).
For example, a fifth-grade special education teacher explained that she saw “light
bulbs going on” after she co-taught a story grammar strategy in an inclusive class-
room. Similarly, a seventh-grade teacher reflected, “I think this is a good example of
what strategy instruction can do for a student who would otherwise be over-
whelmed and reluctant to tackle a five-paragraph essay assignment.” SRSD also
receives social validation from students who offer comments such as “[this writing]
strategy really builds up your resources,” “Now, this writing stuff makes sense,” and
“[SRSD] should be taught to all schools in the country.”
REFERENCES
Alexander, P., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research:
Progress and prospect. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129-154.
Alvarez, V., & Adelman, H. (1996). Over-statements of self-evaluation by students with psy-
choeducational problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 567-571.
Applebee, A. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54, 577-596.
Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1990). Interactive learning environments and the teaching of
science and mathematics. In M. Garner, J. Green, F. Reif, A. Schenfield, A. DiSessa, & E.
Stage (Eds.), Towards a scientific practice of science education (pp. 112-139). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Danoff, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1993). Incorporating strategy instruction within the
writing process in the regular classroom: Effects on the writing of students with and
without learning disabilities. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 304-311.
De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy instruction in regular education settings:
Improving outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 92-106.
De La Paz, S., Owen, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2000). Riding Elvis’ motorcycle: Using
Self-Regulated Strategy Development to PLAN and WRITE for a state writing exam.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 101-109.
De La Paz, S., Swanson, P., & Graham, S. (1998). The contribution of executive control to
the revising by student with writing and learning difficulties. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 448-460.
Diamond, J. (1999). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: Norton.
Durst, R., & Newell, G. (1989). The uses of function: James Britton’s category system and
research on writing. Review of Educational Research, 59, 375-394.
Ellis, E. (1986). The role of motivation and pedagogy on the generalization of cognitive
training by the mildly handicapped. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 66-70.
Englert, C., Raphael, T., Fear, K., & Anderson, L. (1988). Students’ metacognitive knowledge
about how to write informational text. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 18-46.
17
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 18
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57,

481-506.
Graham, S. (1982). Composition research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 14, 1-16.
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students’ composi-
tions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781-791.
Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing
difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223-234.
Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabili-
ties: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78-98.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989a). A component analysis of cognitive strategy instruction:
Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 353-361.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989b). Cognitive training implications in written language. In
J. Hughes & R. Hall (Eds.), Cognitive-behavioral psychology in the schools: A comprehen-
sive handbook (pp. 247-279). New York: Guilford Press.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1994). The role and development of self-regulation in the writ-
ing process. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and per-
formance: Issues and educational implications (pp. 203-228). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1996). Self regulation and strategy instruction for students who
find writing and learning challenging. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of
writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 347-360).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997a). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally:
Myths and realities in writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 26, 414-424.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997b). Self-regulation and writing: Where do we go from
here? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 170-182.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000a). Writing development: Introduction to the special issue.
Educational Psychologist, 35, 1.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000b). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in
writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3-12.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of
writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham
(Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323-344). New York: Guilford Press.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better. Effective strategies for teaching students
with learning difficulties. Baltimore: Paul. H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing and writing
instruction with students with learning disabilities: A review of a program of research.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89-114.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowl-
edge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy
development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207-241.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Troia, G. (1998). Writing and self-regulation: Cases from the
Self-Regulated Strategy Development model. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.),
Developing self-regulated learners: From teaching to self-reflective practices (pp. 20-41).
New York: Guilford Press.
Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing
process, attitude towards writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learn-
ing disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237-249.
18
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 19
Greenwald, E., Persky, H., Ambell, J., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). National assessment of educational
progress: 1998 report card for the nation and states. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composi-
tion and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Problematic intervention research: Illustrations from the
evolution of self-regulated strategy development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22,
251-262.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Deshler, D. (1998). Teaching every child every day: Learning in
diverse schools and classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Reid, R., McElroy, K., & Hamby, R. (1994). Self-monitoring of
attention versus self-monitoring of performance: Replication and cross-task compari-
son studies. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 17, 121-139.
MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing with three
methods: Handwriting, dictation, and word processing. Journal of Special Education, 21,
22-42.
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2004). Insights from instructional research on
revision with struggling writers. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision:
Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 125-137). Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revision
behavior among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14,
61-74.
Mason, L., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2002). Every child has a story to tell: Self-Regulated
Strategy Development for story writing. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 496-
506.
McCutchen, D. (1988). “Functional automaticity” in children’s writing: A problem of
metacognitive control. Written Communication, 5, 306-324.
Persky, H., Daane, M., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
Reeve, R., & Brown, A. (1985). Metacognition reconsidered: Implications for intervention
research. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 343-356.
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1987). Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness in
learning and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 623-637.
Sawyer, R., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and
strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition skills and
self-efficacy of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84,
340-352.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778-803). New York: Macmillan.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goleman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writ-
ing ability. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and struc-
ture of written discourse (pp. 173-210). New York: Academic Press.
Sexton, M., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1998). Self-Regulated Strategy Development and
the writing process: Effects on essay writing and attributions. Exceptional Children, 43,
295-311.
Thomas, C., Englert, C., & Gregg, S. (1987). An analysis of errors and strategies in the
expository writing of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 21-
30.
19
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 20
Weintraub, N., & Graham, S. (1998). Writing legibly and quickly: A study of children’s abili-
ty to adjust their handwriting to meet common classroom demands. Learning
Disability Research & Practice, 13, 146-152.
Wong, B. (1994). Instructional parameters promoting the transfer of learned strategies in
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 73-101.
Wong, B., Wong, R., & Blenkinsop, J. (1989). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of learn-
ing disabled adolescents’ composing problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 310-
323.
Zimmerman, B., & Reisemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cogni-
tive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73-101.
Received May 1, 2006

Revised September 2, 2006
Accepted September 3, 2006
20
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 21
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 5(1), 21-39, 2007 Copyright @ by LDW 2007
Place Value and Mathematics for Students with

Mild Disabilities: Data and Suggested Practices
John F. Cawley
Storrs, Connecticut
Rene S. Parmar1
St. John’s University
Lynn M. Lucas-Fusco
Alden Central School District
Joy D. Kilian
Buffalo Public School System
Teresa E. Foley
Manchester, Connecticut
Place value is a phenomenon that has ominous implications for develop-

ing number sense and meaning and for using alternative algorithms and
alternative representations within whole number arithmetic. For the most
part, school programs examine place value at a surface level, with a pri-
mary focus on having the student identify or state a number value accord-
ing to its positional setting. For example, in 146 the student is asked to
state the value of the “4” as 40 or as four 10’s. Seldom is place value exam-
ined for its deep structure potential by incorporating, for example,
expanded notation to complete an item such as 2 100 + 40 + 6 . Our inter-
est is in the deep structure view of place value models (e.g., Ross, 1986,
1989, 1990), which delved more deeply into selected meanings of place
value and their implications. In modeling the work of Ross with a sample
of students with mild disabilities, the tasks were constructed from her
model and the data are presented following her procedure. This paper
presents data from a developmental inquiry of the place value perform-
ance of 126 students with mild disabilities on six place value tasks. A dis-
cussion of the multiplicity of meanings and activities related to knowing
and doing arithmetic with an emphasis on place value is presented.
Key Words: Arithmetic, Elementary, Learning Disabilities, Instructional
Strategies
udging from the paucity of literature on the topic, the concepts and meanings of
J place value are among the least stressed in mathematics with all students, includ-
ing those with disabilities. Place value is presented at a surface level in most situa-
tions, and generally involves little more than having students name the place value
of a column in a written number. That is, a student is shown a number such as 325,
in which the 2 is highlighted and the student is expected to say “tens” or “twenty.”
1. Please address correspondence to: Rene Parmar, St. John’s University, 8000 Utopia Pkwy., Queens, NY 11439;
E-mail: PARMARR@stjohns.edu
21
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 22
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 5(1), 21-39, 2007
However, experts (e.g., Baroody, 1990; Fuson, 1990) view place value as a higher-
order concept because it formulates our system of number notation and the algo-
rithms that comprise arithmetic.
There is a near total neglect of effort to assist the student in developing a
variety of conceptualizations of place value as:
1. the basis of our number system and our arithmetic,
2. the basis for estimation and rounding,
3. a way to construct meaning of alternative representations
through the use of symbolic forms of expanded notation,
4. the foundation of alternative algorithms,
5. a foundation of our base-ten system with both whole numbers
and decimals,
6. a ratio expressing relationships (e.g., between 10 pennies and
one dime, to 100 pennies and one dollar),
7. the conservation of number embedded within alternative repre-
sentations of a number as would be indicated if the student was
shown 56 in the form of five 10s and six 1s and then shown 56 in
the form of four 10s and sixteen 1s,
8. the potential to explain decimal relationships relative to the 1’s
column,
9. a way to interpret the oral and written number system.
Place value is difficult for many students to comprehend until they reach
the middle grades (Ross, 1986, 1989, 1990). For example, Jesson (1983) examined
the performance of 800 primary-grade through middle-school students’ develop-
ment of place value and found slow, but gradual development to the upper grades.
The literature has long suggested that children who have a poor concept of
place value tend to experience difficulties with algorithmic procedures (Ashlock,
1986; Reisman, 1977). Traditional place value instruction that occurs before double-
column addition is introduced is not sufficient to help these children. The gap
widens as more complex algorithms requiring more conceptual understanding of
base-ten numeration systems are introduced. Ross (1990) researched several tasks to
determine student understanding about place value. Based on her findings, Ross
suggested that teachers need to focus more on two-digit numeration, during which
time must be allowed for children to think and create their own number sense. Ross
also recommended using problem solving, estimation, and alternative algorithms to
teach place value rather than teaching it as an isolated topic.
The primary concerns relative to place value involve its relationship to the
operations of arithmetic and the extent to which place value should be taught direct-
ly (e.g., Baroody, 1990; Fuson, 1990; Fuson & Briars, 1990; Peterson, Mercer, &
O’Shea, 1988) or left to develop intuitively (e.g., Kamii, Lewis, & Livingston, 1993).
In their studies of first- and second-grade classrooms in which students were learn-
ing about place value, Heibert and Wearne (1992, 1993) contrasted a meanings
approach with the conventional textbook approach. At each level, the students in the
concept-based classroom performed better than those in the textbook-based pro-
gram. In part, this may be a function of the textbooks themselves; for example,
Fuson (1990) has cited numerous limitations to the textbook treatment of place
22
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 23
value. The textbooks give short shrift to place value and fail to give it enough atten-
tion to take students beyond the rudimentary levels described by Ross (1990), in
which the students simply name the value of a column.
Kamii et al. (1993) compared two groups of students instructed in place
value using two different programs. The first group was traditionally instructed; the
second group was instructed using a pupil-centered program. The fundamental dif-
ference between the two programs was that the pupil-centered program allowed stu-
dents to invent their own procedures for solving computational and story problems,
whereas the students in the traditional group were taught specific rules to solve the
computation and story problems. The results indicated that the students in the
pupil-centered program had a greater understanding of place value and regrouping
in double-column addition.
The authors also examined the extent to which students invented their own
algorithms and found evidence of place value utilization. Kari and Anderson (2003)
described a classroom approach to place value meanings through the use of prob-
lem-solving experiences in which the teacher presented a problem and asked the stu-
dents to offer a variety of solutions. For example, with a problem such as 11+9, the
students offered a variety of solutions as to the relationships between the numbers.
Hindy (2003) discussed a variety of ways to develop a sense of place value by pre-
senting fifth-grade students with a problem in which two students each have an
amount of money, and the students are asked to state this amount as a multiplica-
tion sentence (e.g., each has 3, 2x3). She expanded this to each student having 30,
2x30, 300, 2x200 and 3000, 2x3000. Ultimately, the students developed a number of
means by which computational principles are mastered (see Table 1 in Hindy, 2003).
A detailed analysis of student participation in a classroom-focused topic,
the candy factory, described procedures, outcomes, and alternatives in the develop-
ment of third-grade students’ meanings of place value (Bowers, Cobb, &
McLain,1999). The students participated in this single-classroom activity for a peri-
od of nine weeks. The activities centered on making packages of candy or repackag-
ing candies. The data consisted of analysis of videotapes, field notes, and interviews
prior to and after participation. Students were engaged in simulation activities such
as using Unifix cubes as well as computer-based simulations. The arithmetical
emphasis was on counting ones, tens, and hundreds to represent place value and
incorporating addition and subtraction. Considerable importance was given to stu-
dent dialogue. Five mathematical practices, ranging from counting to addition and
subtraction, comprised the mathematics of the project. Perhaps the most relevant
outcome was the differences among individual students as they interpreted and
implemented place value meanings.
Knowledge of place in base-ten numeration is necessary for understanding
of and success in computation algorithms (Ashlock, 1986; Fuson, 1990; Reisman,
1977; Ross, 1986, 1989, 1990). School-taught procedures encourage children to
memorize the digits to nine. Then by adding one more, children continue to count
by rote beyond 10 without any concept of the base ten numeration system (Reisman,
1977). In the base-ten numeration system the position of each common digit has an
expressed value and its value is relative to other digits (i.e., tens times as great or one
tenth the value for each common number in 333).
23
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 24
In a general sense, the power of place value has not been fully explored. For
example, an understanding of place value is a necessary foundation for estimation,
of which three components seem essential. First is an understanding of estimation.
Next is an understanding of multi-digit numerals. And, third is an understanding of
the relationship between the words used to express place value and their meaning
and physical and symbolic representations.
Estimation is more than guesswork; it is a calculated procedure in which
students identify the maximum place value representation in one or more numbers
(e.g., the 300 and the 200 in 324+213); identify the relational value sought for those
numbers (e.g., do they involve addition, subtraction); and perform mental calcula-
tions that are completed from left to right (Lee, 1991), and then, depending on the
preciseness of the estimation, round off in columns adjacent to the stipulated place
value. Many students with disabilities do not understand that estimation goes
beyond guesswork, nor do they understand that it is a calculated procedure. As edu-
cation moves more toward technology, especially with the hand-held calculator and
microcomputer-based computation, the role of estimation will become more para-
mount as the insertion of data is a left-to-right procedure.
It is important to concentrate on the meaning of multi-digit numerals
before focusing on computations with algorithmic processes (Ashlock, 1986).
Children must have a concept of the digits “1” to “9” and understand the value of
each position in a multi-digit numeral as in a power of 10, 100, or 1000, as the case
may be. According to Ashlock, children who have difficulty in mathematics can iden-
tify and name place value but generally learn the positions by rote. They cannot
combine the digit’s face value and its place value.
Fuson (1990) suggested that young children need to construct relationships
between words for a numeral and the marks they represent. She advocated using
physical materials for understanding the base-ten system to illustrate the positional
factors of multi-digit numerals, and that the focus be understanding, not just the
procedures of algorithms.
Jordan and her colleagues (e.g., Hanich, Jordan, Kaplan, & Dick, 2001;
Jordan & Hanich, 2000) assessed the mathematical thinking of second-grade stu-
dents with and without learning disabilities. A component of these studies included
place value, one segment of which was constructed based upon the work of Ross
(1989). The Jordan and Hanich (2000) study included seven place value items, which
consisted of a correspondence activity in which students were asked to count a set of
16 chips and then asked to read the number 16, which was printed on a card. The
examiner then pointed to the 6 on the card and asked students to show what that
part of the number means using chips. A chip-trading task was also included.
Students were given a container of yellow chips and a container of red chips and
shown a number written on a card and asked to show the same number with chips.
In a general sense, the students were able to count 16, read 16, and specify the mean-
ing of 6 in 16. However, they were less specific in stating the meaning of 1 in 16 and
in their performance with the chip-trading activity.
24
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 25
The study by Hanich and colleagues (2001) included (a) a counting and
number identification task, (b) a positional knowledge activity, and (c) a digit cor-
respondence activity. In the counting task, the student was provided with 16 chips
and asked to count the chips; in the number identification task, the student was
shown a number (e.g., 415) and asked to read the number aloud. In the positional
knowledge task, the student read a number aloud (e.g., 415) and was then queried
about which digits were in the hundreds, ones, and tens place, respectively. There
were also two digit-correspondence tasks. In the first, the examiner showed the stu-
dent a card with the number 16 and then asked the student to use chips to show the
value of a part of the number that was circled (e.g., 6, and the student was to show
6 chips); the second task consisted of a standard place-value activity and a nonstan-
dard place-value activity. In the former, the student was shown a card with a num-
ber (e.g., 43) along with a picture of 43 squares arranged in a format of four sets of
10 and a set of 3 ones. The examiner indicated there were 43 squares on the paper,
circled the 3 and asked the student to draw a circle around the number of squares
corresponding to the 3. A second task showed the circles in a format as three sets of
10 and a set of ones. For the final activity, the examiner showed a card with a num-
ber (e.g., 26) along with a picture of six groups of 4 stars and one group of 2 stars.
The examiner drew a picture around the number 6 and instructed the student to
draw a circle around the number of stars representing this number (e.g., 6). Results
showed that students had an adequate grasp of counting and number identification
but a decided lack of proficiency with digit correspondence in standard and non-
standard formats. Assuming digit correspondence is the basis for understanding the
relationship among alternative representations between combinations of symbolic
forms (e.g., listening and reading) and nonsymbolic forms (e.g., manipulative and
pictorial), it is likely the students will be unable to utilize varying formats of alterna-
tive representations or meaningfully utilize the base-ten system.
When provided the results of the outcomes of the inquiry reported in this
paper, a sample of both general education and special education teachers in a special
project were polled on their responses to the data, as it was their students who par-
ticipated. They were surprised and confused by the results. Some did not realize that
their students did not have an understanding of digit correspondence or positional
knowledge even though they could perform rote computational tasks. This rein-
forces the notion that students often learn mathematics as rote memory tasks, rather
than with understanding, particularly the tasks of digit correspondence. Students
could count, identify two-digit numerals, and count to 100 by tens, but did not know
the value of each digit relative to its position in the numeral. Why should one ask a
student to perform operations on these numbers when they have no concept of the
value of the number itself? Further, none of the teachers had considered assessing
place value to the depths undertaken in this inquiry.
METHOD
Subjects
The sample consisted of 128 students with mild disabilities enrolled in self-
contained special education classrooms and mainstreamed for selected activities.
The students were grouped noncategorically according to level of achievement. The
25
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 26
students were from primary (N=56), intermediate (N=44), and junior high (N=26)
grades. Students were selected from 15 different classrooms in five urban schools in
a school district with an enrollment of 44,000 students. The district does not service
students by disability type. Rather, students are cross-categorically grouped by level
of academic achievement. The district does not permit student data to be extracted
from student files.
Procedures
Each student was individually interviewed by a trained examiner. The
examiners worked in pairs in performing the alternating functions of recorder and
interviewer.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation was influenced by the hierarchical framework of Ross
(Ross, 1986, 1989, 1990). It consisted of six primary tasks, each with a range of scor-
ing. The instrument is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Task description for Ross tasks.

