“An adjective is a word hanging down from a noun”: Learning to write and students with learning...

“An adjective is a word hanging down from a noun”:Learning to write and students with learning disabilities

Karen R. Harris & Steve Graham

Received: 10 November 2009 /Accepted: 14 July 2011 /Published online: 13 October 2011# The International Dyslexia Association 2011

Abstract By the upper elementary grades, writing becomes an essential tool both forlearning and for showing what you know. Students who struggle significantly with writingare at a terrible disadvantage. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progressindicate that only 25% of students can be classified as competent writers; students withlearning disabilities (LD) have even greater problems with writing than their normallyachieving peers and frequently demonstrate a deteriorating attitude toward writing after theprimary grades. In this article, we focus on composing and the writing process, andexamine the knowledge base about writing development and instruction among studentswith LD. We address what research tells us about skilled writers and the development ofwriting knowledge, strategies, skill, and the will to write, and how this relates to studentswith LD. Next, we summarize what has been learned from research on writingdevelopment, effective instruction, and the writing abilities of students with LD in termsof effective instruction for these students. Finally, we indicate critical areas for futureresearch.

Keywords Learning disabilities . Self-regulated strategy development .

Strategies instruction . Writing . Writing instruction

Writing is such a critical aspect of human history that historians distinguish between prehistoryand history, with history defined by the invention of writing over 5,000 years ago (Harris,Graham, Brindle, & Sandmel, 2009; Swedlow, 1999). Students who struggle significantly withwriting are at a terrible disadvantage. By the upper elementary grades, writing becomes anessential tool both for learning and for showing what you know. Writing is one of the primarycornerstones on which content learning is built (Graham & Harris, 2011; Lane, Harris,Graham, Weisenbach, Brindle, & Morphy, 2008). Writing allows us to gather, explore, refine,organize, extend, preserve, and transmit information and understandings; make ideas available

Ann. of Dyslexia (2013) 63:65–79DOI 10.1007/s11881-011-0057-x

K. R. Harris (*) : S. GrahamDepartment of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37069, USAe-mail: [email protected]

for consideration, evaluation, and future discourse; and demonstrate our knowledge. Writingprovides a powerful mechanism for communication, self-expression, and self-reflection andcan be beneficial both psychologically and physiologically (Graham, Harris, & MacArthur,2004; Smyth, 1998).

Students who struggle with writing, including those with learning disabilities (LD), maynot be able to draw on its power to support learning and development. Significantchallenges with writing may impede students from meeting their educational, occupational,or personal potential. Lack of competence in writing puts students at risk for school failure,and the consequences extend beyond the school years (Graham & Harris, 2011). High-levelliteracy skills are required for most jobs that pay a living wage today, with this likely toincrease over the near future (Berman, 2001; Kirsch, Braun, Yamamoto, & Sum, 2007).Significant difficulties with writing can also interfere with students participating fully insocial and civic activities as forms of writing (e.g., emailing, texting, blogging, and so on)have become an important part of participation in community and social life.

In this article, we examine aspects of the knowledge base about writing development andinstruction among students with LD, focusing on the composing process (for detaileddiscussions of research and practice in the areas of spelling, handwriting, and other aspectsof writing and writing instruction, please see Berninger, Nielsen, et al. 2008; Berninger,Rutberg, Abbott, Garcia, Anderson-Youngstrom, Brooks, & Fulton, 2006; Graham,MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007; MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006; Troia, 2006).First, we summarize the research base regarding the difficulties many students in ourschools experience as they work to learn the writing process and the further difficultiesfaced by students with LD. We also explore characteristics of writing instruction in ourschools today that contribute to the difficulties many students with LD, and others,experience with writing. We address what research tells us about skilled writers and thedevelopment of writing knowledge, strategies, skill, and the will to write, and how thisrelates to students with LD. Next, we summarize what has been learned from research onwriting development, effective instruction, and the writing abilities of students with LD interms of effective instruction for these students. Finally, we indicate critical areas for futureresearch.

Writing and students with LD

The number of children with a writing disability is not clear (Graham & Harris, 2005a). Wedo know, however, that writing is one of the most difficult academic areas for students tomaster. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) illustrate thedifficulty American students have with writing: the majority of 4th, 8th, and 12th gradestudents failed to demonstrate mastery of the writing abilities needed at their grade levels in1998, 2002, and 2007. Only 25% of students were classified as competent writers in 2002(Persky, Daane, & Jin, 2003); in 2007, only 6% of 8th grade and 5% of 12th grade studentsscored at or above the proficient level in writing (Salahu-Din, Persky, & Miller, 2008). Themajority of students in American schools demonstrate significant difficulties with narrative,expository, and persuasive writing (Applebee, Langer, Mullis, Latham, & Gentile, 1994;Applebee, Langer, Jenkins, Mullis, & Foertsch, 1990). In addition, students frequentlydemonstrate a deteriorating attitude toward writing, even though most children begin schoolwith a positive attitude toward composing (Applebee, Langer, & Mullis, 1986).