Task A: Count Orally by Tens – The students were asked to count by tens as high as
they could. If they stopped at one hundred, the examiners asked them if they could count
any further.
Level 1: Unable to count orally by tens.
Level 2: Can count orally by tens but only to one hundred.
Level 3: Can count orally beyond one hundred.
Level 4: Not applicable.
Task B: Count 48 Beans Efficiently – The examiner asked the students to count a col-
lection of beans that was partitioned into 10 beans in four cups and 8 loose beans.The
examiner told the students that there were 10 beans in each cup and some on the table.
The examiner then asked the students, “How many beans are there?”
Level 1: Unable to determine the quantity of beans.
Level 2: Used counting by ones.
Level 3: Used some efficient method of counting such as repeated addition, or
multiplication.
Level 4: Not applicable.
Task C: Digit Correspondence of the Beans – After the students counted the num-
ber of beans in the above task, the examiner wrote down the number 48 on a sheet of
paper.The students were asked first the meanings of the 8 (which was indicated by the
examiner pointing to the numeral 8) and then the meaning of the 4 (which again was
pointed to by the examiner).
Level 1:The digits had no numerical meaning.
Level 2:The student invented meaning not related to the grouping of tens
and ones.
Level 3:The student understood that the whole number represented the
whole quantity, but confused or reversed the meaning of the digits.
Level 4:The whole numeral must equal the sum of the quantities of the parts
of the objects.
26
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 27
Figure 1. continued
Task D: Conservation of Grouped Numbers – Using the same beans and cups as in
the previous tasks, the examiner spilled one of the cups and asked if there were more
beans now than there were before.
Level 1:The students did not conserve; they thought that the value of the
collection of beans had been changed.
Level 2:The students had to recount the collection to be sure that the amount
had not changed.
Level 3:The students knew that the quantity of the group had not changed.
Level 4: Not Applicable.
Task E: Knowledge of Correspondence between Individual Digits and a
Collection of Ungrouped Numbers – The examiner laid down 25 tongue depressors
before the student.The student was asked to count and then write how many tongue
depressors were on the table. If the student wrote the correct number the examiner cir-
cled the 5, and asked the student, “Does this the part of the 25 have anything to do with
how many sticks you have?” Then the examiner circled the 2 and asked the same question.
Level 1:The digits had no numerical meanings.
Level 2:The student invented meaning not related to the grouping of tens
and ones.
Level 3:The student understood that the whole number represented the
whole quantity but confused or reversed the meanings of the digits.
Level 4:Whole numeral represents whole quantities of objects.The whole
must equal the sum of the parts.
Task F:The Position of the Digits Determines the Value of the Number – The
examiner wrote the number 37 on a piece of paper and asked the student to read the
number.The examiner then asked the student to point to the tens place and then the ones
place. Next the examiner wrote down 84 and asked the student to read this number and
asked how many tens.
Level 1:The student could not distinguish between individual digits in a two-digit
numeral with respect to the ones digit and tens digit.
Level 2:The student knew that the digits are called ones and tens, but the
left/right orientation is not firmly established and may make reversal errors.
Level 3:The student can distinguish between ones and tens, but does not know
that the tens digit represents how many tens are in the whole quantity.
Level 4:The student can distinguish which digit is the tens and which is ones,
and can determine how many tens are in a two-digit number by inspecting
the tens digit.
Results
The results are presented following the procedures of Ross (1989).
Percentage of students attaining each level on the six tasks is reported by grade group
in Table 1. The table is to be read vertically so the percentages listed for the primary
sample under Task A, 32, 48 and 19 round to 100%.
Student performance increased with age, indicating a developmental trend.
Greater percentages of junior high students performed at the highest level of com-
petency for each task, as 54% of this group attained the highest level in contrast to
17% of the primary level students. The lowest percentage of students performing at
27
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 28
the highest level was found at the primary level. Percentages of highest-order per-
formance increased to the intermediate-level students, with the junior high students
performing with the highest percentage. There were two exceptions to this develop-
mental trend, in Tasks B and D. At the intermediate level a greater percentage of stu-
dents performed at the highest level than the junior high school students on these
two tasks.
Table 1
Percent of Students Performing at Each Level
Grade Performance Task
Level
A B C D E F
Primary 0 0 7 33 31 34 10
(N=56) 1 32 53 38 40 59 28
2 48 5 3 10 12 27
3 19 35 12 19 14 17
4 NA NA 13 NA 12 17
Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
(N=44) 1 2 21 27 41 27 4
2 32 0 2 2 14 32
3 66 80 27 57 23 18
4 NA NA 43 NA 36 41
Junior High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(N=26) 1 4 8 23 31 15 8
2 12 19 0 15 19 35
3 85 73 4 54 27 4
4 NA NA 73 NA 39 54
A further examination of the levels of performance on Tasks B and D by the

intermediate- and junior high-level students shows that a lower percentage of stu-
dents in the intermediate group responded at a Level 2 than those in the junior high
group (intermediates responding at Level 2 was 0% as opposed to 19.2% at the jun-
ior high level on task B and on task D 2.3% of the intermediate-level students
responded at Level 2 compared to 15.4% of the junior high students). The percent-
age of students performing at the highest level for most tasks seldom reached 50%.
On the whole, these results paralleled those of Ross (1989), who studied
general education students. That is, higher levels of performance were associated
with age and grade level, but even at the upper levels, only a modest percentage of
the students attained the highest level of proficiency.
DISCUSSION
Important Considerations
Place value involves several important and underutilized considerations for
arithmetic. Among these are (a) the role place value plays in assisting students to
enhance their ways of knowing and doing arithmetic; (b) the use of place value with
alternative representations; (c) the role of place value in the development and use of
28
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 29
alternative algorithms; and (d) the role of place value in the development and con-
duct of “hands-on” and other forms of assessment. Each of these will be discussed
below.
Ways of knowing and doing arithmetic. The most common approach to
teaching arithmetic to students with learning disabilities is to present a traditional
algorithm accompanied by a set of rules, and to instruct the students to follow an
example and complete each item as illustrated in an explicit and rote manner. The
result is that the students do not develop knowledge of substantive meanings of the
similarities and differences among the operations, nor do they learn that there are
many ways of doing the operations. For example, using subtraction as an illustra-
tion, students are generally taught that subtraction is “take away.” If so, how do stu-
dents deal with: Jim has 3 apples in his pail. Nancy has 7 apples in her pail. How many
apples must Jim add to his pail to have as many apples as Nancy? or Jim has 7 apples
in his pail. This is 3 more than he started with. How many apples did Jim start with?
Actually, subtraction is a search for the difference between two
numbers. Sometimes this involves “take away;” at other times this involves other
conceptualizations. Also, subtraction is generally taught as a right-to-left operation.
whereas the reality is that there are many algorithms for the teaching of subtraction
(Cawley & Foley, 2002). For example a left-to-right algorithm is appropriate in the
following example where we see the power of the understanding of place value.
45
- 14
30
+ 1
31
Place value and alternative algorithms. Arithmetic is typically presented to

students with learning disabilities via traditional algorithms. That is, the rule for
addition, subtraction, and multiplication is to “start with the column on the right.”
However, that is only one rule! Another strategy may start addition or multiplication
in any column as shown below, and clearly going from left-to-right with subtraction
has many advantageous (Cawley & Foley, 2002).
Addition. It is time for the Friday Quiz. The students have been working on
items such as 235+134=_______. One teacher has prepared a quiz comprised of six
items as follows:
1. 321 2. 441 3. 512
+ 345 + 142 + 355
4. 125 5. 414 6. 253

+532 + 333 + 115
The students are instructed to provide the correct answer.
29
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 30
A second teacher has also prepared a quiz of six items.

ABC ABC ABC
1. 321 2. 321 3. 321
+ 345 + 345 + 345
ABC ABC ABC

4. 321 5. 321 6. 321
+ 345 + 345 + 345
The instructions are for the students to follow the sequence for each item and to
provide the correct answer.
Question #1. Start with A, go to B, and then do C.
Question #2. Start with B, got to C, and then do A.
Question #3. Start with C, go to B, and then do A.
Question #4. Start with A, go to C, and then do B.
Question #5. Start with B, go to A, and then do B.
Question #6. Start with C, go to A, and then do B.
Note that the first teacher provided six different items and instructed the
students to do them all the same way, whereas the second teacher provided her stu-
dents with the same item six times and then instructed them to do the item six dif-
ferent ways. The quiz prepared by Teacher A is illustrative of one likely to have been
prepared by 99% of teachers and 99% of persons conducting research, where the
primary concern is number correct. The quiz prepared by Teacher B is rare and like-
ly to be directed to determining the extent to which the students can demonstrate
alternative ways of doing addition and the utilization of place value. Which of these
teachers do you believe had a greater interest in higher levels of understanding of
addition and place value?
Multiplication. Multiplication is one of the more rotely taught and per-
formed operations of arithmetic, and a key component of this is the emphasis on
teaching the tables. We prefer to seek competency in multiplication through array
models (Cawley, 2002), where the stress is on meaning rather than memory. This
enhances students’ capability to utilize alternative algorithms and to stress meaning.
The students are presented with the following multiplication problem and
asked to complete the item using the procedure that has been commonly taught.
321
x 2
642
30
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 31
After doing so, the instructor presents the students with the following problem and
asks them to describe the ways in which the original item and the new item are sim-
ilar and different.
300+20+1
x 2
2
40
+ 600
642
The students ought to say something to the effect that, “They are the same in that
the new one shows the same item except that it is written in the long way.” “The big
difference between them is the way they are written.”
The teacher might then refer to the original problem and go through the
steps the students used to complete the item in a manner similar to the approach
illustrated in the addition problem. The teacher might say, “You did this by starting
here [point to 1s]. Look at this item; see the letters at the top [point to A, B and C].
Can you do this by starting with the number shown by the letter?”
ABC
321
x 2
And saying, “Watch me, I can start here” and begin with the 10s as marked by the B.
ABC
321
x 2
40
And finally go to the 100s as marked by the A
ABC
321
x 2
40
600
and then ask a student if he/she could finish the item by doing C
ABC
321
x 2
40
600
+ 2
to show
ABC
321
x 2
40
600
+ 2
642
31
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 32
With the use of other combinations involving multiplication of three-digit

numbers by two-digit numbers (e.g., 321x12, ) with or without renaming, the stu-
dent is able to explore the interrelationships represented by the place value and to
ultimately demonstrate and explain what place value does for our understanding of
arithmetic, which in this instance is that multiplication can begin and end in many
places. This encourages the student to think about mathematics and to develop a
sense of number beyond the rote routines typically found in school.
The authors visited a fourth-grade class taught by a general education
teacher in a special project. The students were doing lattice multiplication, and one
student remarked, “We use different algorithms in this room.” Knowing they were
using different algorithms was a highly conscious indication of the manner in which
meaning was evident in the room. The teacher suggested to the class that the authors
might know a different algorithm. The authors presented the problem 321x12
described above. It took no more than 15 minutes for each of the six groups of stu-
dents to take an individual item and complete it using the A, B, C combinations. The
authors explained that the preferred way of doing items was the one they generally
used in class, but that the use of different algorithms provided different ways of
thinking about math. Thus, the role of place value was stressed.
A special education teacher in this same school and in the same project
worked with a self-contained class of 12 students with learning disabilities. The fol-
lowing anecdote was taken from a video of one class session. The students were
working with combinations of two- and three-digit addition and subtraction prob-
lems where they were encouraged to work both from right to left and left to right.
The teacher instructed the students to go beyond the items they were working with
in class and to think up items of their own. The teacher then asked various students
to go to the board, put an item on the board, and discuss the item.
A student put the following two items on the board:
44 44,000
- 23 - 23,000
The teacher asked the student if one item (i.e., 44,000-23,000) was harder
than the other. The student responded, “No it is not any harder. It is just longer,
because you can forget the zeros.” This expression of place value sense is common
throughout the lessons and prominent when the lesson encourages students to use
their own thinking and item development.
Within the community of students with learning disabilities it is common
to find students who can say “hundred” or “three hundred” when asked to tell what
the 3 in 325 shows. But these same students, when shown three 100s, three 10s, and
three1s in a number, such as 333, are not able to affix significant meanings to the
item if written as 300+3+3 or explain the comparative value of the 100s, 10s, and 1s,
or how to trade one for the other. For example, in one teaching situation involving
the authors, a group of eight elementary school-age students with mild disabilities
were engaged in a place value activity. The students were shown three cups of differ-
ent colors (green, blue, and yellow). Each cup had a sticker identifying it as the 100s,
10, or 1s. A number (i.e., 426) was presented to the students, and they were asked to
make a representation of the number by putting the proper number of sticks in each
32
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 33
cup (4 sticks were placed in the 100s cup, etc.). The students consistently placed the
correct number of sticks in the correct cup. The order of the cups was then changed
so that the green cup with the 100s sticker was moved to the middle position and the
blue cup with the 10s sticker and the yellow cup with the 1s sticker were placed on
the extremes. Next, the cups were put in their original positions and the stickers were
changed to different cups (e.g., the blue cup, instead of the green cup now had the
100s sticker). The students were totally baffled. Only one out of the eight students
was able to relate the actual value of the number to the correct cup or the correct
sticker. Yet, all continued to tell what “place value” was represented by a number
when it was presented in written format.
One must wonder how students with competence with place value could
allow anyone to tell them the “3 does not go into 2” in 3 246 , “so we move over.” It
would seem that students would say something to the effect that the “2 represents
200 and surely 3 goes into 200.” Better yet, it seems impossible that teachers contin-
ue to tell students that “3 does not go into 2.” If the goal is for students with disabil-
ities to develop a “sense about numbers,” it seems that greater priority must be given
to place value (Foley & Cawley, 2003).
Understanding conservation about numbers is important for both forward
(carrying) and backward (borrowing) processing. When students “carry” or “bor-
row,” it is important that they recognize that there is no change in the value repre-
sented in the original item, as shown below:
43 = 40 + 3 52 = 50 + 2
+9 = + 9 -9 = - 9
52 = 50 + 2 43 = 40 + 3
The value of 43+9 has not changed when represented by 52, nor has the
value of 52-9 changed when represented by 43. Students who lack “number sense”
are not aware that 40+3+9 and 50+2 represent a common value in that the 1s and
the 10s have been renamed, not revalued.
For the most part, our work with place value utilizes a format that is more
similar to that of Baroody (1990) than that of Jordan and Hanich (2000), in that we
make explicit the depiction of hundred, tens, and ones with sticks or blocks. We
wrap 10 popsicle sticks to make a 10, 10 tens to make 100, and so forth. This mini-
mizes the need for students to interpret ratios as in the case of a chip being so much
and a number of those chips “ratioed” out to another relationship.
Alternative representations and place value. Within the realm of place value
and much of other mathematics is a prevailing concern about manipulatives and
other forms of representations (e.g., Kamii et al., 1993; Peterson et al., 1988). The
general perspective is that the use of blocks and other materials is helpful in learn-
ing about place value, but just how much help is gained from their use is not clear.
For example, a research synthesis of mathematics instruction stipulates that “time
should not be wasted” (Dixon, n.d., p. 23), and that the use of manipulatives requires
more time with larger numbers and, hence, is inefficient.
The view of the present authors is that the significance of the use of objects
and related materials associated with manipulation is not clear. For example, some
work (e.g., Cawley, Fitzmaurice-Hayes, & Shaw, 1988) makes a clear distinction
33
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 34
between the act of manipulation with pictures or objects and the fixed display of pic-
tures or objects. This perspective stipulates that the act of manipulation is an active
process in which two-dimensional or three-dimensional items are moved or
rearranged. The display is a fixed representation of two-dimensional or three-
dimensional items. Manipulation and spoken language are parallel, in that the mes-
sage conveyed by each is done sequentially (i.e., the acts of manipulation are
observed in sequence in much the same manner that words spoken by one person
are conveyed to the other in sequence). Also, in both manipulative and spoken lan-
guage the message fades immediately. An important feature of manipulative and
spoken language is that both can be easily reframed or restated. The message in the
fixed display remains stable and may be viewed in a holistic or searching form that
is not rooted in a specific sequence. Manipulative and spoken messages are memory
dependent, and the student must capture and remember the message as it is trans-
mitted. This is not so for display or written symbolic forms, because either can be
reviewed exactly as it was originally presented. At the same time, pictorial and writ-
ten symbolic messages are difficult to modify. Thus, there are important trade-offs
in using varying message formats. This tends to have implications for students who
must transpose the spoken value to a written value or vice versa (Fuson, 1990). In
the teens, we state a value such as 14 by stating the “four” first and the “teen” second;
in the thirties, we state a value such as 34 with the “thirty” first and the “four” sec-
ond. Larger numbers such as 6,534 are stated largely by value, “Six thousand, five
hundred, thirty-four,” but must be written by positional value. When students are
requested to read two numbers composed of three or more digits (i.e., 324+241),
they are expected to read from the hundreds to the ones. When writing a number,
the students write the number from the highest place value position to the least. The
same is true when entering numbers into a calculator or a computer.
Peterson and colleagues (1988) conducted a study of place value learning
with a sample of 24 students with learning disabilities. The focus was the use of alter-
native representations in which one sample used a concrete-semi-concrete-abstract
sequence (CSA) and the other sample used only abstract materials. Students in the
CSA intervention attained significantly higher scores than those in the abstract
intervention. One limitation of the effort was that the terminal objective only asked
the students to identify the number of ones or tens in a double-digit number. This
is the lowest level of place value use in Ross’ hierarchy (Ross, 1990). Our general
sense is that one of the reasons for student difficulty with the use of alternative rep-
resentations is a lack of comprehensive experiences with them. For example,
given 3 246 , how many students could represent that number with manipulatives?
The term alternative representations encompasses a variety of constructs
related to the use of three-dimensional (e.g., blocks, sticks) and two-dimensional
(e.g., pictorial forms) and spoken and written formats by which number sense is
represented and meanings and skills developed. Bruner (1968) used the terms enac-
tive, iconic, and symbolic, and Peterson and colleagues (Peterson et al., 1988) used
concrete, semi-concrete, and abstract as forms of depicting alternative representa-
tions. Each of these associates a term with material representations in that enactive
and concrete are associated with three-dimensional representations and iconic or
semi-concrete are related to two-dimensional representations. One missing factor in
34
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 35
each is that of differentiating between spoken and written forms of representations.

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

Input
Manipulate Display State Write
Manipulate X X X X
Identify X X X X
Output State X X X X
Write X X X X
The IU consists of four channels of input and four channels of output,

resulting in a system of 16 interactions by which alternative representations can take
place. The four forms of input are manipulate, display, state and write. The four
means of output are manipulate, identify, state and write. The term manipulate is
associated with movements such as arranging, piling, or sequencing. The term dis-
play stipulates a fixed representation. Either may use three-dimensional or two-
dimensional type of materials. If blocks or pictures are moved, this is manipulation.
If blocks or pictures are presented in a fixed format, this is display. State refers to spo-
ken language and write refers to the use of letters, numerals, or other forms of sym-
bolic representations of mathematics. Manipulation and state have common ele-
ments, in that both require the student to attend to sequence and, in both instances,
the message fades as it is presented. The representation presented by manipulation
does not remain before the student, so the student must attend to the action. When
manipulation is used, the materials are removed from the view of the student with-
in one or two seconds, and this forces the student to attend to the sequence of steps
represented in the manipulation. Both manipulation and state invoke an element of
short-term memory. An important feature of manipulation and state is that both
can be revised quickly by the presenter. Such is not the case with display or write.
The write and display options remain fixed before the student and there is an oppor-
tunity for the student to review the representations.
Table 2 displays the percent correct for students with mild disabilities per-
forming place value tasks in the write/manipulate interactions. The participating
students were from classrooms different from those receiving the Ross tasks.
However, they were students in special education from classrooms where the teach-
ers were engaged in a project that stressed the use of alternative representations,
alternative algorithms, and meanings. The patterns of response were similar across
items, in that the older students performed with greater accuracy than the younger
students, except for the first two items on which all students did equally well.
35
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 36
Table 2
Percent of Students Performing at Alternative Representations Utilizing the Interactive
Unit Interaction of Write/Manipulate
Problem No. Problem Chronological Age
9 10 11 12 13
(N=24) (N=22) (N=22) (N=28) (N=21)
1 27 95 100 100 100 90
2 356 83 90 100 100 90
3 240 54 86 90 96 85
4 39+18 62 77 95 92 90
5 87-46 58 68 95 92 90
6 306+18 45 59 90 67 76
Figure 3 describes the tasks performed by the students referenced in

Table 2.
Figure 3. Task descriptions for alternative representations.

Administrative directions
Say, “See this” [Show flashcard with 6].
Say, “Watch me. I am going to make a representation of six.”
[Place 6 sticks on table]
Say, “See, I made a representation six.”
Say, “Now, let me see you do one.”
Say, “See this” [Show flashcard with 9].
Say, “Take these sticks and make what it shows on the flashcard.”
Correct as needed.
Place a set of sticks consisting of units of 1, units of 10 as ten 1s and units of 100
as ten 10s and say, “I want you to use the sticks and make a representation of ...” continue
with the following sequence of problems 27, 356, 240, 39+18, 87-46, and 306-180.
Many students are unable to create manipulative representations of simple arith-
metic as would be found in 12 264 and as shown below.
The student is presented with a set of popsicle sticks previously grouped into
sets of 100s with each 100 comprised of 10 sets of 10; each set of 10 is comprised of ten
1s; a set of 1s is also included. 12 264
The student begins by selecting the correct number of 100s, 10s, and 1s and dis-
playing them as 12 xxyyyyyyzzzz with x = 100, y = 10, z = 1. (For a more detailed illustra-
tion see Foley & Cawley, 2003.)
Once the student has completed the item and illustrated 12 264 , the student is
instructed to transpose the manipulative representation to the write format and show the
item in expanded notation form.The student shows 12 200 + 60 + 4 .
Another student is requested to show the expanded notation format in the tra-
ditional form, 12 264 and to explain the similarities between expanded notation and the
traditional form.
36
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 37
To illustrate what tasks in other operations would resemble, we provide an

example of the Interactive Unit with a display input across four output combina-
tions in Figure 4.
Figure 4. An example of the interactive unit (IU) with a display input and four out-
put options.
Input Output
Display Manipulate
Teacher uses a pictorial format to present Student uses a set of sticks to create
a representation of 233 as: a representation of 233 as:
xx yyy zzz xx yyy zzz
where x = 100, y = 10, z = 1 where x = 100, y = 10, z = 1
Identify
Student selects from two or more
choices a representation of 233 that
corresponds to that displayed by the
teacher, such as:
A B
xx yyy zzz xx yyy zzz
State
Student examines the standard presented
by the teacher and states the value of the
corresponding numbers (i.e., 2 = “200;”
3 = “30;” 3 = “3”).
Write
Student examines the standard presented
by the teacher and writes the numeral
sequence (i.e., 233).
Place value is also important in assisting students to make the transfer from
manipulative or pictorial representations to the traditional symbolic representa-
tions. Assume students are presented with a pictorial representation of (e.g., these
might be dollar bills of different denominations) in the following form:
xx yyy zz
+ xx + yy + z
where x = 100, y = 10, z = 1

and requested to write that number as it is represented in expanded notation (i.e.,
the long way). The response ought to show:
200 30 2
+ 200 + 20 + 1
Assume the student is next asked to write it the short way:

233
+ 221
37
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 38
The transposition from pictorial representations is most commonly under-

taken by presenting the pictorial form and then moving directly to the “short form.”
However, many students do not make the transition to the “short form” because they
lose the meaning between the three hundreds when represented pictorially and
when written symbolically. The transposition can be made more understandable
with the assistance of expanded notation. Understanding place value is fundamental
in making the transposition from manipulative or pictorial representations to
expanded notation and then to the “short form.” It is also essential for reversing the
procedure when going from the short form to expanded notation to a manipulative
or pictorial representation to assess student performance. It is also important to con-
sider output as an equivalent partner in the exchange of information. In some of our
work (Foley, Parmar, & Cawley, 2004) we have stressed the role of manipulative out-
puts such as would be the case in the actual construction of an aircraft carrier fol-
lowing the written and pictorial specifications of architects and engineers. At a sim-
pler level, alternative representations apply mathematics activities to daily life, such
as when one goes shopping. The person reads the shopping list and finds the prod-
uct (e.g., a can of peas), which is then taken from the shelf and placed in the shop-
ping cart (i.e., write/manipulate). The procedure is reversed as the cashier takes the
product and scans it to determine a symbolic price.
In summary, the role of place value has numerous implications beyond
positional knowledge. Program and material development specialists should extend
the role of place value in their work. Teachers should expand upon the many dimen-
sions of place value and interpret its value within the context of “number sense” and
go beyond positional knowledge.
REFERENCES
Ashlock, R. (1986). Error patterns in computation: A semi-programmed approach (4th ed.).
New York: Charles E. Merrill.
Baroody, A. (1990). How and when should place-value skills be taught? Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 281-286.
Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McLain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematics practices: A case
study. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 25-64.
Bruner, J. (1968). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cawley, J. F. (2002). Perspectives: Mathematics interventions and students with high-inci-
dence disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 23(1), 2-6.
Cawley, J. F., Fitzmaurice-Hayes, A. M., & Shaw, R. A. (1988). Mathematics for the mildly
handicapped. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Cawley, J. F., & Foley, T. E. (2002). Enhancing the quality of mathematics for students with
learning disabilities: Illustrations from subtraction. Learning Disabilities: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(2), 47-59.
Cawley, J. F., Fitzmaurice-Hayes, A. M., & Foley, T. E. (2006). The arithmetic of whole num-
bers: Implications for students with difficulties in mathematics. Unpublished manuscript.
Cawley, J. F., & Reines, R. (1996). Mathematics as communication: Using the interactive
unit. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(2) ,29-34.
Dixon, R. (n.d.). Research synthesis on mathematics instruction, executive summary of example
synthesis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Foley, T. E., & Cawley, J. F. (2003). About the mathematics of division: Implications for stu-
dents with disabilities. Exceptionality, 11(3), 131-150.
38
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 39
Foley, T. E., Parmar, R. S., & Cawley, J. F. (2004). Expanding the agenda in mathematics
problem solving for students with mild disabilities: Alternative representations.
Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(1), 7-16.
Fuson, K. (1990). Issues in place value and multi-digit addition and subtraction learning
and teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 273-280.
Fuson, K., & Briars, D. (1990). Using a base-ten blocks learning/teaching approach for first
and second grade place-value and multi-digit addition and subtraction. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 21(3), 180-206.
Hanich, L., Jordan, N., Kaplan, D., & Dick, J. (2001). Performance across different levels of
mathematical cognition in children with learning difficulties. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(3), 615-626.
Heibert, J., & Wearne, D. (1992). Links between teaching and learning place value in first
grade. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 98-122.
Heibert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse and students’
learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2),
393-425.
Hindy, S. (2003). Setting the stage for computational fluency with “Arithmetic Tricks.”
Teaching Children Mathematics, 10(1) 46-50.
Jesson, D. St. John. (1983). The development of place value skills in primary and middle
school children. Research in Education, 29, 69-79.
Jordan, N., & Hanich, L. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with dif-
ferent forms of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(6), 567-578.
Kamii, C., Lewis, B. A., & Livingston, S. (1993). Primary arithmetic: Children inventing their
own procedures. Arithmetic Teacher, 41(4), 200-203.
Kari, A., & Anderson, C. (2003). A teacher’s journal: Opportunities to develop place value
through student dialogue. Teaching Children Mathematics, 10(2), 78-82.
Lee, K. (1991). Left-to-right computation and estimation. School Science and Mathematics,
91, 199-201.
Peterson, S., Mercer, C., & O’Shea, L. (1988). Teaching learning disabled students place value
using the concrete to abstract sequence. Learning Disabilities Research, 4(1), 52-56.
Reisman, F. K (1977). Diagnostic teaching of elementary school mathematics. Chicago: Rand
McNally College Publishing Company.
Ross, S. (1986, April). The development of children’s place value numeration concepts in grades
two through five. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Ross, S. (1989). Parts, wholes and place value: A developmental view. Arithmetic Teacher,
36(6), 47-51.
Ross, S. (1990). Children’s acquisition of place-value numeration concepts: The roles of cog-
nitive development and instruction. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 12(1),
1-17.
Received June 5, 2006

Revised September 9, 2006
Accepted September 11, 2006
39
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 40
40
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 41
Strategy Instruction in Reading Comprehension:

An Intervention Study for Students
with Learning Disabilities
Faye Antoniou1 and Elmar Souvignier
J. W. Goethe University, Frankfurt
Teaching reading strategies and guiding students towards self-regulated

reading routines are promising approaches to fostering reading compre-
hension in students with learning disabilities. The aim of this study was to
evaluate in a sample of 73 fifth to eighth graders with learning disabilities
(IQ higher than 85 and reading skills below expectation) a reading-strat-
egy program containing reading and self-regulation strategies. The pro-
gram was taught to the experimental group by their general or special edu-
cation teachers, whereas the control group received traditional reading
instruction. A pre-, post- and followup design was used during an entire
academic year assessing reading-strategy knowledge, reading comprehen-
sion, and reading self-efficacy. Immediately after completion of the pro-
gram only effects on reading strategy knowledge were significant; howev-
er, followup measures yielded meaningful gains in the experimental group
for reading comprehension (d = .80), reading-strategy knowledge (d =
.62), and reading self-efficacy (d = .78).
Key Words: Reading Comprehension, Strategy Instruction, Learning
Disabilities, Explicit Teaching
large number of studies have shown that most students (80%) with learning
A disabilities (LD) manifest with difficulties in reading acquisition, particularly
comprehension of written material (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001;
Joseph, 2002). Students with identified LD constituted 2% of the school-aged pop-
ulation in the early 1970s (Powell, 1994); however, the number of students has pro-
foundly increased, reaching levels of up to 20% in 1992 (Calhoon, 2005) with about
40% of them having reading difficulties (Hitschcock, Prater, & Dowrick, 2004).
Unfortunately, identification of students as having learning disabilities comes at a
cost: labeling and exclusion (Jenkins, Jewell, Leicester, O’Conner, Jenkins, &
Troutner, 1991; Padeliadu, 2004). Due to the difficulty students with LD face in
becoming academically and socially competent, they often (approximately 38% of
them) quit school (Calhoon, 2005). It is a main goal of instruction to support the
learning of students with LD, toward a broader goal of successful integration in soci-
ety (Deshler et al., 2004).
1. Please address correspondence to: Faye Antoniou, Department of Special Education, University of Thessaly
at Argonauton & Fillelinon, 38221 Volos, Greece; E-mail: faye_antoniou@hotmail.com, or Elmar Souvignier
Department of Educational Psychology, J.W.Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, 60325, Germany;
E-mail: souvignier@paed.psych.uni-frankfurt.de
41
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 42
Although word decoding and fluency are major components of reading,

reading comprehension is the element that is most tightly linked to the LD students’
academic and professional success (Baumert et al., 2001). Successful understanding
of written text involves certain prerequisite skills (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2002).
Briefly, the main prerequisites for successful reading comprehension include the
ability to decode words and to read fluently, as well as the use of active strategies to
understand the meaning of printed text (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Reading com-
prehension is, therefore, a combination of knowledge- and text-oriented construc-
tions. In other words, it is the result of a systematical reading process that integrates
basic as well as higher-order reading skills (Kintsch, 1998).
Students with LD face great difficulties in comprehending text due to a
number of deficits that affect their reading skills and competence (Gersten et al.,
2001). First of all, they fail to recall strategies needed for comprehension, they do not
control their progress, nor do they adjust or regulate specific behaviors associated
with successful comprehension. Students with LD have deficits in implementing and
monitoring effective learning strategies spontaneously (Botsas & Padeliadu, 2003).
They also apply insufficient text-comprehension strategies, use few monitoring pro-
cedures, and show little sensitivity to a text’s structure (Gajria & Salvia, 1992). As a
result, they often develop negative or self-depreciative thoughts (Sideridis, 2005;
Souvignier, 2003). These negative thoughts and cognitions, in turn, are associated
with low levels of self-efficacy, reading interest (Schiefele, 1996), and motivation to
read (Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox, 1999; Sideridis, 2003, 2006).
Over the last few years a broad range of strategy-driven interventions and
instructional programs have been developed to help enhance the reading compre-
hension of students with LD (Graham & Harris, 1997). Also, an emphasis on using
cognitive and metacognitive strategies has proven to be effective for reading compre-
hension purposes (Gersten et al., 2001; Pressley, 2000; Swanson, 1999b). However,
although the literature shows that students with LD can learn cognitive and
metacognitive strategies (Gersten et al., 2001; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997; Swanson,
1999b), some researchers have reported that it is only possible for a limited time
(Chan, 1991). Others have shown that students with LD can learn strategies and
apply them in various situations, thus achieving generalizability (Jenkins, Barksdale,
& Clinton, 1978). Specifically, when self-instructional techniques are the main con-
struct of strategy instruction, students attain internalization and self-regulation of
strategy use (Chan, 1991).
Boekaerts (1999) suggested a three-layered model for supporting self-regu-
lated learning, including (a) students’ use of strategies, (b) students’ use of special
skills to direct their learning, and (c) students’ motivational-emotional competence
and control (see also Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006). Specifically, students with
LD use reading strategies (Wong, 1985) under explicit teaching, instruction on mon-
itoring strategies, explicit generalization training (changing, set, material, cues, etc.),
and attributional training (Chan, 1991). While it seems that these students are able
to maintain and spontaneously use and generalize concrete reading strategies
(Gajria & Salvia, 1992), this is only possible when the instructed strategies are cate-
gorized in a simple schema that can be easily learned and remembered (Souvignier
& Mokhlesgerami, 2006).
42
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 43
Beyond strategy knowledge, the ability to regulate one’s own learning is