Students with LD have even greater problems with writing than their normally achievingpeers and frequently demonstrate a negative attitude toward writing after the primary grades

66 K.R. Harris, S. Graham

(Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, Stevens, & Fear, 1991; Harris, Graham, & Mason,2003). Students with learning problems produce writing that is less polished, expansive,coherent, and effective than that of their normally achieving peers (Graham & Harris,2002). Research indicates that these students lack critical knowledge of the writing process,writing strategies, and self-regulation of the writing process; have difficulty generatingideas and selecting topics; do little to no advance planning; engage in knowledge telling;lack important strategies for planning, producing, organizing, and revising text; havedifficulties with mechanics that interfere with the writing process; emphasize mechanicsover content when making revisions; and frequently overestimate their writing abilities(Harris & Graham, 1999). Our understanding of the difficulties all students, including thosewith LD, experience with writing has been strongly influenced by research on the writingprocess.

Understanding the writing process

Early models of writing portrayed it as a relatively simplistic, straightforward, linearactivity (Zimmerman & Reisemberg, 1997). Since 1980, a great deal of research has beendone on the writing process and the development of writing abilities, giving us a betterunderstanding of both the demands of the writing process and how to support developmentof writing abilities. Researchers have examined differences between novice and skilledwriters, and have developed influential models of the writing process (Bereiter &Scardamalia, 1987; Hayes, 1996; Hayes & Flower, 1980; Zimmerman & Reisemberg,1997). Skilled writing is now understood as a complex activity involving the activation andmanagement of a variety of processes. We turn to the characteristics and capabilities ofskilled writers next as these help researchers and practitioners develop appropriate goals forthe development of writing among students with LD. In addition, this research has helpedestablish important components of instruction in writing for students with LD, including theuse of strategies instruction in writing.

Skilled writers

Among skilled writers, writing is a flexible, goal-directed activity that is supported by a richknowledge of cognitive processes and strategies for planning, drafting, text production, andrevising. Skilled writers engage in purposeful and active self-regulation and attentioncontrol. They negotiate the rules and mechanics of writing while maintaining a focus onimportant aspects of writing such as organization, form and features of the written product,purposes and goals, readers’ needs and perspectives, evaluation of the writing process andproduct, and communication between author and reader (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987;Graham, 2006; Harris & Graham, 1992).

Although more research is needed, we now see skilled writing as a recursive problem-solvingprocess that, in part, entails three basic cognitive processes: planning what to say and how to sayit, translating plans into written text, and reviewing what is written to evaluate and revise thewritten product. Furthermore, the writer must monitor these cognitive processes and theirrecursive use. Thus, skilled writers develop further goals for their writing as they write,allowing planning to interrupt translation and requiring reorganization. They may also find thatfurther planning is evoked during editing or reviewing text, leading to additional reorganizing.Many recursive activities and integrations among these three basic cognitive processes arepossible (cf. Hayes & Flower, 1980).

Learning to write and students with learning disabilities 67

Skilled writers also carefully consider the writing task and engage in knowledgetransformation rather than simple knowledge telling (Scardamalia &Bereiter, 1987). Knowledgetelling is a more simplified process used by novice writers in which they first consider the task athand by defining the topic and function of the text to be produced. They then consider two typesof knowledge available to them: what they know about the topic and what they know about thetype of text to be produced. Novice writers then engage in knowledge telling, basicallyretrieving content from long-term memory or materials gathered and then writing it down.

More developed, or expert, writers use a far more complex process, referred to as knowledgetransforming (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). The knowledge transforming approach towriting involves a deeper understanding of the writing task, or mental representation of thewriting assignment. Skilled writers consider rhetorical (e.g., considerations of style, effect onreader), communicative (e.g., major points to be made, scope and breadth of content), andpragmatic (e.g., space, time for writing) goals and constraints. These writers then engage inproblem analysis and goal setting to determine what to say (content planning), how to say it,and who to say it to (rhetorical process planning). As the writing task is analyzed, skilledwriters set content and rhetorical goals and then decide on means to reach these goals. Duringplanning, skilled writers retrieve and transform knowledge about what they plan to say(content knowledge), as well as knowledge about their audience and how to say it (discourseknowledge).