equally important for reading comprehension (Boekaerts, 1999). Self-regulation is
achieved when students adapt reading strategies to a specific reading situation by use
of a pre-planned procedure, “which gives an external structure to the process of cog-
nitive (self-)regulation and divides cognitive abilities into those used before, during
and after reading” (Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006, p. 59). Similarly important
for increased reading comprehension is enhancement of self-efficacy by prompting
motivational aspects of self-regulation (goal setting, attributions of success and fail-
ure, self-monitoring and judgements, etc.) (see Gaskil & Murphy, 2004; Pintrich &
De Groot, 1990; Schunk & Zimmermann, 2003). It seems that self-efficacy does not
increase without the simultaneous presence of adaptive cognitive and motivational
mechanisms; thus, in their absence, students with LD may become less interested in
the text (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). However, the belief that a task can easily be
achieved by activating a reader’s cognitive resources holds only when accompanied
by adaptive motivational schemas (Pintrich, 2003). Thus, when self-efficacy and
motivational beliefs are at high levels, the reading strategies taught for text compre-
hension are maintained and generalized (Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr, 1988;
Guthrie et al., 1999; Nelson & Manset-Williamson, 2006).
As stated above, effective reading requires the use of strategies that are
explicitly taught (Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007). Explicit teaching in this context
implies the use of small steps in which students are guided through initial practice,
lots of practice with reinforcement (Rosenshine, 1997), modeling (Duffy et al.,
1986), and corrective feedback and reinforcement (Morgan & Sideridis, 2006). Thus,
programs that are based on explicit instruction have proven effective for enhancing
reading comprehension (Ross, Smith, Casey, & Slavin, 1995; Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs,
Mathes, & Hodge, 1995). Multicomponent Strategy Programs – where strategies to
foster reading comprehension and strategies to accelerate self-monitoring are taught
in a way that starts with (explicit) modeling by the intervener and aims at transfer-
ring the responsibility for choice and application of strategies to the student – seem
to be one approach that can enhance reading comprehension in students with LD
(Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, & Whedon, 1996; Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007;
Swanson, 1999a).
Instructional Approaches for Enhancing Reading Comprehension
The increased prevalence of learning disabilities has led to the construction
of a number of interventions to accelerate reading competence in both general and
special education settings (Jenkins, Jewell, Leicester, O’Connor et al., 1994).
However, even if most of these programs improve reading skills, the gap between
students with LD and typical students does not seem to close (Calhoon, 2005). Due
to the importance of reading comprehension, LD students’ text understanding
should be prompted through well-designed reading programs. However, not all pro-
grams are equally effective. The following description may shed light on treatment
characteristics and which ones enhance or do not enhance reading comprehension.
Several researchers have shown that sensory, oralographic, or reinforce-
ment interventions do not yield positive results (Carte, Morrison, Sublerr, Uemura,
& Setrakian,1984; Ratekin, 1979). On the other hand, interventions based on recip-
rocal instruction have yielded positive effects for the enhancement of reading com-
43
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 44
prehension in students with LD (Aarnoutse, Brand-Gruwel, & Oduber, 1997;

Brailsford, Snart, & Das, 1984; Klinger & Vaughn, 1996; Lysynchuk, Pressley, & Vye,
1990; Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Positive outcome have also been reported when
using a variety of strategies under a particular instructional approach. These “mul-
ticomponent” reading programs are based on reciprocal instruction of self-regula-
tion strategies (Pressley, 2001) or meta-memory and metacognitive training
(Lucangeli, Galderisi, & Cornoldi, 1995). Furthermore, treatments consisting of oral
reading and word recognition (Sindelar, 1982), paradigmatic language (Cartelli,
1978), or phonics (Jenkins, Peyton, Sanders, & Vadasy, 2004) have also proven effec-
tive for remediation of reading comprehension in students with LD.
In addition, several important findings have resulted from meta-analyses
on the subject (e.g., Gersten et al., 2001; Mastropieri et al., 1996; Souvignier &
Antoniou, 2007; Swanson, 1999a; Talbot, Lloyd, & Tankersley, 1994). Specifically, a
combination of direct instruction of self-instruction and self-monitoring strategies
has been associated with promising results in reading comprehension (Swanson,
1999a). Similarly, a combination of self-questioning plus self-monitoring
(Mastropieri et al., 1996) or teaching of multiple strategies (Gersten et al., 2001) has
been successful. In a recent meta-analysis, Souvignier and Antoniou (2007) report-
ed that the most effective treatment packages to support reading comprehension in
students with LD involved Summarization, Main Idea Strategies, Self-Monitoring,
and Explicit Teaching. Thus, the integration of specific components of different
intervention packages may prove to be highly effective for increasing reading com-
prehension in students with LD.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The aim of the present study was to apply an instructional program that
involves explicit teaching of reading enriched with the use of self-regulation strate-
gies to improve the reading comprehension of students with LD. It was expected that
the enriched program would have collateral effects on students’ strategy knowledge
and self-efficacy.
The specific research questions posed for this sample of students with
learning disabilities were:
1. Can reading comprehension be enhanced by use of explicit teaching and
self-regulatory strategies?
2. Can reading-strategy knowledge be improved by use of explicit teaching
and self-regulatory strategies?
3. Can reading self-efficacy be increased after implementation of a reading-
strategy program?
METHOD
Participants
Seventy-three students with LD from special and integrative schools of the
Rhein-Main area in Hessen, Germany, took part in the study. The participant stu-
dents were in the fifth to eighth grade and attended 27 classes. Fourteen classrooms
were randomly assigned to the treatment group and 13 to the control group.
It is important to note that students attend special schools in Germany
because they exhibit learning disabilities, mild mental retardation (IQ 55-85), emo-
44
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 45
tional and behavioral problems, language deficits or environmental disadvantages

(poverty, immigration or lack of German language); and, thus, are generally identi-
fied as students with special educational needs (Powell, 1994). For placement pur-
poses, participating students had to go through a series of achievement-ability tests,
a medical test, and were occasionally screened by school psychologists.
However, these were not the sole criteria that led to identification of stu-
dents as having LD. The principles employed to define the LD sample in the present
study were based on the relevant research literature on LD diagnosis (Fletcher,
Morris, & Lyon, 2003; Hallahan & Mock, 2003). Thus, to be involved in the study,
students must have (a) adequate intelligence (IQ > 85); (b) reading deficits, with
grade equivalent scores at or below two to three grades; (c) no physical handicaps;
and (d) low reading achievement compared to expectation based on their IQ scores.
Students’ reading grade level was estimated by comparing their reading comprehen-
sion scores to those of a sample of fourth graders.
Out of 268 students, 73 met all criteria for inclusion. As Table 1 shows, 45
students with LD formed the treatment group and 28 students were assigned to a
control group. Students’ ages ranged between 12 years, 8 months for the treatment
group and 12 years, 6 months for the control group at entry. Most students (n = 29)
spoke a language other than German at home, 19 spoke German only, and the
remaining 25 spoke German and another language.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Participating Students
Group Age Gender Language
German Other
N = 19 N = 54
M F German German & No German
Other
TG (N = 45) 12,8 (.97) 22 23 11 15 19
CG (N = 28) 12,6 (.98) 17 11 8 10 10
Total (N = 73) 12,7 (.97) 39 34 19 25 29
Note. TG = Treatment Group, CG = Control Group, M = Male, F = Female.
As Table 2 shows, students of both groups were comparable across several

characteristics, such as intelligence (IQ), vocabulary knowledge (VK), and decoding
speed (DS).
Table 2
Learning Characteristics of Participating Students
IQ Vocabulary Decoding Speed
Knowledge
TG 94.71 (6.83) 12.80 (5.11) 56.49 (16.71)
CG 93.89 (6.89) 11.46 (4.47 62.07 (18.08)
t(71) = 0.50, p>.10 t(71) = 1.14, p>.10 t(71) = 1,35, p>.10
Total 94.40 (6.82) 12.29 (4.89) 58.63 (17.34)
Note. TG = Treatment Group, CG = Control Group, IQ = Intelligence Quotient.
45
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 46
Description of Intervention Program

Participating teachers received a detailed handbook on how to apply the
program, and students received a corresponding workbook and notebook. The
handbook was designed in such a way that it would help teachers thoroughly imple-
ment the modified program in their classes. The main concept was that the teachers
would teach explicitly cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies as well as self-
regulation techniques. The program included four concrete reading strategies:
Thinking About the Headline, Clarification of Text Difficulties, Summarization-
Narrative Texts, and Summarization-Expository texts, as well as a self-regulation
strategy in the form of a reading plan accompanied by a checklist.
The main concept of the program was a story, where students pretended
that they were detectives assigned to unravel a mystery by deriving the relevant
information from a situation (“text-detectives”). In that way students realized how
essential it was to proceed with a systematic and planned method to comprehend a
case/situation. The purpose of this background story at the beginning of the pro-
gram was to familiarize the students with the specifics of the procedure. Students
had, as cognitive organizers in their workbook, explanatory and auxiliary symbols,
which helped categorize the strategies and other important aspects of the program.
The second unit included a cognitive strategy, Thinking About the
Headline, which led to activation of students’ prior knowledge. The teachers asked
students what they already knew about themes related to the topic before they pro-
ceeded to read the passage and delivery of information about the passage. During
this unit, the teachers familiarized the students with the structure of different texts
and helped them discriminate between narrative and expository passages. After pre-
dicting what would follow in the text, students had to show that the content of the
passage corresponded to their prediction of the content, when first reading the title
of the passage.
The third unit incorporated a metacognitive strategy, Clarification of Text
Difficulties. Here students had to read the text and monitor their understanding by
finding unknown words. Each time they found a difficult word, they had to pause
and mark it. They would then ask for help or find the meaning of the word on their
own. Finally, the teachers asked students if they had identified the meaning of the
unknown words and were ready to move on to the next unit.
The third and fourth units were based on the cognitive strategy of
Summarization. Using this strategy, students acted like detectives by finding the
most important pieces of information in a passage and putting them together in a
brief form to better understand the main concepts of the passage. The most impor-
tant issue was to distinguish the text’s genre since that would indicate how the stu-
dents would approach and comprehend the text. This was also the main difference
between the third and fourth units. More specifically, during the third unit, the
teachers taught the characteristics and structure of a narrative passage; namely, the
main character, the character’s goal, a problem, and its solution. Teachers also guid-
ed students to form and generate questions based on the passages. Then the students
answered the questions that they had written, and their answers in turn guided the
formation of their summaries.
46
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 47
By the fourth unit, summarization of an expository text, teachers had

taught the students to transform the important sentences into questions and
attempt to answer them as a way of summarizing the expository passage. At the end
of each summary, the students monitored their script and controlled if every impor-
tant piece of information was included in the text.
The last unit included a self-regulation strategy consisting of a reading plan
accompanied by a checklist. This plan provided a graphical illustration of the read-
ing procedure and indicated to students how to systematically use their strategies.
According to this plan, students thought about the headline and made predictions
about the text’s outcome. Then they read the passage once and clarified parts of the
text that were unknown. After a second reading, students summarized the passage.
Last, students monitored their scripts to make sure they were comprehensible and to
the point. Using this metacognitive strategy, the teachers aimed to direct students to
plan independently their reading and use of strategies and to monitor correct appli-
cation of reading strategies.
Material and instructional principles. The materials for the teachers and stu-
dents guided the instructional procedure. First, the detailed handbook, which was
developed to help teachers implement the reading strategies in their classrooms, was
based on the above principles. It included clear and precise information to help
teachers adopt and implement the strategies in their classroom. There were also
elaborate examples for the lesson’s sequence and guidance for the function of every
strategy. Four cards, each presenting one of the four strategies, served as guides for
the students to remember and apply the recommended strategies while reading.
Last, a bookmark listing all the important steps of the reading-strategy procedure
was designed to help students to orient themselves while working on texts.
Students with LD were explicitly instructed on how to apply reading and
self-monitoring strategies in order to better comprehend a text. First, the teachers
introduced an easy-to-understand text as a way to model the way that the reading-
strategy program could be used and implemented. During the introductory step, the
teachers provided students successively with the four cards corresponding to the first
four strategies. The students practiced using the strategies reciprocally and “interact-
ed” with the text with supportive feedback from the teacher. At the end of each unit,
students monitored their achievement and demonstrated the correct application of
each strategy. This consisted of two steps, where students first had to demonstrate
that they understood the strategy (in the form of a classroom discussion and by
completing a questionnaire). This was included in their workbook and served as a
feedback form where students could monitor and control their progress. Teachers
repeated the function and use of a reading strategy before introducing a new one.
The purpose was to enhance strategy maintenance and stabilization. At the end,
teachers gave students assignments on which they had to apply the learned strategies
in order to ensure independent use.
Intervention process. The study began in September 2004 and lasted for an
academic year. The reading-strategy program was introduced to the teachers in an
informal meeting, and all students were assessed in all control and criterion variables
prior to the commencement of the program and two times afterwards (i.e., post-
and followup). Each testing lasted for approximately 45 minutes. After the pretest
47
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 48
assessment, teachers received the lesson material (teacher’s handbook, students’

workbook, cards, and checklist), in order to be able to implement the reading-strat-
egy program. The program was designed to be in place for 29 academic hours, with
the teachers designing the final schedule of when units would take place.
During the implementation of the program by the experimental group, the
control group students received traditional reading instruction. Posttests took place
for all classes in April of 2005. The followup tests took place on July 2005. At both
testing times, the teachers filled in questionnaires reporting their willingness to
implement the reading strategies after completion of the program.
Students’ learning characteristics. Before the start of the program students
were assessed on intelligence, vocabulary knowledge, and decoding speed. Then
classrooms were assigned to experimental and control groups to make sure students
were “equivalent” on those measures.
Measures
Intelligence. Intelligence was assessed using the Culture Fair Intelligence
Test (CFT 20; Cattell, Weiss, & Osterland, 1987). The CFT 20 consists of 46 items
divided into four subtests: rank procedure, classifications, matrices, and topological
closures. Students were asked to form figural relationships and solve formal ration-
al thought problems with different levels of complexity, all within a specified time.
All items were constructed in a multiple-choice format with four response categories
(cf. Weiss, 1998). The internal consistency of the test was Cronbach’s α = .90.
Vocabulary knowledge. The vocabulary knowledge measure was a subtest of
the CFT 20. After a modification made for the purposes of this study, the test includ-
ed 28 (out of 30) words of the basal German language and aimed to identify the sta-
tus of students’ vocabulary abilities. Two words were excluded since they were not
compatible with this study’s sample knowledge. Students had to find the meaning of
a word by choosing among five alternatives with the same or similar meaning.
Students could earn a maximum of 28 points. The measure had ample levels of
internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .81).
Decoding speed. The decoding speed test Wuerzburger Leise LeseProbe Test
(WLLP) by Kuespert and Schneider (1998) was used to assess students’ decoding
ability. The students were required to match single words to one of four pictures
(multiple-choice format). The words were phonologically similar, and the exercise
had to be completed within a limited time period (4 minutes). Reading accuracy was
not measured because the German orthography enables a distinction between poor
and good readers by the speed of reading (Kuespert & Schneider, 1998). In other
words, German is an “orthographically shallow” language that has an absolute
grapheme-phoneme correspondence, and its pronunciation is of a high consistency
(Jenkins, 2002). The WLLP was developed for use with primary-school children
(grades 1-4) within 5 minutes. Because the study’s sample involved students who
attended grades 5 through 8, time constraints were imposed (testing time was
reduced from 5 to 4 minutes). Students could accumulate a maximum of 140 points.
The decoding speed test’s retest reliability was r = .82.
Reading comprehension. Reading comprehension was assessed using a mod-
ified version of the reading comprehension test designed by Souvignier and Ruehl
48
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 49
(2005; based on the diagnostic test of Nauck & Otte, 1980). Modifications involved
word alterations. Students were asked to read a 250-word text and answer seven mul-
tiple-choice and five open-ended questions corresponding to the text. Parallel ver-
sions of this test were used at the different testing points. Five of the seven multiple-
choice questions referred to concrete text details, whereas the last two required the
reader’s total appraisal of the content of the text, which could prove a deep under-
standing of the text’s meaning. The open-ended questions dealt with the main char-
acter, his/her aims, a problem emerging in the story, and the solution to the prob-
lem. Students could earn up to 17 points, and there was no time limit for comple-
tion of the test. The texts implemented had been previously used in experimental
studies (Antoniou, 2006; Souvignier & Ruehl, 2005) and were age-appropriate.
Reading-strategy knowledge. In order to assess the extent to which students
retrieved and used reading strategies, they were introduced to a reading-strategy
knowledge test that was based on the metacognition questionnaire of Schlagmueller
and Schneider (1999), and further modified by Souvignier and Ruehl (2005). The
inventory included three short passages presenting a problematic situation regard-
ing reading. For example, the text presented a student whose goal was to understand
an interesting text that included a number of difficult words. Students were asked
which were the best of six suggested strategies to accomplish the task (a. He/she has
to read the text until the end; b. He/she has to look up the difficult words in a dic-
tionary; c. He/she has to look over the text, see if the difficult words are explained
later on; d. He/she has to write somewhere else the difficult words and ask his teacher
for help; e. He/she has to circle the difficult words; f. He/she has to learn the story by
heart, because then he/she will understand it better). Students had to give grades,
pretending to be teachers, on every choice. The grades that students gave ranged
from 1, for the best strategy, to 6, for the worst. The range of points, however, that
the students could achieve at the end varied between 0 and 34. The internal consis-
tency (Cronbach’s α) of the test was α = .76.
Reading self-efficacy. The measure of reading self-efficacy was constructed
by Jerusalem and Satow (1999). The scale contains 11 statements, such as “If I make
an effort, I can also understand difficult texts” or “If I have to work on my own a dif-
ficult text, I believe that I can make it.” The available choices were “I absolutely
agree,” “I partially agree,” “I disagree,” or “I absolutely disagree,” and students could
achieve between 11 and 44 points on the test. The internal consistency estimate
(Cronbach’s α) of the test was α) = .75.
RESULTS
T-tests were computed in order to assess the effectiveness of the reading
strategy program in a pre-, post-, and followup design with reading comprehension,
reading strategy knowledge, and reading self-efficacy as the dependent variables.
Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of all variables are shown in Table 3.
49
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 50
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations of the Treatment Control Groups Across the Three
Variables.
TG (N = 45) CG (N = 28)
M SD M SD
Reading Pre- 5.64 (2.06) 5.32 (2.14)
Comprehension Post- 11.18 (2.95) 9.36 (3.06)
Followup 11.58 (2.84) 8.75 (3.13)
Reading-Strategy Pre- 16.27 (6.00) 16.32 (4.49)
Knowledge Post- 19.42 (6.87) 15.93 (4.46)
Followup 19.69 (4.75) 16.96 (3.96)
Reading Pre- 30.64 (6.14) 32.79 (3.85)
Self-Efficacy Post- 28.76 (7.34) 31.21 (5.08)
Followup 33.84 (6.35) 31.57 (5.10)
Note. TG = Treatment Group, CG = Control Group.
Reading Comprehension
Table 4 summarizes the outcome of the reading comprehension measure-
ment. The difference in score change between the pre- and posttests revealed that
there was a trend for the treatment group to demonstrate greater gain scores than
the control group after the program’s implementation, t(71) = 1.72, p < .10. Even if
the finding was not significant, it confirmed that the LD students in the treatment
group attained and maintained the program’s content with regard to the strategies
that enhance reading comprehension. The significant effect shown by the long-term
difference of the change scores (between the pre- and followup performance)
revealed that the treatment group outperformed the control group on the reading
comprehension measure, t(71) = 3.19, p = .002. The treatment group showed great
comprehension skills and competence in the long-term (d = .80), although the
short-term effect was small to medium in Cohen’s (1992) terms d = .45 in the short
term.
Table 4
Results for Reading Comprehension in Post- and Followup Tests
Difference SD t p d
TG-CG (df =71)
Reading Post- 1.50 .87 1.72 .089 0.45
Comprehension Followup 2.51 .79 3.19 .002 0.80
Reading-Strategy Knowledge
As illustrated in Table 5, LD students in the treatment group showed a sig-
nificant improvement in strategy knowledge in the short term, t(71) = 2.77, p = .007.
This sizeable transfer of strategy knowledge was not evident in the control group,
t(71) = 2.16, p = 0.34. With an effect size of .62 (medium to large, according to
Cohen’s conventions), the effectiveness of the program on the strategic knowledge of
the students proved to be stable over time.
50
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 51
Table 5
Results for Reading Strategy Knowledge
Difference SD t p d
TG-CG (df =71)
Reading Post- 3.55 1.28 2.77 .007 0.59
Strategy
Knowledge Followup 2.78 1.29 2.16 .034 0.62
Reading Self-Efficacy
The difference in reading self-efficacy between the treatment and control
groups’ growth scores was not significant between pre- and posttest, t(71) = .18, p>
.10. Thus, implementation of the program did not seem to influence students’ self-
efficacy (small effect size, d = .02). However, an interesting outcome emerged in the
long-term results obtained from the difference of progress scores between the pre-
and followup tests: Students with LD in the treatment group demonstrated greater
gains than the control group, t(71) = 3.36, p = .001.
Table 6
Results for Reading Self-Efficacy in Post- and Followup Tests
Difference SD t p d
TG-CG (df =71)
Reading Post- .32 1.81 .18 .861 0.02
self-efficacy Followup 4.41 1.31 3.36 .001 0.78
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to enhance the reading comprehension, reading-
strategy knowledge, and reading self-efficacy of students with LD through an explic-
it instruction program enriched with self-regulation strategies. Results showed that
the students with LD benefited from implementation of the reading-strategy pro-
gram in the long term. That is, immediately after completion of the program, the
treatment group students’ progress was significant only on reading-strategy knowl-
edge; however, their followup gains in reading comprehension, reading-strategy
knowledge, and reading self-efficacy were significant. Since the effect sizes were
rather large for all variables, it was concluded that the students with LD achieve sig-
nificant long-term effects from implementation of a reading-strategy program in the
classroom.
Specifically, the results revealed a trend for the students in the treatment
group to perform better than those in the control group. Even if the results were not
significant in the short term, the long-term results demonstrated that the reading
comprehension gains of the students in the training group were significantly higher
than the gains of control group students. This finding replicates the outcome of sev-
eral meta-analytical studies, which demonstrated that students with LD are likely to
enhance their reading comprehension competence by the usage of reading and self-
regulation strategies, and are able to generalize them to new academic situations
(Gersten et al., 2001; Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007; Swanson, 1999b).
51
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 52
The nonsignificant short-term results may be explained as follows. Besides

having a need for direct and explicit teaching and self-monitoring, students with LD
may also require more time to practice what they have learned in order to be able to
implement the strategies (Souvignier, 2003). Further, there is a strong correlation
between a program’s duration and the setting where it is conducted. Thus, it seems
that reading interventions for LD students that are conducted in general education
classrooms are effective mostly when carried out over a larger number of sessions
over time (Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007). The exact number of sessions required
should be regulated by the teacher, because factors such as the intensity of the pro-
gram or the teachers’ flexibility and support may influence the efficiency of the
intervention (Aarnoutse et al., 1997). However, it is not only the external factors that
affect the outcome of a reading intervention; internal parameters play an equally
important role. In line with that, it has been shown that students with LD require
more time while working on texts than their peers without LD to internalize the new
knowledge and to make the learned strategies a part of their own self/cognitive sys-
tem (Aarnoutse et al., 1997).
Concerning reading-strategy knowledge outcomes, students in the treat-
ment group showed significant improvements after the program’s implementation.
The gains were significant, while the long-term outcomes yielded medium effect
sizes. This finding confirmed that students with LD can expand their knowledge of
reading strategies and are able to make use of these higher-order skills to improve
their reading comprehension (Gersten et al., 2001; Pressley, 2000; Swanson, 1999b).
This outcome replicated the findings of a number of earlier studies (Adams, 1990;
Mercer, Lane, Jordan, Allsopp, & Eisele, 1996; Rosenshine, 1997; Siegel, 1992;
Souvignier & Ruehl, 2005; Wilder & Williams, 2001; Williams, 2003) in that students
with LD are likely to learn and use cognitive and metacognitive comprehension skills
that also generalize to new subject matter or over time.
Regarding reading efficacy, students in the training group did not demon-
strate significantly greater gains than control group students in the immediate
future. However, although there were no significant differences between the two
groups in the short term, the long-term outcomes showed great benefits for the
treatment group. This finding may reflect the fact that students with LD may need
more time to realize their abilities (especially when they change). Nevertheless, high
self-efficacy beliefs are necessary to develop competence (Lackaye & Margalit, 2006;
Souvignier, 2003).
Implications for Research and Practice
The results of our study have both theoretical and practical value.
Theoretically, this study’s findings replicate those of previous studies (Gersten et al.,
2001; Mastropieri et al., 1996; Swanson, 1999a) that strategic reading is adaptive for
the reading comprehension ability of students with LD. Furthermore, they appear to
support the focal finding of a recent meta-analysis (Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007)
that explicit teaching and strategy use promote reading comprehension in students
with LD. The study has also important implications for practice. It demonstrates
that students with LD can benefit from an intensive reading intervention that
enriches explicit teaching with the use of strategies. The implications are the devel-
opment of self-regulated learning and competence (in the long term).
52
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 53
Limitations and Future Prospects

The intervention reported in this study is limited by the fact that there were
no significant effects in (a) reading comprehension and (b) reading efficacy in the
short term, although a large number of intervention programs have yield immedi-
ate effects (see Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007, for a review). Recent advances in the
field of learning disabilities suggest that the creation of classroom environments that
are conducive to learning may yield enhanced learning outcomes (Barron &
Harackiewicz, 2003; Sideridis, in press; Urdan & Midgley, 2003).
Given the apparent inefficiency of the present intervention package to yield
immediate positive effects on students’ learning, one can explore the use of other
learning methods. One such approach is peer tutoring, which has proven effective
for increasing reading comprehension, almost as much as explicit teaching
(Souvignier & Antoniou, 2007). Peer tutoring has been found to be effective for
instruction not only of typical students (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982) but also of
students with LD (Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997). Therefore, it would be
interesting to explore whether explicit teaching methods can be implemented with-
in a framework of cooperative learning techniques. Moving towards more complex
and integrative ways of teaching (by combining effective teaching components),
educators may be able to enhance the learning of all students, which should be the
goal of education.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Antoniou, F. (2006). Improving reading comprehension in students with special educational
needs. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
Aarnoutse, C., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Oduber, R. (1997). Improving reading comprehension
strategies through listening. Educational Studies, 23, 209-227.
Barron, K., & Harackiewicz, J. (2003). Revisiting the benefits of performance approach goals
in the college classroom: Exploring the role of goals in advanced college courses.
International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 357-374.
Baumert, J., Klieme, E., Neubrand, M., Prenzel, M., Schiefele, U., Schneider, W., Stanat, P.,
Tillmann, K.-J. & Weiss, M. (2001). PISA 2000. Basiskompetenzen von
Schuelerinnen und Schuelern im internationalen Vergleich. Opladen, Germany:
Leske & Budrich.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of
Educational Research, 31, 445-457.
Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining on
strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-disabled students. Journal of
Brailsford, A., Snart, F., & Das, J. P. (1984). Strategy training and reading comprehension.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 287-290.
Botsas, G., & Padeliadu, S. (2003). Goal orientation and reading comprehension strategy use
among students with and without reading difficulties. International Journal of
Calhoon, M. B. (2005). Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill and reading compre-
hension program on reading skill acquisition for middle school students with
reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 424-433.
Carte, E., Morisson, D., Sublerr, J., Uemura, A., & Setrakian, W. (1984). Sensory Integration
theory: A trial of a specific neurodevelopmental therapy for the remediation of
learning disabilities. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 5, 189-194.
53
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 54
Cattell, R. B., Weiss, R. H., & Osterland, J. (1987). Grundintelligenztest - Skala 1, (Kinder von
5-9 Jahren; Sonderschueler bis zur 4. Klasse). Goettingen, Germany: Westermann
Hogrefe.
Cartelli, L. M. (1978). Paradigmatic language training for learning disabled children. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 11, 313-318.
Chan, L.K.S. (1991). Promoting strategy generalization through self-instructional training in
students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 427-433.
Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-
analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237-248.
Deshler, D., Lenz, K. B., Bulgren, J. Schumaker, J. B., Davis, B., Grossen, B., & Marquis, J.
(2004). Adolescents with disabilities in high school setting: Student characteristics
and setting dynamics. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2, 30-48.
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C., Putnam, J., & Wesselman,
R. (1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading
skill instruction and students’ awareness and achievement: A study of reading
teacher effects. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 237-252.
Fletcher, J. M., Morris, R. D., & Lyon, G. R. (2003). Classification and definition of learning
disabilities: An integrative perspective. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris & S.
Graham, (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 30-56). New York: Guilford
Press.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strate-
gies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational
Research Journal, 34, 174-206.
Gajria, M., & Salvia, J. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehen-
sion. Exceptional Children, 58, 508-526.
Gaskill, P. J., & Murphy, K. P. (2004). Effects of a memory strategy on second graders’ per-
formance and self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 27-49.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, S. L., Williams, P. J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension
strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1997). Self-regulation and writing: Where do we go from here?
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 102-114.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L.
Camill, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 3, pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive
predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 3, 231-256.
Hallahan, D. P., & Mock, D. R. (2003). A brief history of the field of learning disabilities. In
H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities
(pp. 16-29). New York: The Guilford Press.
Hitschcock, C. H., Prater, M. A., & Dowrick, P. W. (2004). Reading comprehension and flu-
ency: Examining the effects of tutoring and video self-modeling on first-grade
students with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 89-103.
Jacobson, C., & Lundberg, I. (2000). Early prediction of individual growth in reading.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13, 273-296.
Jenkins, J. R. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with
reading/learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.),
Identification of learning disabilities: research to practice (pp. 99-149). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
54
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 55
Jenkins, J. R., Barksdale, A., & Clinton, L. (1978). Improving reading comprehension and
oral reading: Generalization across behaviors, settings, and time. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 11, 607-617.
Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., Jenkins, L., & Troutner, N. M. (1991). Development of
a school building model for educating students with handicaps and at-risk stu-
dents in general education classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 311-
320.
Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., O’Conner, R. E., Jenkins, L. M., & Troutner, N. M.
(1994). Accommodations for individual differences without classroom ability
groups: An experiment in school restructuring. Exceptional Children, 60, 344-358.
Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2004). Effects of reading decodable
texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 53-85.
Jerusalem, M., & Satow, L. (1999). Schulbezogene Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen. In R.
Schwarzer & M. Jerusalem (Hrsg.), Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und
Schuelermerkmalen. Dokumentation des psychometrischen Verfahrens im Rahmen
der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs „Selbstwirksame Schulen“ (S.
15-16). Berlin: Freie Universitaet Berlin.
Joseph, L. M. (2002). Best practices in planning interventions for students with reading
problems. Best Practices in School Psychology, IV, 803-816.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: University
Press.
Klinger, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies
for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language.
Elementary School Journal, 96, 275-293.
Kuespert, P., & Schneider, W. (1998). Wuerzburger Leise Probe (WLLP). Goettingen.
Germany: Hogrefe.
Lackaye, T. D., & Margalit, M. (2006). Comparisons of achievement, effort, and self percep-
tions among students with learning disabilities and their peers from different
achievement groups. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 432-446.
Lodewyk, K. R., & Winne, P. W. (2005). Relations among the structure of learning tasks,
achievement and changes in self-efficacy in secondary students. Journal of
Lucangeli, D., Galderisi, D., & Cornoldi, C. (1995). Specific and general transfer effects fol-
lowing metamemory training. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 11-21.
Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized
reading comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary
School Journal, 90, 469-484.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension
in students with Learning Disabilities: 1976-1996. Remedial & Special Education, 18,
197-213.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. E. (2002). Reading. In M. Mastropieri & T. E. Scruggs (Eds.),
Effective instruction for special education (pp. 97-128). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.
Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. (1996). Reading comprehension:
A synthesis of research in learning disabilities. Advances in Learning and
Behavioral Disabilities, 10b, 201-227.
Mercer, C. D., Lane, H. B., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D. H., & Eisele, M. R. (1996). Empowering
teachers and students with instructional choices in inclusive settings. Remedial
and Special Education, 17, 226-236.
Morgan, P., & Sideridis, G. D. (2006). Contrasting the effectiveness of fluency interventions
for students with or at risk for learning disabilities: A multilevel random coeffi-
cient modeling meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 191-
210.
55
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 56
Nauck, J. & Otte, R. (1980). Diagnostischer Test Deutsch (DTD 4-6). Braunschweig, Germany:
Westermann.
Nelson, J. N., & Manset-Williamson, G. (2006). The impact of explicit, self-regulatory read-
ing comprehension strategy instruction on the reading-specific self-efficacy, attri-
butions, and affect of students with reading disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 29, 213-230.
Padeliadu, S. (2004). Learning disabilities: What and why (in Greek). Athens: Ellinika
Grammata.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2002). Students’ self-efficacy in their self-regulated learning strate-
gies: A developmental perspective. Psychologia: An International Journal of
Psychology in the Orient, 45, 211-221.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension – fostering
and comprehension- monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Motivation and classroom learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller
(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 103-122).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning compo-
nents of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,
33-40.
Powell, J. J. W. (1994). Special education and the risk of becoming less educated in Germany
and the United States. Center for European studies. (Program for the study of
Germany and Europe, working paper No. 05.1). Retrieved January 16, 2006, from
www.mpib-berlin.de.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L.
Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. III, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Pressley, M. (2001). Effective beginning reading instruction. Executive summary and paper
commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading
Conference.
Ratekin, N. (1979). Reading achievement of disabled learners. Exceptional Children, 45, 454-
458.
Rosenshine, B. (1997). Advances in research on instruction. In J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui, &
D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 197-220).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Increasing the academic success of
disadvantaged children: An examination of alternative early intervention program.
American Educational Research Journal, 32, 773-800.
Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text presentation and quality of experience.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 3-18.
Schlagmueller, M., & Schneider, W. (1999). Metacognitiveknowledge about test processing: A
questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wuerzburg, Germany.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2003). Self-regulation and learning. In W. M. Reynolds
& G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp.
59-78). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sideridis, G. D. (2003). On the origins of helpless behavior in students with learning disabil-
ities: Avoidance motivation? International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 497-
517.
Sideridis, G. D. (2005). Attitudes and motivation of poor and good spellers: Broadening
planned behavior theory. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 87-103.
Sideridis, G. D. (2006). Achievement goal orientations, “oughts,” and self-regulation in stu-
dents with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 1-
16.
56
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 57
Sideridis, G. D. (in press). Goal orientations and classroom goal structures as predictors of
classroom student behaviors for Greek students with and without learning diffi-
culties. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities.
Siegel, L. S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of
Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P., & Hodge, J. P. (1995). Effects of explicit
teaching and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of learning-disabled and
low-performing students in regular classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 95,
387-408.
Sindelar, P. T. (1982). The effects of cross-aged tutoring on the comprehension skills of
remedial reading students. Journal of Special Education, 16, 199-206.
Souvignier, E. (2003). Instruktion bei lernschwierigkeiten. In G. Ricken, A. Fritz, & C.
Hofmann (Eds.), Diagnose: Sonderpaedagogischer Foerderbedarf (pp. 402-415).
Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.
Souvignier, E., & Antoniou, F. (2007). Foerderung des Leseverstaendnisses bei Schuelerinnen
und Schuelern mit Lernschwierigkeiten — eine Metaanalyse. Vierteljahresschrift
fuer Heilpaedagogik und ihre Nachbargebiete, 76, 46-62.
Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for imple-
menting strategy-instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and
Instruction, 16, 57-71.
Souvignier, E., & Ruehl, K. (2005). Foerderung des Leseverstaendnisses, Lesestrategiewissens
und Leseinteresses von Schuelern mit Lernbehinderungen durch strategieorien-
tierten Unterricht. Heilpaedagogische Forschung, 31, 2-11.
Swanson, H. L. (1999a). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis
of treatment outcomes. New York: The Guilford Press.
Swanson, H. L. (1999b). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of interven-
tion outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504-532.
Talbott, E., Lloyd, J. W., & Tankersley, M. (1994). Effects of reading comprehension interven-
tions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 223-
232.
Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes in the perceived classroom goal structure and pat-
tern of adaptive learning during early adolescence. Contemporary Educational
Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. S. (2003). Reading instruction for students with
LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. Journal of Special Education, 36,
2-13.
Weiss, R. H. (1998). Wortsatztest (WS) und Zahlenfplgentest (ZF). Ergaenzungstests zum
Grundintelligenztest CFT 20. Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Wilder, A. A., & Williams, J. (2001). Students with severe learning disabilities can learn high-
er order comprehension skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 268-278.
Williams, J. P. (2003). Teaching text structure to improve reading comprehension. In H. L.
Swanson, K. R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp.
293-305). New York: Guilford Press.
Wong, B. Y. (1985). Issues in cognitive-behavioral interventions in academic skill areas.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 425-442.
Received December 3, 2006