For more skilled writers, content knowledge and discourse knowledge interact duringcontent and rhetorical planning as text is produced. Written text is analyzed and the resultinginformation is fed back into the writer’s understanding of the task, problem analysis, and goalsetting; this allows for additional opportunities to engage in content and rhetorical planning andfurther knowledge transformation. Thus, the writing process is quite different for novice andexpert writers (Harris, Graham, Brindle, & Sandmel, 2009).

Beyond knowledge transforming

We have learned more about the differences between novice and skilled writers, however,than the use of knowledge telling versus knowledge transforming (MacArthur et al., 2006).Research has demonstrated the importance of motivation for writing and many factors thatinfluence motivation, including goals, predispositions and attitudes about writing, beliefs,and self-efficacy for writing (Hayes, 1996; Graham, 2006; Harris & Graham, 1996). Wealso understand the important role that genre knowledge plays in writing, including taskschemas that specify how to carry out particular tasks and the importance of both workingand long-term memory for effective writing (Graham & Harris, 2011; Harris et al., 2003;Troia, 2006). We also understand that aspects of the writing task and environment must becarefully considered, such as materials available and text read, collaborators, and themedium for writing (paper or word processor). In addition, skilled writers exhibit extensiveself-regulation of the writing process and attentional control (Harris & Graham, 2009;Harris, Graham, MacArthur, Reid, & Mason, 2011; Zimmerman & Reisemberg, 1997).

In summary, skilled writers draw upon a rich store of knowledge, cognitive processes,and strategies for planning, text production, and revision to achieve their goals during therecursive, self-regulated, problem-solving writing process (Harris & Graham, 2009). Today,we see writing as a cognitive, linguistic, affective, behavioral, and physical process setwithin a larger social and cultural context (Harris & Graham, 2009; Harris, Graham,MacArthur, Reid, & Mason, 2011). Developing understanding of novice and skilled writershas helped us investigate and understand writing development, challenges often faced bystudents with LD, and effective writing instruction.


Writing development, effective instruction, and challenges for students with LD

Although writing and its development are not yet fully understood, research on thedevelopment of expertise, including research on writing, has helped us understand the roadto becoming a skilled writer (Graham & Harris, 2011; Graham et al., 2004). Clearly,expertise in writing does not develop easily. Development of writing skills and abilitiestakes time and depends upon changes in students’ knowledge, strategies, skills, and will.Knowledge includes knowledge of the writing process, different genres, and writing topics.Strategies for both writing and self-regulation of the writing process must also develop toallow students to achieve their writing goals and overcome barriers. Skills needed forproducing and crafting text, including handwriting, spelling, word processing, sentence andparagraph construction, and so on, are critical to development as a writer. The will to write,the motivation to engage in the writing process, is influenced by factors including students’attitudes and beliefs about writing and themselves as writers, their self-efficacy for writing,and their ability to energize and direct their thoughts and actions.

Thus, an effective program for writing development takes places across ages and grades anddirectly addresses knowledge, strategies, skills, and will. Based on the NAEP performance ofour students, however, classroom writing instruction is inadequate to support this developmentand foster important changes in knowledge, strategies, skills, and will (Graham & Harris,2005a; Olinghouse, Graham, & Harris, 2010). Five areas have been identified as challengingto most students: (a) generation of content, (b) creating an organizing structure forcompositions, (c)formulation of goals and higher level plans, (d) quickly and efficientlyexecuting the mechanical aspects of writing, and (e) revising text and reformulating goals(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986). Researchers have identified numerous contributions to thestate of writing instruction and achievement in this country, some of which we briefly notehere (Graham, 2006; Graham & Harris, 2009a, b, 2011).

Barriers to writing development

Teacher preparation

Teachers of elementary through high school students commonly express a lack of preparation toteach writing and report that little emphasis on writing existed in their preparation programs(National Commission on Writing, 2003). Teachers across the grade levels also indicate lackof deep understanding of differing writing genres and tasks, infrequent use of evidence-basedwriting practices in their classrooms, use of brief writing assignments rather than sustainedwriting requiring analysis and interpretation (and thus, knowledge transformation), little timespent on writing instruction, little individualization in writing instruction and lack ofadaptations for struggling writers, and, for some, a dislike for writing and writing instruction(Applebee & Langer, 2006; Graham, 2006; Graham & Harris, 2011).