Revised February 2, 2007
Accepted February 3, 2007
57
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 58
For more than 20 years, Landmark College

in Putney, VT has been the leader in the
creation of successful learning strategies
exclusively for students with learning disabilities
and AD/HD. More than eight of every 10 of
our graduates go on to pursue bachelor’s
degree studies at the college of their choice.
Learn More at Our 2007

Spring Open Houses
Saturday, March 24 • Friday, April 27
For information and to register, contact us at
PHONE 802-387-6718
E-MAIL admissions@landmark.edu
www.landmark.edu
AMERICA’S LEADING COLLEGE FOR STUDENTS With Learning Disabilities and AD/HD
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 59
The Effect of Asymmetry on

the 2x2 Kappa Coefficient:
Application to the
Study of Learning Disabilities
Teresa Rivas-Moya1 and María-José González-Valenzuela
Malaga University, Spain
In educational practice, for the evaluation and diagnosis of learning dis-

abilities (LD), it is advisable to use standardized tests together with obser-
vation questionnaires. When observation questionnaires are used in the
study of LD, Cohen’s (1960) kappa coefficient (κ) is frequently applied as
a measure of agreement between two raters when they independently clas-
sify a sample of subjects in several categories. In practice, a good interpre-
tation cannot be made if the conditions surrounding the calculation are
not taken into consideration. This investigation presents a study of asym-
metry and its effect on the κ interpretation. In Study 1, the importance of
symmetry is highlighted by means of several examples that show agree-
ment between two raters when classifying 60 subjects in one of two cate-
gories. From these examples the interpretation of κ is complemented with
the information given by (a) asymmetry analyzed by descriptive and
graphical methods and hypothesis tests; and (b) other values, such as max-
imum observed agreement, maximum reachable agreement, and maxi-
mum unreachable agreement. In Study 2, the concepts of Study 1 are
applied to examples of LD.
Key Words: Agreement, Kappa, Symmetry, Learning Disabilities
mong the oldest and most persistent questions in the field of learning difficul-
A ties (LD) are its definition and assessment. The definition of LD is a complex
task for educators and researchers alike, due in large part to the plurality of its his-
torical roots, perspectives, and theoretical models. The debate surrounding the def-
inition of LD means that its research and assessment must be re-examined, for var-
ious reasons. One reason worth noting is the advisability of defining (a) the proper-
ties of the measures, methods, and requirements to optimize the diagnostic process;
and (b) the type of instruments, strategies, or assessment approach suitable for
applying information in the treatment and determining its needs (Jiménez, 1999).
Thus, if the models and assessment measures are reliable, they may serve to throw
light on the definition of LD and its connection with instruction in an effort to pre-
vent or improve LD. In educational practice, the most suitable assessment model is
one that combines a static or standardized assessment with a dynamic or observa-
tional assessment (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1996).
The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD, 2006)
defines LD as a general term referring to a heterogeneous group of disorders mani-
1. Please address correspondence to: Teresa Rivas Moya, Department of Psychobiology and Methodology,
Psychology Faculty. Málaga University, Campus de Teatinos s.n. 29071 Málaga; E-mail:moya@uma.es
59
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 60
fested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking,

reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical skills. These disorders are intrinsic to
the individual, presumably due to a central nervous system dysfunction, which may
occur at any time in life. Problems in self-regulatory behaviors, social perception,
and social interaction may exist in individuals with LD, but do not by themselves
constitute a LD. Although LD may occur concomitantly with other handicapping
conditions (e.g., sensory impairment, mental retardation, serious emotional distur-
bance) or with extrinsic factors such as cultural differences, inappropriate or insuf-
ficient educational instruction), they are not the result of such influences or condi-
tions.
This definition agrees with the definitions proposed by other associations,
such as NACHC (National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children), ACLD
(Adults and Children with Learning and Developmental Disabilities), ICLD
(Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities), and also with that given in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (Pichot, Lopez-Ibor, & Valdés, 1995). Besides, it is
widely accepted among professionals and researchers in the field of LD. This defini-
tion is based on the acquisition of skills (in reading, writing, mathematics, etc.)
implicit within a model of assessment centered on abilities and the product (i.e., a
static assessment). Static assessment is characterized as being a standard assessment
of psychological abilities or diagnostic procedures. This makes it possible to detect
individuals with LD and distinguish their condition from other pathologies.
However, to a great extent, it is disconnected from educational intervention
(Hammill & Larsen, 1978). The work of Shapiro, Buckhalt, and Herod (1995) is an
example of static assessment. The authors examined the performance characteristics
of school-identified students with LD using the DAS battery (The Differential
Ability Scales; Elliot, 1990) by individual measure of aptitude and achievement lev-
els (verbal, space, reasoning, spelling, reading of words, memory, etc., subtests)
defined for individuals ranging in age from 2 years 6 months to 17 years 11 months.
The study of Reynolds (1998) is also worthy of mention, in which the TOMAL (Test
of Memory and Learning; Reynolds & Bigler, 1994) was applied to a sample of ado-
lescents with LD to assess their performance in memory and learning; TOMAL is a
standardized test administered to children ages 5-19 years old.
Another definition of LD is upheld by the National Information Center for
Children and Youth Disabilities (NICHY, 2000) and the Learning Disabilities
Association of America (LDA, 2006). Here LD is defined as a neurological disorder
that affects one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understand-
ing or using of the spoken or written language. The disability may manifest itself in
difficulties related to listening, thinking, speaking, reading, writing, spelling, or
doing mathematical calculations (LDA, 2006).
This definition is closer to the first definitions favored by some authors,
pioneers in the study of LD (Bateman, 1965), and comes closer to an assessment
model based on the psycho-educational process (González, 1997); that is, dynamic
assessment. Dynamic assessment, less used in the study of LD, is based more on
observational assessment (of teachers and/or parents) of the processes involved in
children’s learning. This type of assessment facilitates differentiation between LD
and other disorders. Further, it links the diagnosis to intervention and instruction
by facilitating the detection of the needs of students with LD (Kavale & Forness,
60
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 61
61
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 62
62
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 63
63
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 64
64
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 65
65
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 66
66
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 67
67
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 68
68
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 69
69
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 70
70
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 71
71
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 72
72
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 73
73
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 74
74
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 75
REFERENCES
Adults and Children with Learning and Developmental Disabilities. (2006). Retrieved
March, 2006, from www.acldd.org
Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical data analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Bateman, B. (1965). An educator´s view of a diagnostic approach to learning disorders. In F.
Hellmount (Ed.), Learning disorders (pp. 219-239). Seattle, WA: Special Child
Publications.
Bennett, E. M., Alpert, R., & Goldstein, A. C. (1954). Communications through limited
response questioning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 18, 303-308.
Bishop, Y.M.M., Fienberg, S. E., & Holland P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis:
Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brennan, R. L., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses and alterna-
tives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 4, 687-699.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 1, 37-46.
Elliot, C. D. (1990). Differential ability scales: Introductory and technical handbook. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Everitt, B. S. (1977). The analysis of contingency tables. London: Chapman & Hall
Fleiss, J. L., & Everitt, B.S. (1971). Comparing the marginal totals of square contingency
tables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 24, 117-123.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs. S. D. (1996). Combining performance assessment and curriculum
based measurement to strengthen instructional planning. Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice, 11, 183-192.
González, M. J. (1997). Las dificultades de aprendizaje desde una perspectiva psicoeducativa.
Málaga, Spain: Servicios de publicaciones de la Universidad de Málaga.
Gwet, K. (2001). Handbook of inter-rater reliability. Gaithersburg, MD: Stataxis Publishing
Company.
Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1978). The effectiveness of psycholinguistic training. A reaf-
firmation of position. Exceptional Children, 44, 402-414.
Holley, W., & Guilford, J. P. (1964). A note on the G-index of agreement. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 24,749-753.
Hutchinson, T. P. (1982). Some theories of performance in multiple-choice test, and their
implications for variants of the task. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2006). Definition. Retrieved March, 2006
from www.kidsource.com
Janson, S., & Vegelius, J. (1979). On generalization of the G index and the phi coefficient to
nominal scales. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 255-269.
Jimenez, J. E. (1999). Psicología de las dificultades de aprendizaje. Madrid,Spain: Síntesis.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1984). A meta-analysis assessing the validity of Wechsler
Scale profiles and recategorization: Patterns or parodies? Learning Disability Quarterly,
7, 136-156.
Krauth, J. (1990). Distribution-free statistics: An application-oriented approach. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Learning Disabilities Association of America. (2006). Learning disabilities: signs, symptoms
and strategies. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://www.ldaamerica.org
Levy, P. S., & Lemeshow, S. (1991). Sampling of populations: Methods and applications. New
York: Wiley and Sons.
Maclure, M., & Willett, W. (1987). Misinterpretation and misuse of the statistic kappa.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 126, 161-169.
Martín-Andrés, A., & Femia-Marzo, P. (2004). Delta: A new measure of agreement between
two raters. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57, 1-19.
Martín-Andrés, A., & Femia-Marzo, P. (2005). Chance-corrected measures of reliability and
validity in KxK tables. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 14, 473-492.
75
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 76
Maxwell A. E. (1970). Comparing the classification of subjects by two independent judges.

British Journal of Psychiatry, 116, 651-655.
Maxwell A. E. (1977). Coefficients of agreement between observers and their interpretation.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 79-83.
National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children (2006). Retrieved March, 2006,
from www.nach.com
Pichot, P., Lopez-Ibor, J. J., Valdés, M. (1995). DSM-IV. Criterios diagnósticos. Barcelona,
Spain: Masson.
Raghavan, R., Marshall, M., Lockwood, A., & Duggan, L. (2004). Assessing the needs of peo-
ple with learning disabilities and mental illness: Development of the learning disability
version of the Cardinal Needs Schedule. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 48,
25-36.
Reynolds, C. R. (1998). Reliability of performance on the test of memory and learning
(TOMAL) by an adolescent learning disability sample. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 58(5), 832-835.
Reynolds, C. R., & Bigler, E. D. (1994). Test of memory and learning. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Rivas, T. (2005, September). The 2x2 kappa coefficient and the condition of symmetry margin-
al distributions. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference on Psychological
Assessment, Budapest.
Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-325.
Shapiro. S. K., Buckhalt, J. A., & Herod, L. A. (1995). Evaluating of learning-disabled stu-
dents with the differential ability scales (DAS). Journal of School Psychology, 33(3), 247-
263.
The National Information Center for Children and Youths with Disabilities. (2000).
Learning disabilities. Retrieved March, 1, 2000, from http://www.NICHCY.org
The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2006). What is a learning disability?
Retrieved April, 25, 2006, from http://www.ldonline.org/
Uebersax, J. (2000). MH program. Retrieved May 26, 2004, from
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax
Uebersax, J. (2003a). Kappa coefficients. In J. Uebersax (Ed.), Statistical methods for rater
agreement (pp. 1:10, 10:10). Retrieved May 26, 2004, from
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/agree.htm
Uebersax, J. (2003b). Tests of marginal homogeneity. In J. Uebersax (Ed.), Statistical methods
for rater agreement (pp. 1:6, 6:6). Retrieved May 26, 2004, from
Uebersax, J. (2003c). McNemar Tests of marginal homogeneity. In J. Uebersax (Ed.),
Statistical methods for rater agreement (pp. 1:8, 8:8). Retrieved May 26, 2004, from
Xenitidis, K., Thornicroft, G., Leese, M., & Slade, M. (2000). Reliability and validity of the
CANDID – A needs assessment instrument for adults with learning disabilities and
mental health problems. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 473-478.
Zwick, R. (1988). Another look at interrater agreement. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 374-
378.
Received December 3, 2006

Revised February 2, 2007
Accepted February 3, 2007
Author’s Note
This research was partially funded by grants from the Ministerio de
Ciencia y Tecnología. (Project Ref:BSO2001-1945) and Consejería de Educación y
Ciencia de la Junta de Andalucía (Research Group CTS-278)
76
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 77
Story Mapping and Its Effects on the Writing

Fluency and Word Diversity of Students with
Learning Disabilities
Daqi Li
State University of New York, College at Oneonta
Students with learning disabilities (LD) often experience difficulties in

writing fluently and using a diversity of words. To help these students, spe-
cific and effective writing strategies must be incorporated into instruction
and demonstrated to them through modeling. This study examined the
effectiveness of using a story map and story map questions to improve the
story writing fluency and word usage diversity of four students with LD
using a multiple-probe design. Results showed that three of the four stu-
dents improved their writing fluency. Regarding the diversity of word
usage, no considerable changes were found in the students’ writing per-
formance. This finding supports the use of the story mapping strategy by
teachers who are looking for ways to improve the writing fluency of stu-
dents with LD. For students who struggle with the diversity of word usage
in story writing, it is suggested this strategy be used in combination with
other strategies that focus on improving word usage.
Key Words: Learning Disabilities, Story Map, Story Writing, Writing
Fluency, Word Diversity
ue to the challenging nature of writing, many students with learning disabilities

D (LD) experience difficulty when having to complete writing assignments
(Houck & Billingsley, 1989; Newcomer & Barenbaum, 1991; Thomas, Englert, &
Gregg, 1987). Much of the literature suggests that students with LD are less fluent in
writing than those without disabilities (Montague, Maddux, & Dereshiwsky, 1990;
Nodine, Barenbaum, & Newcomer, 1985; Poplin, Gray, Larsen, Banikowski, &
Mehring, 1980). Students with LD tend to have problems in vocabulary use as well.
In writing, their use of vocabulary often suffers from lack of variety (Morris &
Crump, 1982) and sophistication (Houck & Billingsley, 1989). Furthermore, their
choice of words is rather limited, and they use fewer words that are specific and rich
in meaning.
In narrative writing, students with LD may have difficulty in grasping the
text structures and controlling the logical development of story events (Newcomer
& Barenbaum, 1991; Nodine et al., 1985). Story writing becomes more complex
when students have to incorporate story elements, such as characters, settings, goals,
problems, solutions, and outcomes, into the writing (Bain, Bailet, & Moats, 1991).
The stories written by students with LD are often rated as being of low quality as evi-
1. Please address correspondence to: Daqi Li, Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, State
University of New York, College at Oneonta, Oneonta, NY 13820. E-mail: lid@oneonta.edu
77
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 78
denced in story length, organization, structure, linking ideas, and ordering story ele-
ments with components related temporarily and logically (MacArthur & Graham,
1987). Barenbaum, Newcomer and Nodine (1987) also noted that students with LD
had difficulty generating stories. Compared with low achievers and typical achiev-
ers, they were the least fluent writers, producing the fewest number of words.
Further, these students do not know how to frame their stories so that all the basic
story elements can be included. For example, Laughton and Morris (1989) found
that most students with LD in their study included fewer components of stories than
peers without disabilities.
Various strategies have been invented to facilitate students’ learning of story
structures, including story mapping. A story map is a graphic technique designed
specifically to facilitate story organization. This technique uses a diagram (called a
story map) to depict visually the settings or the sequence of events and actions of
story characters. Based on schema theory (Anderson, 1977), which emphasizes link-
ing previous knowledge structures (schemas) with the learning of new materials for
effective learning, story mapping is intended to help students develop a story schema
by providing them with a bird’s eye view of the basic story structure and the rela-
tionship between story elements. It enables students to visualize the basic story
structure and story elements and helps them perceive the sequence of story develop-
ment. Thus, by using a story map, students can realize that the settings, events, and
characters of a story are interrelated. Because of the visual characteristics of story
mapping, students may also find it helpful in planning their story writing.
Research finds that story mapping may be effective in helping students with
LD to comprehend stories and recall story information (Gardill & Jitendra, 1999;
Idol & Croll, 1987; Vallecorsa & deBettencourt, 1997). Zipprich (1995) showed that
a pre-structured story web could increase students’ planning time and improve writ-
ing quality. However, her students showed inconsistent gains in terms of the num-
ber of words and the number of thought units included in their writing. Vallecorsa
and deBettencourt (1997) investigated a mapping procedure for teaching elements
of the story form to middle-grade students with LD. The results of the study suggest-
ed that the mapping procedure positively affected the number of story elements
included in students’ recall of stories. However, there was limited transfer of this skill
to the students’ writing performance. Only when the students received direct
instruction in the use of the mapping procedure for writing did they show improve-
ment.
Story cues refer to the facilitative hints, usually in the form of a checklist,
used to prompt students’ attention, memory, and accuracy (Graves & Hauge, 1993).
Graves and Hauge (1993) recommended that story cues be used with students who
can identify story elements and can write simple stories but have difficulty creating
complete and well-organized stories. Story cues can be conveniently used together
with other instructional strategies, such as story maps. For example, they can be
questions developed around a story map reminding students of the story compo-
nents and procedures. As both story mapping and story map questions are relative-
ly easy to manipulate, this approach has great instructional value.
Story mapping and story map questions are instructional strategies that
may hold promise for many students who are struggling with narrative writing.
78
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 79
However, few of the studies about story mapping or story map questions have
explored the effect of these strategies on writing fluency and word usage. Specifically,
the following questions remain to be answered: Will instruction of these strategies
positively affect students’ writing by increasing their story production and fluency?
Will these strategies help improve and expand the variety of word usage in students’
story writing?
This study was an attempt to explore this area and these unanswered ques-
tions. In particular, the purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the
story mapping strategy and the facilitative story map questions. The research ques-
tions were (a) What are the effects of the instructional strategy of using story maps
and story map questions on the fluency of story writing by students with learning
disabilities? and (b) What are the effects of this strategy on the word usage by stu-
dents with learning disabilities?
METHOD
Participants
Participants were four 4th- and/or 5th-grade students with LD from two
suburban elementary schools in the southwest United States. Three participants
(Jim, Stanley, and Kathy) were White and one (Freda) was Hispanic. Selection of
participants was based on the recommendation of general educators, special educa-
tors, or other qualified persons who had worked closely with the participants and
were well acquainted with their academic performances and skills in writing. The
Learning Disabilities Diagnostic Inventory (LDDI) (Hammill & Bryant, 1998) was
used to identify students with processing problems in written language. Profiles of
the participants’ scores on the LDDI scales and their performance on the Subtest of
Written Expression of the WIAT are shown on Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Jim was 10 years, 11 months old when the study started. A fifth grader, Jim
was identified by his school as having LD and was included in the general education
programs. Jim had problems with reading and writing. To help him in these content
areas, his general education teachers referred him to the Content Mastery class of the
school 1-2 hours a week to receive remedial instruction.
Stanley was an 11 years, 10 months-old fifth grader. He was particularly
weak in mathematics and writing. As a result, he was pulled out of the general edu-
cation program for about two hours each week to receive remedial instruction in the
resource room. Stanley’s ratings on the LDDI scales indicated that he had potential
problems in writing and math.
Freda was 10 years and 6 months old at the onset of the study. She was also
a fifth grader. Born in the United States to Spanish-speaking parents, Freda’s primary
language was English. Freda had disabilities in reading and writing. Her general edu-
cation teacher often provided extra help to her both in class and out of class. Freda’s
parents were concerned about her learning disabilities and were planning to take her
to see some language specialists. On Sundays Freda went to a learning center where
she received remedial instruction in reading.
Kathy was 9 years, 3 months old and was enrolled in the fourth grade. She
was recently transferred from another school where her LD was first identified. She
had difficulties in listening, speaking, and writing, and she needed constant help
79
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 80
from her teacher both in class and out of class. Her teacher’s evaluation of her per-
formance using the LDDI scales confirmed her weaknesses in these areas.
Table 1
Profiles of the Participants’ Scores on the LDDI Scales
Scores in Stanine
Participants LI SP RD WT M TRE
Jim 9 9 6 5 9 9
Stanley 9 9 9 5 5 9
Freda 3 4 6 3 5 7
Kathy 1 4 6 5 9 7
Note. LI = listening; SP = speaking; RD = reading;WT = writing; MT = mathematics; RE =
reasoning.
Table 2
Participants’ Performance on the Subtest of Written Expression of the WIAT
Elements of Writing Skills
Participants I&D OUC VOC SSV G&U C&P Total
Jim 2 2 3 1 2 2 12
Stanley 2 2 2 1 2 1 10
Freda 2 2 2 2 3 2 13
Kathy 2 2 3 1 2 1 11
Note. I&D = ideas and development; OUC = organization, utility, and coherence;VOC =
vocabulary; SSV = sentence structure and variety; G&U = grammar and usage; C&P = capi-
talization and punctuation.
Research Design
A multiple-probe single-case experimental design was used across the four
participants. In a multiple-probe design, a variation of the basic multiple-baseline
design, the researcher does not collect baseline data on a continuous basis. Instead,
probe trials that are operationally identical to preintervention baseline trials are con-
ducted intermittently on behaviors to be trained (Tawney & Gast, 1984). In the
beginning, an initial probe was conducted across all participants. A minimum of
three consecutive probe sessions were scheduled for the first participant, Jim. When
Jim’s performance level had shown stability, continuous intervention sessions start-
ed for him. Following that, a minimum of three consecutive probe sessions were
applied to the second participant, Stanley, while the third and fourth participants
only received intermittently scheduled probe sessions. When Stanley had exhibited
stable baseline performance, intervention initiated for him on a continuous basis.
Then consecutive probe sessions were conducted for the third participant, Freda.
Such sessions were withheld for the fourth participant until Freda showed stable
baseline performance and intervention started for her. Similarly, the fourth partici-
pant, Kathy, began to receive intervention only when her performance during the
probe sessions became stable.
80
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 81
Independent and Dependent Variables

The independent variable was the instructional strategy of using story
mapping and the facilitative story map questions. During the intervention as well as
the maintenance sessions, the participants were provided with the story map and the
story map questions. Two dependent variables were measured objectively to assess
participants’ performance in story writing. One of them was their story writing flu-
ency. This was measured by counting the total number of T-units in a story. Another
dependent variable was the diversity of word usage; that is, the range of different
words used in a story. The diversity of word usage was presented in the type/token
ratio. It was calculated as the number of different words used in a story, divided by
the total number of words of the story. A ratio of 1.0 indicated no redundancy; a
ratio of .5 meant there was frequent repetition (Polloway & Smith, 1992).
Intervention Materials
A set of training materials were used, which included (a) Picture prompts
for generating stories. The pictures were selected from current newspapers, maga-
zines, children’s books, pictorials, and so forth. A picture prompt consisted of a scene
with various characters or a single character or object. Before the study, the picture
prompts had been presented to two other students of the participants’ age level.
These two students (a boy and a girl) were asked to identify the pictures that were
interesting and that prompted easy story writing. Pictures that were rated poor by
the two students were not used. (b) A story map designed to facilitate generation and
organization of narrative content. This story map was adapted from the Outline of
Story-Mapping Components developed by Idol and Croll (1987). This generic type
of story map was used during the first phase of intervention. (c) A set of story map
questions designed for helping participants to explore story ideas and make elabo-
ration. The questions were incorporated into the generic story map. The story map
questions combined with the generic story map were presented to the participants
during the second and third phases of intervention and the maintenance phase (see
Appendix).
Procedures
Baseline condition. After giving each student a pencil and a sheet of lined
paper, I, the researcher, showed them a set of four pictures and asked them to choose
one. Then I instructed them to plan and write a story based on the content of the
picture within 30 minutes, underscoring that the content was most important and
that they would not be penalized for mechanical errors. I did not provide feedback
about the content and the quality of their stories. However, I did provide the correct
spelling for individual words when requested. I told the students to write on every
other line of the sheet of paper so that they could add content or make changes later.
I also informed them that they could take dictionaries to their writing sessions if
they desired, but none of them did so.
Intervention phase 1. Phase 1 involved the researcher modeling the use of
the story map. After the participants’ writing performances exhibited acceptable sta-
bility in the level of fluency, the intervention was applied. During the first phase, I
showed the participants a set of four pictures and asked them to choose one. I then
showed them the pre-structured generic story map. I also explained the components
of a story and showed the participants how these components were related. Together,
81
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 82
we then worked to generate ideas, brainstorming possible characters, events, prob-

lems, solutions, and the outcome of the story. I modeled for the participants by writ-
ing the ideas down in the story map and subsequently allowed them 20 minutes to
plan and write a story with the help of the generated ideas and the story map. I
reminded them that they would not be penalized for mechanical errors.
Intervention phase 2. After five sessions of story map modeling, the second
phase of intervention began to introduce the story map questions. In addition to the
story map, the participants received the story map questions in both written and
spoken forms. The written questions were printed in the story map boxes. The ques-
tions in spoken forms were provided verbally by me. The questions served to remind
the participants of the story elements and possible ideas associated with them.
During this phase, I required the students to generate ideas for their stories while I
facilitated the process with questions. Guided by the questions, the participants
spoke aloud about their ideas for story planning. Then I wrote down the ideas in the
story map. The participants referred to these ideas when they wrote their stories.
Intervention phase 3. This phase involved researcher guidance and started
after five consecutive sessions of the second phase of intervention. During this new
phase, I stopped modeling and provided only verbal guidance as necessary. Again, I
showed students a set of four pictures and told them to choose one. I gave them a
copy of the story map combined with the facilitating story map questions and asked
them to generate ideas for a story and fill in the map. I answered their questions con-
cerning the story map and story ideas and reminded them of the important story
elements that they had missed. I used story map questions to help the participants
develop stories. However, the participants were responsible for generating their own
ideas for the stories. Then I allowed them 20 minutes to write a story with the help
of the generated ideas and the story map.
Maintenance phase. After a participant showed a 50% increase in writing
fluency over the average of the baseline phase for seven consecutive sessions during
intervention phase 3, intervention was stopped. This margin of improvement was set
based on findings of other studies (Graves, Semmel, & Gerber, 1994; Montague &
Leavell, 1994; Nodine et al., 1985). However, if the participants failed to demonstrate
this 50% increase for seven consecutive sessions during intervention phase 3, the
intervention was still terminated and the maintenance phase began.
During the maintenance phase, I showed the participants a set of four pic-
ture prompts and let them choose one of the prompts. Then I gave the participants
a story map with the story map questions printed in it. Unlike during the interven-
tion phases, I did not work together with the participants to generate story ideas, nor
did I provide verbal questions. During this phase, I conducted checks once a week
instead of every day.
Procedural Reliability
To ensure that the study followed a consistent and systematic procedure,
approximately 20% of all sessions were tape-recorded from beginning to end. Two
evaluators subsequently listened to the tapes independently, checking the procedures
of the sessions and evaluating the steps that I had taken in administering the ses-
sions. Their evaluation records were then brought together and compared.
82
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 83
Agreement of evaluations was assessed on a point-by-point basis by following the

formula recommended by Kazdin (1982, p. 54):
A
Agreement = ________ x 100
A+D
where A = agreement for the trial

D = disagreement for the trial
The results showed an overall evaluator agreement of 93.5%, which indicated a high
level of procedural reliability.
Inter-Rater Agreement
In order to minimize biases in scoring the stories and to increase the accu-
racy of ratings, the study used an independent rater to rate some of the stories as a
reliability check. The independent rater was a trained professional in education with
past experience in writing instruction. I rated all the stories written by the partici-
pants. The independent rater conducted reliability checks approximately once every
three sessions, about 30% of all the stories.
Agreement between the raters was assessed by using the method of fre-
quency ratio (Kazdin, 1982). This method computes agreement when comparisons
are made between the totals of two raters who independently record behaviors. In
the present study, the two totals of, for example, T-units observed by the two raters
in a written story, were put into the following formula to determine the rater agree-
ment:
Smaller total
Rater Agreement = ___________ x 100.
Larger total
In a similar manner, the agreement of word diversity was calculated by

dividing the smaller percentage by the larger percentage and multiplying by 100. The
rater agreement ratio obtained from this formula was the estimated agreement on
one particular occasion in which reliability was assessed. After all inter-rater agree-
ment checks had been collected, the individual agreement percentages were tabulat-
ed. The acceptable agreement level was set at 90% prior to the start of the study.
Assessment results showed that the inter-rater reliability was high for most story
evaluations. Except on one of Kathy’s stories, the agreement between the two raters
fell below 90% on number of T-units; all other rating agreements fell within the
range of 91% to 100%, which satisfied the pre-set criteria.
RESULTS
Writing Fluency
To measure participants’ fluency in story writing, the number of T-units in
each story was counted. Figure 1 shows the four students’ writing fluency judged by
counting the number of T-units in each story. Missing data resulted from sessions
being interrupted by unpredictable or uncontrollable events, such as when partici-
pants were sick or were required to participate in school-organized activities.
83
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 84
Figure 1. Number of T-units in participants’ stories.
Baselline Intervention Maintenance

40
Story Story Map Verball
35 Map Questions Guidance Jim
30
25
20
15
10
40
Study Map Stanley
35 Questions
30
25
20
15
Number of T-units
10
40 Freda
35
30
25
20
15
10
40
35 Kathy
30
25
20
15
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
1 235 3 37
4
Sessions Weeks
84
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 85
Jim’s behavior showed variability throughout the three experimental phas-

es. Jim demonstrated a higher level of fluency than the other three during the base-
line phase, producing an average of 18.8 T-units per story. During intervention
phase 1, in which I modeled the story map for the participants, Jim demonstrated an
improvement over the baseline level by increasing the mean number of T-units per
story to 24.4. Then in the second phase, facilitation with story map questions, his
fluency decreased. Yet, his average number of T-units (21.8) was still higher than
during the baseline condition. During the third phase, Jim’s stories varied from a
high of 30 to a low of 15 T-units. Because of this extreme variability, intervention
was called off after seven consecutive sessions. In this phase of intervention, Jim’s
stories averaged 21.7 T-units per story. During maintenance, Jim failed to maintain
the limited improvement that he demonstrated during the intervention phases. On
average, his stories during maintenance contained only 17.5 T-units per story.
Stanley generally demonstrated an upward trend during the intervention
phases compared with the baseline condition. During the baseline phase, Stanley
wrote stories with very limited fluency; except for the first probe, the three baseline
stories contained only four or five T-units each. When story mapping was intro-
duced in the first phase of intervention, Stanley demonstrated a noticeable increase
in the number of T-units, which doubled or even tripled compared with those writ-
ten during the baseline condition. The last story in this phase of intervention con-
tained 27 T-units, much higher than the baseline stories. During the second phase of
intervention, more progress was observed. Four out of the five stories contained 20
or more T-units. These stories averaged 24 T-units each. During the third phase of
intervention, in which guidance was provided only when requested, Stanley’s fluen-
cy rate exhibited a declining trend as compared with phase 2, the average number of
T-units dropping to 18.4. In view of this situation, I stopped this intervention con-
dition and renewed the condition of the second phase. When returned to the previ-
ous condition, Stanley’s story output increased again, but only for one session. The
next two stories showed decrease once more in the number of T-units. Overall, all
his intervention stories surpassed his baseline stories in terms of the number of T-
units. During maintenance, Stanley’s stories showed an increasing trend. The aver-
age number of T-units in each story in this period was 23.3.
Freda demonstrated an increase in her performance throughout the inter-
vention phases and the maintenance phase. In the first phase of intervention, Freda’s
stories exhibited continued gains in the number of T-units. Her stories averaged 13
T-units per story during this phase as compared to the average of 9.2 T-units during
baseline. As the sessions moved into the second phase of intervention, Freda showed
continued gains for three sessions, with a decrease observed in the fourth. Her sto-
ries averaged 21.2 T-units during the second phase. Phase 3 showed a variable pat-
tern. However, the general trend was still upward, with an average of 24.9 T-units per
story. During the maintenance condition, Freda maintained her progress by writing
stories that contained an average of 29.5 T-units per story.
Kathy exhibited a general trend of progress during the intervention. Kathy
started by producing very short stories averaging 4.83 T-units during the baseline
phase. When the story map was introduced to her during intervention phase 1, she
demonstrated an increase in fluency. Except for the last story, which showed a
85
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 86
decline, all the other stories surpassed the baseline stories. During phase 1, Kathy
produced an average of 9.6 T-units per story. When story map questions were intro-
duced during phase 2, she continued her gains in story output, producing stories
with an average of 12.4 T-units per story. Her gains during the third phase of inter-
vention were even more noticeable, her stories averaging 15.7 T-units. Finally, dur-
ing maintenance, Kathy’s first two stories contained fewer T-units than much of the
previous phase. However, this phase showed a consistent upward trend, averaging
16.3 T-units per story. It should be pointed out that during intervention phase 3 and
maintenance, Kathy expressed a dislike for filling out the story map on her own.
Therefore, I let her vocalize her story plan instead of writing a story map. This yield-
ed a higher level of performance during the latter part of the maintenance phase.
Word Diversity
In this study, word diversity was represented by the type/token ratio, meas-
ured by dividing the number of different words used in a story (type) by the total
number of words used in that same story (token). In order to measure accurately the
changes in word diversity in the writings of a participant over a period of time, the
length of the passage (token) being analyzed had to be held constant. Because the
four participants varied greatly in their story output, the length of the passage select-
ed for analyzing the stories was not the same.
The length of the passage selected for Jim and Freda was 60 words. For
Stanley, whose shortest story contained 44 words, the length of passage selected was
44 words. In the same manner, the selected passage length for Kathy was 34 words.
All passages selected for calculating the type/token ratio were counted from the first
word of the story up to the 60th (or 44th, or 34th) words. The results of word diver-
sity in story writing for each of the four participants are presented in Figure 2.
As illustrated in Figure 2, overall the four participants’ use of words did not
show any considerable change in diversity over the different phases. Although the
diversity ratio sometimes varied greatly between individual writing sessions, the
general trend remained stable. This indicates that the interventions had little effect
on the word diversity of the participants’ story writings.
Jim’s stories exhibited minimal variability in word diversity ratio through-
out the study. The highest ratio was .72, which he demonstrated in the fourth ses-
sion during baseline, and in the first session during intervention phase 1. However,
the overall word diversity ratios during the baseline, intervention, and maintenance
phases did not vary considerably. The average ratio for each of the experimental con-
ditions was as follows: baseline, .64, intervention phase 1, .65, intervention phase 2,
.67, intervention phase 3, .63, and maintenance, .64 (see Figure 3).
As mentioned, Stanley’s passage length selected for analysis was 44 words.
His stories showed more variability in word diversity ratio. The highest ratio was .86
(the second session during intervention phase 2). The lowest was .55, which
occurred twice (the first and the fourth sessions during intervention phase 3). The
low diversity ratio implied that in these two sessions, there were frequent repetitions
of word use in the stories. On average, Stanley used noticeably fewer words during
intervention phase 3 than during other phases. The average word diversity ratios of
other phases did not exhibit big variations.
86
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 87
Figure 2. Word diversity ratios of participants’ stories.
Baseline Intervention Maintenance