Approaches to writing instruction

Another factor that appears to have impacted our students’ writing performance has beenthe whole language and writers’ workshop movements. These movements developed inresponse to the product-oriented model of writing instruction that prevailed in Americanschools until the late 1980s (Applebee et al., 1990; Harris & Graham, 1992). Mechanicsand grammar tended to be emphasized over content and process in the product-orientedmodel. Furthermore, writing was given limited time and attention, and students were not


given sufficient opportunities to engage in sustained writing. The processes and strategiesinvolved in writing were not emphasized in instruction, and little was done to promote theirdevelopment. First drafts were often final drafts, read only by the teacher—who primarilymarked errors in mechanics and assigned grades. Furthermore, the important roles thatwriting plays in learning and communicating were often neglected (Harris, Graham, &Mason, 2003).

Writers’ workshop, whole language, or process writing approaches emphasize creating anenvironment where students have time not only to write but also to think and reflect upon whatthey are writing about (Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2003). Instruction takes place in asupportive environment; students are encouraged to choose their own topics, help each other,and take risks. Students are given choice regarding the writing task and opportunities forextended writing. Writing is seen as a process, and a first draft as a beginning. Writingconferences, peer collaboration, mini-lessons, modeling, sharing, and classroom dialogue arecommon elements of this approach. While definitions and practices vary widely under theterms whole language, writers’ workshop, and process writing, many approaches rejectexplicit instruction. Advocates of these approaches believe that through rich immersion inauthentic learning experiences, children will come to learn all they need to know, and developall of the skills and abilities they need, in due developmental time. Learning to read and writeis believed to occur naturally within such environments. Little or no explicit, focused, orisolated instruction and practice in basic skills or strategies may occur, although skills areaddressed within the context of meaningful learning activities. Instruction in process writingclassrooms often involves capitalizing on teachable moments and mini-lessons.

While process writing, whole language, or writers’ workshop approaches may be all thesupport that some students need to help them develop the knowledge, skills, strategies, andwill needed to write, this is not the case for many students, including many students withLD. Research indicates that typical writers’ workshop approaches do not offer theextensive, explicit, and supported instruction students need to master important writingstrategies and abilities (Graham & Harris, 1994; Harris & Graham, 1994).

Writers’ workshop, whole language, and process writing approaches have become apredominant approach to writing instruction in many schools in our country and may be afactor strongly affecting writing performance. We have argued, however, that explicit,focused, and highly scaffolded instruction needs to be provided to the extent needed byindividual students (Harris & Graham, 1994). Explicitness and structure, however, do notnecessarily equate with isolated skills training, decontextualized learning of subskills,passive learning, or the gradual accruing of basic skills (Harris & Graham, 1994). Webelieve that explicit, focused instruction in writing must, however, be integrated into thelarger literacy context. Many teachers and other writing process advocates agree with thispoint, integrating more explicit instruction within the process approach to writing.

Additional factors

Finally, social, contextual, and biological factors have also been found to impact writingdevelopment, although more research is needed here. Children from poorer families tend tobe weaker writers than their more affluent peers. Girls tend to be stronger writers than boys,although it is unclear whether, or what, biological and social factors are important in thisdifference. Finally, writing development and instruction has long taken a backseat toreading and math in terms of a host of interrelated and important factors, including researchfunding, time allocated in schools, curriculum development, educational reform, andnational attention (Graham & Harris, 2005a; Harris, Graham, Brindle & Sandmel, 2009).


These issues help us understand why writing is difficult across the grade levels for somany students in our schools and why writing achievement is a concern in this country. Tounderstand why students with LD, as noted earlier, face challenges in writing beyond thosetypical to all students, we must look further. As we and others have argued elsewhere(Harris, 1982; Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2003; Harris & Pressley, 1991), the challengesfaced by students with LD (and other struggling learners) are complex. Research indicatesthat as students’ learning and behavioral challenges become more significant, developmentof knowledge, strategies, skills, and will becomes more complex and demanding. Studentswith significant learning challenges, such as LD, often require more extensive, structured,and explicit instruction to develop skills, strategies (including academic, social, and self-regulation strategies), and understandings that their peers form more easily. Instructionmust deliberately and directly address these students’ affective, behavioral, andcognitive characteristics, strengths, and needs (Harris, 1982; Harris & Graham, 1994).Furthermore, these students must be given the extended time they need to learn and developcritical abilities.

Challenges for students with LD

In terms of writing, research has indicated that students with LD experience difficulties withmany of the processes and abilities needed for skilledwriting.We know that many students withLD have difficulty with executive function and self-regulation, including the self-regulation oforganized, strategic behaviors (for detailed discussion of executive function and self-regulationamong students with LD, see Graham, Harris, & Olinghouse, 2007; Graham & Harris, 1996;Harris & Graham, 1996). They may have difficulty comprehending task demands, producingeffective task strategies, and using strategies to mediate performance (Harris & Graham,1992). Some may not have developed, or may experience difficulties using, appropriate self-speech, an important aspect of self-regulation, to guide behavior (Harris, 1986). Goal setting,self-reinforcement, self-assessment, and self-monitoring are also often challenging for manystudents with LD (Reid & Lienenmann, 2006).

Many students with LD and other struggling learners also experience reciprocal relationshipsamong academic failure, self-doubts, learned helplessness, maladaptive attributions, unrealisticpre-task expectancies, low self-efficacy, and low motivation. Difficulties with attention;impulsivity; working short-term, and long-term memory or other aspects of informationprocessing; low task engagement and persistence; devaluation of learning; and low productivityare also among the problems these students and their teachers may need to deal with(cf. Berninger, Nielson, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008; De La Paz, 2007: Harris, Graham,& Mason, 2003; Swanson & Berninger, 1996; Troia, 2006).

When the cognitive, affective, and behavioral challenges faced by students with LD arecarefully considered within the context of the challenges to effective writing instruction in ourschools today, the status of writing achievement among students with LD is hardly surprising.The research and literature we have reviewed, however, has helped direct further research oneffective writing instruction for all students, and in particular for those with LD and otherstruggling writers. We turn now to what we have learned and what we can do.

Effective writing instruction for students with LD

Effective writing instruction for students with LD, and other struggling writers, begins withevidence-based, effective writing practices for all students. Unfortunately, research indicates


that many of these practices are not strongly evident in schools and classrooms (Graham &Harris, 2009a; Olinghouse et al., 2010). This can also be described as research-basedguidelines for effective writing instruction at the primary, or preventive, level. Althoughmore research is needed, Olinghouse et al. synthesized current research and presented 20research-based recommendations for effective writing programs in the general educationsetting (see Table 1).

Research indicates the importance of teachers creating a positive writing environmentand establishing high expectations for all students (Olinghouse et al., 2010). Time needs tobe dedicated to the development of abilities for a wide variety of text types, includingwriting across the curriculum. Meaningful time needs to be allocated to writing, and writingactivities should be thoughtful, helping students stay on task and engaged. Writing activitiescan include process-based experiences, inquiry-based activities, or examining models ofgood writing. Teachers also need to address instructional factors including teaching to

Table 1 Research-based recommendations for effective writing programs in the general education setting

1 Explicitly teach students strategies for planning, revising, and editing their compositions.

2 Explicitly teach students strategies and procedures for summarizing reading material as thisimproves their ability to concisely and accurately present this information in writing.

3 Develop instructional arrangements where students collaborate to plan, draft, revise,and edit their compositions.

4 Use word processing as a primary tool for writing, as it has a positive influence on what students write.

5 Explicitly teach students how to write increasingly more complex sentences. Instruction in combiningsimpler sentences into more sophisticated ones enhances the quality of students writing.

6 Implement a process writing approach.

7 Involve students in writing activities designed to sharpen their skills of inquiry.

8 Engage students in activities that help them gather and organize ideas for their compositionsbefore they write a first draft.

9 Provide students with good models for each type of writing focused on instruction.

10 Avoid teaching grammar using formal methods, such as studying parts of speech, sentencediagramming, and so forth.

11 Dedicate time to writing, with writing occurring across the curriculum.

12 Involve students in various forms of writing over time.

13 Encourage students to treat writing as a process, where they plan, draft, revise, edit, and share their work.

14 Keep students engaged and on task by involving them in thoughtful activities, such as planning, versusactivities that do not require thoughtfulness, such as completing a quick workbook page.

15 Mix teaching to the whole class with teaching to small groups and one-on-one instruction withindividual students; this includes teaching students how to plan, draft, and revise as wellas teaching more basic writing skills.

16 Model, explain, and provide guidance and scaffolding when teaching.

17 Provide just enough support so that students can make progress or carry out writing tasks and processes,but encourage students to act in self-regulated fashion, doing as much as they can on their own.

18 Be enthusiastic about writing and create a positive environment, where students are encouraged to tryhard, believe that the skills and strategies they are learning will permit them to write well, and attributesuccess to effort and the strategies they are learning.

19 Set high expectations for students, encouraging them to surpass their previous efforts andaccomplishments.

20 Adapt writing assignments and instruction to better meet the needs of individual students.

Based on Olinghouse et al. (2010)


varying group sizes, adapting writing instruction and assignments to meet the needs ofindividual students, and structuring collaborative work among students. Explicit and systematicinstruction should be provided; students should be taught specific writing skills and strategies toimprove the abilities to plan, write, edit, revise, summarize, and use complex sentences.Teachers should model the writing process and scaffold instruction to meet the needs ofindividual students. Finally, by the upper elementary grades, students should use wordprocessing as a primary writing tool (Olinghouse et al., 2010).