1
Story Story Map Verbal
0 .9 Map Questions Guidance Jim
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6
0 .5
0 .4
0 .3
0 .2
0 .1
1 Story Map
0 .9 Questions Stanley
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6
0 .5
0 .4
0 .3
Type/Token Ratios
0 .2
0 .1
0 .9 Freda
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6
0 .5
0 .4
0 .3
0 .2
0 .1
0
1
0 .9
Kathy
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6
0 .5
0 .4
0 .3
0 .2
0 .1
0
1 3 5 7 9 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 7 1 9 2 1 2 3 2 5 2 7 2 9 3 1 3 31 2 3 53 43 7
Sessions Weeks
87
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 88
Freda’s profile differed from Jim’s and Stanley’s in that her stories showed
improvement over time. Freda began her baseline stories with diversity ratio: either
below .60 or in the low .60s (average = .60). When intervention started, her stories
increased in the number of different words used. Although there were fluctuations
during intervention and maintenance, the overall ratios were higher than for base-
line. The averages of the three intervention phases and the maintenance phase were,
respectively, .70, .67, .68, and .66. The increase during intervention phase 1 was par-
ticularly impressive.
The passage length selected for Kathy was 34 words, corresponding to the
shortest of her stories. As illustrated in Figure 3, the word diversity ratios in Kathy’s
stories showed an irregular pattern with steep rises and falls. The highest ratio was
.85, whereas the lowest was .59. However, in terms of the averages, Kathy’s stories
showed some improvement. The word diversity ratio averages of the intervention
and maintenance phases were .76, .71, .75, and .69, respectively, compared to .68
during baseline. The increases during intervention phases 1 and 3 were especially
noticeable.
Figure 3. Average word diversity ratios of participants’ stories across experimental

phases
DISCUSSION
Story Map and Story Writing Fluency
Story mapping was found to be effective for improving the story writing
fluency of three of the four participants in the current study. The stories written by
Stanley, Freda, and Kathy showed improvements after the intervention of the story
mapping strategy was introduced. Their stories during intervention and mainte-
nance phases were noticeably longer than those written during the baseline phase.
However, the effect of this intervention was not apparent on Jim.
88
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 89
Overall, Jim’s profile did not exhibit the expected improvement. When I
first introduced the story map to him during intervention phase 1, he seemed to
have increased in story writing fluency. However, after I stopped modeling, he was
unable to maintain his improvement. During the second phase of intervention, the
story map questions did not prove to be effective in increasing his fluency. His per-
formance did not show improvement in later stages either. The number of T-units
in his stories remained at or near the baseline level. There may be several reasons for
his lack of improvement. First, Jim seemed to have lost some motivation later in the
study. Sometimes he would rush to writing the end of a story without considering if
the story was fully developed or not. Second, the restricted time allowed for each
writing session (20 minutes) could have affected Jim’s writing fluency. During the
baseline, Jim concentrated on writing better than the other participants and spent
most of the time writing his stories. During the later phases, the time allowed for
writing remained unchanged. This made it difficult for Jim to drastically increase his
story output. On several occasions, Jim had more ideas he wanted to write about in
his stories, but I stopped him because the time was up. So, even if the story map
helped Jim in planning and developing his stories, it was unlikely that he would have
made dramatic changes in the quantity of story writing.
The improvement in writing fluency of the three other students was
remarkable. They all started with baseline stories that were short and poorly devel-
oped. However, after the intervention was introduced, their stories were much
longer and richer in content. The baseline stories of Stanley and Kathy generally con-
tained four to eight T-units, but their stories written during intervention and main-
tenance mostly doubled or even tripled compared with the baseline stories. Of the
three intervention conditions, the intervention of story maps together with story
map questions seemed to work best with Stanley. However, Freda and Kathy seemed
to benefit more from the story mapping strategy plus researcher guidance. All three
participants showed more improvement during the second and third intervention
phases than during the first when I only modeled the use of the story map. The
diversity of the participants’ performance suggested that they had different learning
styles and preferences. This likely would be true for other students with LD as well.
That is, some would benefit more from one intervention condition whereas others
would benefit more from another. Generally speaking, in this study the story map
did not work as effectively with researcher modeling as it did with facilitative ques-
tions or with researcher guidance. Perhaps this was because there was too much
researcher intervention in modeling, which might have interfered with the develop-
ment of the participants’ own ideas.
Story mapping may have helped some of the students to think about the
story organization, content, development, and outcome. A story map is like a visual
aid that can help students in planning stories. Many students with LD do not know
how to plan a story. As a result, they experience difficulty in developing stories fully.
Often they stop writing abruptly without knowing how to proceed or what to write
next. However, with the aid of a story map, students are reminded of what a typical
story should consist of and how they should approach the task of story writing. For
example, a student may forget to write about the problem that the main character
faces in achieving a goal. But with a story map, the student is prompted and thus is
89
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 90
more likely to add this part to the story. With good planning, the student may even
elaborate and make the story richer, more interesting, and more comprehensible. So
it makes good sense that students with LD will likely improve their writing fluency
and increase their story output by using a story mapping strategy. Because of this
potential benefit, teachers of students with LD may consider this strategy for those
students with problems in writing fluency.
Story Map and Word Diversity
The findings showed that overall the story mapping strategy did not
improve participants’ word usage diversity, although some noticeable increases in
the diversity ratio were observed in Freda’s and Kathy’s stories. For both of them, the
highest ratio seemed to have occurred in the stories written during intervention
phase 1. This may suggest that my involvement in brainstorming for possible story
ideas and elements affected their increase of word use in their stories. In discussing
the story characters, the setting, the goal, and the events with the participants, I
might have used words that could have influenced their choice of words. On aver-
age, the stories written by Freda and Kathy during the other two intervention phas-
es were also higher in the type/token ratio than those written during baseline. This
may be an indication that for some students with LD, story mapping can increase
word diversity when used appropriately. Perhaps this is because a story map can lead
students to make more word associations when developing stories. To prove these
speculations, more research is necessary.
On the other hand, the type/token ratios for Jim’s and Stanley’s stories
remained relatively unchanged throughout all experimental conditions. This finding
may suggest some inter-participant variations in terms of learning style and need. So
while the story mapping strategy may help some students write stories with more
diverse vocabulary, this therapeutic effect probably will not be evident in all students
with LD. Story mapping focuses on the plan, organization, and story components
and the relationships among these components, rather than the variety of vocabu-
lary. Therefore, even if students become more fluent in story production, there is no
guarantee word diversity will increase.
Limitations of the Study
Although the benefits of the intervention were apparent for most partici-
pants in the study, a number of limitations of this study should be mentioned. First,
each participant was pulled out of his or her general education classroom for 30
minutes every day. This intensive working schedule was not ideal. From my obser-
vation, the participants showed great enthusiasm during the beginning writing ses-
sions. As the days passed, some began to show signs of fatigue, and sometimes even
loss of interest. Future studies should consider reducing the number of sessions if
possible. Second, the four picture prompts for each session were selected specifical-
ly for this research. Although they had previously been viewed by two students who
were similar to the participants in age, this is no guarantee that they would be inter-
esting to study participants, which in turn could affect writing fluency. Third, each
session was limited to 30 minutes. This time limit was arbitrary rather than based on
each participant’s actual attention span. Since students with LD tend to have a short
attention span and cannot focus on a task for a long time, a 30-minute writing ses-
sion might not be an appropriate length for a participant to remain on task. Fourth,
90
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 91
because of the study design, a small sample size was used. This has inevitably limit-
ed the power of the study to generalize the results to other individuals with different
characteristics and in different settings. Future replications are needed to help deter-
mine the effectiveness of this intervention for other individuals and eventually to
establish generalizability.
CONCLUSIONS
This study examined the effects of the story map and story map questions
on the story writing of students with LD. Although studies abound that explore the
writing development of students with LD and the use of instructional strategies to
improve students’ writing performance, relatively few empirical studies have inves-
tigated the direct instructional effect of using story mapping and facilitative cues on
students’ writing fluency and word diversity. Further, the findings of these studies
are far from conclusive.
The findings of the present study provide evidence that the use of a story
map and story map questions was effective in improving the narrative writing flu-
ency of some students with learning disabilities. Three of the four participants dra-
matically increased the number of T-units in their stories. The fourth participant did
not demonstrate improvement in writing fluency. This may be because fluency was
not as much a problem to him at the beginning of the study as it was to the other
participants. Regarding the second research question about the word diversity in
story writing, the findings of this study did not provide evidence that the story map-
ping strategy positively affected students’ performance. While two participants
increased the type/token ratio to some extent, the ratios of the other two participants
remained relatively unchanged.
In light of these findings, it may be concluded that story mapping and
story map questions is a useful tool for improving story writing fluency of students
with LD. The strategy may also be used effectively for helping students write stories
that are more complete and contain more story elements. Writing teachers are
encouraged to use the strategy to teach story structure and story writing. However,
for students who are weak in word usage, story mapping and story map questions
may not be useful. To help students increase word diversity in story writing, other
effective strategies that focus on word usage should be sought and combined with
story maps and story map questions.
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise. In R. C.
Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowl-
edge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bain, A. M., Bailet, L. L., & Moats, L. C. (1991). Written language disorders: Theory into prac-
tice. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Barenbaum, E. M., Newcomer, P. L., & Nodine, B. F. (1987). Children’s ability to write stories
as a function of variation in task, age, and developmental level. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 10, 175-188.
Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: effects on the read-
ing comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education,
33, 2-17, 28.
91
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 92
Graves, A., & Hauge, R. (1993). Using cues and prompts to improve story writing. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 25, 38-40.
Graves, A., Semmel, M., & Gerber, M. (1994). The effects of story prompts on the narrative
production of students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 17, 154-164.
Hammill, D. D., & Bryant, B. R. (1998). Learning Disabilities Diagnostic Inventory (LDDI).
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Houck, C. K., & Billingsley, B. S. (1989). Written expression of students with and without
learning disabilities: Differences across the grades. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22,
561-567.
Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading com-
prehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 214-229.
Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Laughton, J., & Morris, N. (1989). Story grammar knowledge of learning disabled students.
Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 87-95.
MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing under three
methods of text production: Hand-writing, word processing, and dictation. The Journal
of Special Education, 21, 22-41.
Montague, M., & Leavell, A. G. (1994). Improving the narrative writing of students with
learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 21-33.
Montague, M., Maddux, C., & Dereshiwsky, M. (1990). Story grammar and comprehension
and production of narrative prose by students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Morris, N. T., & Crump, D. T. (1982). Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written
language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 163-172.
Newcomer, P. L., & Barenbaum, E. M. (1991). The written composing ability of children
with learning disabilities: A review of the literature from 1980 to 1990. Journal of
Nodine, B. F., Barenbaum, E., & Newcomer, P. (1985). Story composition by learning dis-
abled, reading disabled and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 167-179.
Polloway, E. A., & Smith, T. E. C. (1992). Language instruction for students with disabilities
(2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Poplin, M., Gray, R., Larsen, S., Banikowski, A., & Mehring, T. (1980). A comparison of com-
ponents of written expression abilities in learning disabled and non-learning disabled
children at three grade levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 46-53.
Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. New York:
Macmillan.
Thomas, C. C., Englert, C. S., & Gregg, S. (1987). An analysis of errors and strategies in the
expository writing of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 21-
30.
Vallecorsa, A., & deBettencourt, L. (1997). Using a mapping procedure to teach reading and
writing skills to middle grade students with learning disabilities. Education and
Treatment of Children, 20, 173-188.
Zipprich, M. (1995). Teaching web making as a guided planning tool to improve student
narrative writing. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 3-15.
Submitted: September 8, 2006

Revised: December 21, 2006
Accepted: February 17, 2007
92
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 93
Appendix
Characters: Time:
Who was the main character? When did it happen?
Can you describe him/her?
Any other important people? Who?
Place:
Where did it happen?
The Goal:
What was the story about?
What did the main character want?
The Problem:
What was the central problem?
What difficulty did the main character meet?
Event: How did the main character try to solve the

problem?
What were the consequences?
How did other characters react?
What did they say or do?
Event: What did the main character do next?

What happened next?
Did the main character meet new problems?
Event: Then what happened?

What did the main character do?
Outcome: How did the story end?

Did the main character solve the problem?
Was it a happy ending?
Was the ending a surprise?
93
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 94
NEW CD FOR PEDIATRICIANS
“The physician and the child with learning disabilities”
Order your copy today!
Pediatricians, and other primary care providers, need to develop an organized

approach to assessment and understand how the education system works if
they are going to help the child with a learning disability succeed. That is what
this CD is all about. It is one of many important resources available to physi-
cians, providing a concise overview of the current scientific understanding of
causes and treatment of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Worldwide is
committed to helping both the medical community and the general public
learn more about learning disabilities and how we can help our children grow
and learn successfully.
Price for members: $12.99 (includes shipping & handling)
Price for non-members: $19.99 (includes shipping & handling)
Number of CD’s ordering: Total amount: $
Name
Address
Telephone email
Please make check payable and mail to: LDW, P.O. Box 142, Weston, MA 02493
VISA MC AMEX Account # Exp Date
Signature of cardholder
Please print name

LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 95
OLD
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 96
OLD
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 97
our newest publication!
Research to Practice:
Effective Interventions in Learning Disabilities
This book describes the best, up-to-date and well-validated interventions for
struggling learners. Each chapter is devoted to a specific intervention which is
thoroughly described for teachers and practitioners. The book will be of inter-
est to teachers who may use any of the proposed interventions for changing
classroom behaviors and achievement of struggling learners.
EDITORS Georgios D. Sideridis

Teresa Allissa Citro
FOREWORD Robert Slavin
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS
Robert Brooks Craig A. Michaels
Bryan G. Cook Paul L. Morgan
Richard J. Cowan Angeliki Mouzaki
Christine A. Espin Pete Peterson
Barbara R. Foorman Kristi Santi
Douglas Fuchs Georgios D. Sideridis
Kere Hughes Melody Tankersley
Erica S. Lembke Gloria Lodato Wilson
Howard Margolis Caresa Young
781-890-5399 or visit
For more information, call LDW at
www.ldworldwide.org
ORDER YOUR COPY NOW!
LDCJ 2-13-07v4.qxp 2/21/07 10:35 PM Page 98
Proudly Announces the Newest Addition

to its Website www.ldworldwide.org
University Access
An Exclusive site for University Professors and

their Students
Free access to articles by leading researchers on current

practices, theories, trends, and issues in the field of
learning disabilities.
These articles originally published in the premier journals

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal and
Insights on Learning Disabilities: From Prevailing
Theories to Validated Practices provide the most up-to-date
information on diagnoses, identification, assessment,
interventions, policy, and other related issues on LD.
View publication stats

Strategy Instruction in Reading Comprehension: An Intervention Study For Students With Learning Disabilities

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Strategy Instruction in Reading Comprehension: An Intervention Study For Students With Learning Disabilities

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Strategy instruction in reading comprehension: An intervention

Article · January 2007

Faye Antoniou Elmar Souvignier

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

web-based Progress monitoring / curriculum-based measurement View project

Progress Monitoring in Schools View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal

Dress for Success.

Landmark School is recognized internationally as a leader in the field of language-based

ACADEMIC YEAR PROGRAM

Embracing Potential. Empowering Lives.

Education Professionals and Parents

August 21-22, 2007, 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM

August 23, 2007

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

Self-Regulated Strategy Development:

Many students find writing extremely difficult and frustrating because

riting is an extremely powerful tool in our culture because it facilitates com-

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

Clearly, many students would benefit from high-quality instruction that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criterion-based instruction. Effective SRSD instruction is based on per-

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

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

Stage One: Develop Background Knowledge

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

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

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

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

Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57,

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

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

Received May 1, 2006

Place Value and Mathematics for Students with

Place value is a phenomenon that has ominous implications for develop-

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 1. Task description for Ross tasks.

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

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

A further examination of the levels of performance on Tasks B and D by the

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

Place value and alternative algorithms. Arithmetic is typically presented to

4. 125 5. 414 6. 253

The students are instructed to provide the correct answer.

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

A second teacher has also prepared a quiz of six items.

ABC ABC ABC