Evidence-based practices for students with LD and other struggling writers

Researchers have also addressed effective practices for students who struggle significantlywith writing, including those with LD (cf. Graham, 2010; Graham & Perin, 2007a, 2007b;Rogers & Graham, 2008). Table 2 includes nine research-based recommendations forstudents with LD (Olinghouse et al., 2010). The research base, however, is not yet sufficientto determine which of these practices will work best at tier 2 (typically small group, high-intensity instruction occurring in either the general education classroom or outside of theclassroom) or tier 3 (more intensive and individualized instruction, which may includespecial education services).

Students with LD who struggle with handwriting, spelling, or typing should receive furtherexplicit instruction in these skills (Olinghouse et al., 2010; Troia, 2006). These students alsoprofit from assistance in setting clear and specific goals for writing. Priority should be givento instructional techniques, such as strategies instruction in writing (e.g., the self-regulatedstrategy development, or SRSD, approach), that improve overall writing quality. Discretewriting skills, including sentence and paragraph construction skills, editing abilities, and basicwriting skills (e.g., capitalization or punctuation skills) may require extra instruction (whichcan be embedded within the larger writing curriculum). These students also often benefit fromreinforcement and self-monitoring strategies to improve writing output and quality.

SRSD and students with LD

Because of the relatively large research base on the SRSD model of strategies instruction forstudents with LD and other struggling writers, and the research support for this approach, we

Table 2 Research-based recommendations for students with LD

1 Set clear and specific goals for what struggling writers are to accomplish in their writing.

2 Explicitly teach handwriting, spelling, and typing to students who experience difficultyacquiring these skills.

3 Explicitly teach students strategies for planning and revising their compositions using the SRSD model.

4 Reinforce positive aspects of struggling writers’ compositions.

5 Explicitly teach students strategies for constructing paragraphs.

6 Explicitly teach students strategies for editing their compositions.

7 Explicitly teach students formulas for constructing sentences.

8 Explicitly and directly teach struggling writers basic writing skills, such as capitalization,punctuation, sentence construction, and so forth.

9 Encourage struggling writers to monitor one or more aspects of their writing performanceto determine how well they are doing.

Based on Olinghouse et al. (2010)


turn to it here. SRSD was developed with the strengths, characteristics, and needs of studentswith LD in mind (see Harris, 1982; Harris & Graham, 1985, 2009 for a detailed discussion ofhow SRSD addresses issues in the characteristics we have noted, including metacognition,executive function, self-regulation, motivation, memory, and attention). Although SRSD hasbeen used as an instructional approach in math and reading as well, the majority of SRSDresearch has been in the area of writing (Harris et al., 2009). Several recursive stages ofinstruction are used in SRSD to develop genre-specific and general writing and self-regulationstrategies. SRSD was also developed, and continues to be refined, based on research onmodels of writing and the writing process, as well as research on novice, struggling, andexpert writers. Goals and elements of instruction are individualized based on students’ needsand capabilities. Supports are provided for both working and long-term memory, andattributions to effort and strategy use are explicitly developed to improve self-efficacy.Students are active collaborators in the development of knowledge, strategies, skills, and will.They are given the time they need to learn and develop critical writing and self-regulationabilities as instruction is criterion-referenced rather than time-based. SRSD has been usedsuccessfully with entire classes, small groups, and individual students.

SRSD has met the criteria for evidence-based practice as established by a panel ofindependent researchers (Baker, Chard, Ketterlin-Geller, Apichatabutra, & Doabler, 2009).Meta-analyses have indicated that SRSD has had the strongest impact of any strategiesinstruction approach in writing and is among the strongest currently researchedinterventions for writing (Graham & Perin, 2007a, 2007b). SRSD research has resulted inthe development of writing strategies for a wide variety of genres, though by no means allgenres students may face (Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander, 2008). These includepersonal narratives, story writing, opinion and persuasive writing, report writing, expositoryessays, and demands of state writing tests. SRSD has resulted in meaningful improvementsin students’ understanding and use of planning and revising strategies, includingbrainstorming, self-monitoring, reading for information and semantic webbing, generatingand organizing writing content, advanced planning and dictation, collaborative revisingwith peers, and revising for both substance and mechanics (Graham, 2006; Harris, Graham,Brindle, & Sandmel, 2009). Research has shown meaningful improvements in five mainaspects of students’ writing performance: genre elements included in writing, quality ofwriting, knowledge of writing, approach to writing (e.g., time spent planning), and self-efficacy. Across genres, the quality, length, and structure of students’ compositions haveimproved. Recently, Mason and her colleagues have expanded SRSD research to addressexpository reading comprehension and the co-development of expository reading andwriting strategies and abilities (cf. Mason, 2004; Mason, Hickey Snyder, Sukhram, &Kedem, 2006).

Six stages of instruction are used to develop the knowledge, skills, and writing and self-regulation strategies students need in the SRSD approach. Motivation for writing is alsoaddressed across these stages in several ways, including self-monitoring of visible improvementin aspects of writing, use of self-speech to address difficulties encountered in the writingprocess, self-reinforcement, and the development of attributions for effort and strategy use.Throughout the stages, teachers and students collaborate on the acquisition, implementation,evaluation, and modification of these strategies. These stages are briefly presented next; theycan be reordered, combined, revisited, modified, or deleted based on individual students’ needs.Furthermore, aspects of instruction begun in one stage frequently continue into followingstages, and each stage typically requires more than one lesson (e.g., each stage does not indicatea single lesson). Harris, Graham, MacArthur, Reid, and Mason (2011) recently described thestages of SRSD instruction, as explained next.


Develop and activate background knowledge

Background knowledge and preskills, including critical vocabulary and understandingsstudents need to successfully understand, learn, and apply writing and self-regulationstrategies are developed in this stage. This typically continues through stages 2 and 3.Reading and discussing model texts and poor texts is important in this stage. This is also anappropriate time to help students identify whether their writing performance is hindered bynegative self-statements (“I’m no good at this”) and show them how to utilize positiveself-statements (“I can do this if I use the strategy and take my time”).

Discuss it

In the discussion stage, teachers and students continue to talk about what good writers do whenplanning, composing, or revising. Genre-specific elements or parts (e.g., a good topic sentence)that make writing effective and fun to read are noted. Teachers and students discuss thestrategies to be learned (such as a prewriting, planning strategy and a genre-specific strategy, cf.Harris et al., 2008; Sandmel, Brindle, Harris, Lane, Graham, Nackel, Mathias, & Little, 2009)and establish their goals and benefits. Teachers and students explore how and when thestrategy can be used; generalization begins to be supported by not limiting the discussion tothe current classroom or task at hand. The importance of student effort is emphasized toenhance motivation and facilitate the development of positive, adaptive attributions. Studentsmake a commitment to learn the strategy and act as collaborative partners in this endeavor.

Teachers may (this can be skipped or moved to a later point if appropriate) have studentsexamine and graph their current performance (e.g., counting how many elements of opinionessays were included in essays written before SRSD instruction). This is done in a positive,collaborative manner with emphasis on the fact that the students have not yet learned thenew “tricks” (we often initially refer to strategies as “tricks” for writing with youngerstudents) and changes that will be realized through strategy use. This is also a logical pointto introduce goal setting. Students are taught how to set personal, individual, and specificgoals for (a) learning the strategy, (b) using the strategy, and (c) maintaining strategy use.Goals are revisited frequently during other stages. Materials supporting strategy use (e.g.,mnemonic charts with strategy steps and graphic organizers for planning notes) andmaterials for supporting self-regulation (e.g., self-monitoring graphs) may be introduced atthis stage or later (see Harris et al., 2008).

Modeling

Modeling, typically collaborative modeling, is critical to effective SRSD instruction. Theteacher models the writing process aloud, with input and support from students, demonstratinghow and when to use the writing and self-regulation strategies throughout the writing process.The teacher models how to set specific goals for the writing task, self-monitor performance, andself-reinforce. Self-instructions for problem definition (“I need to write an opinion essay with8 parts”), focusing of attention and planning (“First, I need to pick an idea”), strategyimplementation (“I know what to do, I do the first strategy step”), self-evaluation (“Did Iinclude all strategy parts?”), coping (“I can do this, I know the strategy!”), and self-reinforcement (“Wow, I like this part of my essay!”) are used by the teacher while modeling.After modeling, the teacher assists students in developing a short list of selected personal self-instructions to be used before, during, and after writing (for greater detail, see Harris & Graham,1996). These self-instructions are recorded on a personal chart for use throughout instruction.


Some students may need to engage in collaborative modeling multiple times; peer models canbe used as appropriate.

Memorize it

Memorizing actually begins in the first stage as students participate in fun and engagingactivities to help them memorize the strategy steps (and corresponding mnemonics), themeaning of each step, and their personalized self-statements. At this stage of instruction,however, teachers need to be sure that students have memorized these and can explain theirimportance before moving into the next stage.

Support it

Initially, teachers support, or “scaffold,” students’ use of the writing and self-regulationstrategies as they compose together. As students gradually assume responsibility for usingthe writing and self-regulation strategies, teachers fade prompts, interaction, and guidanceas each student demonstrates independent and effective use of the strategy. Students self-monitor use of the writing strategy by determining the number of genre elements and othertargeted aspects of their compositions (such as use of good word choice, catchy openings,and so on) they have included in their composition, comparing this to their goal, andgraphing their performance. Students are encouraged to revise their graphic organizers anddrafts to meet goals as needed. Students progress through this stage at different rates.Throughout this stage, the students and teacher continue to plan for and initiategeneralization and maintenance of the strategies. This stage typically is the longest of thesix stages for students who have significant writing difficulties.

Independent performance

To demonstrate independence, students are provided opportunities to use their writing andself-regulation strategies without teacher support or prompts. Booster sessions, where thestrategies are reviewed, discussed, and supported again, can be used as necessary over timeto maintain the strategies. To establish generalization, students should be given theopportunity to use the writing and self-regulation strategies they have learned in novelsettings, with different teachers, and with other appropriate writing tasks.

SRSD is not a complete writing program or curriculum, but rather one effective element ofwriting instruction. Writing development is complex, and neither the development of self-regulation and writing strategies nor the SRSD approach should be thought of as a panacea(Harris, Graham, MacArthur, Reid, & Mason, 2011). We see SRSD as a beginning, gettingstudents “on the playing field,” but once students master initial strategies, they will need to goon to new goals. New strategies should be developed and previously learned strategiesmaintained and upgraded over time.

Space does not allow a more detailed description of SRSD instruction here, butnumerous resources are available. Detailed lesson plans and support materials areprovided in Harris et al. (2008); new strategies and instructional materials can be foundat http://hobbs.vanderbilt.edu/projectwrite. Detailed descriptions and further discussioncan be found in Harris and Graham (1996), Graham and Harris (2005b), Harris, Graham,and Mason (2003), and Sandmel et al. (2009). All of the stages of SRSD instruction canbe seen in both elementary and middle school classrooms in the video, “Teaching studentswith learning disabilities: Using learning strategies” (ASCD, 2002). Online interactive


http://hobbs.vanderbilt.edu/projectwrite

tutorials on SRSD are available at http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/index.html. Finally, a website devoted to strategies instruction can be found at http://www.unl.edu/csi/.

Future research and the continued development of writing instruction

As we have noted throughout this article, research on writing and students with LD hasbegun, but far more is needed. In spite of the advances we have made, we do not yet fullyunderstand either the writing process or writing development among either typicallydeveloping students or those with LD. Much remains to be learned about executivefunction, metacognition, and self-regulation in relationship to writing as well (Graham &Harris, 1996; Graham et al., 2007; Harris et al., 2009). More, and more powerful,interventions for students with LD and other struggling writers need to be developed.Longitudinal intervention research is sorely needed (Harris et al., 2009). The relationshipsbetween writing and reading, and how effective instruction can enhance both, need furtherresearch (Graham & Hebert, 2010). Assessment issues remain to be addressed (MacArthuret al., 2006). Teacher development for effective writing instruction also needs investigation,as does scaling up research-based practices into schools. Greater attention to, and fundingfor, writing research is needed (Harris & Graham, 2009; Harris et al., 2009).

As we know, writing development and effective writing instruction are based upon changesin students’ knowledge, strategies, skills, and will. The research-based interventions andrecommendations we have to date are important, but not sufficient. We must continueto work to develop writing instruction across the grades that results in flexible, goal-directed,self-regulated writing.

References

Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2006). The state of writing instruction: What existing data tell us. Albany:Center on English Learning and Achievement.

Applebee, A., Langer, J., & Mullis, I. (1986). The writing report card: Writing achievement in Americanschools. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

Applebee, A., Langer, J., Jenkins, L., Mullis, I., & Foertsch, M. (1990). Learning to write in our Nations’schools. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

Applebee, A., Langer, J., Mullis, I., Latham, A., & Gentile, C. (1994). NAEP 1992: Writing report card.Washington: US Government Printing Office.

ASCD (Producer) (2002). Teaching students with learning disabilities in the regular classroom: Using learningstrategies. (DVD). http://shop.ascd.org/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=1553, Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Baker, S. K., Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Apichatabutra, C., & Doabler, C. (2009). Teaching writingto at-risk students: The quality of evidence for self-regulated strategy development. ExceptionalChildren, 75(3), 303–318.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Berman, J. (2001). Industry output and employment projections to 2010. Monthly Labor Review, 124, 39–56.Berninger, V. W., Rutberg, J. E., Abbott, R. D., Garcia, N., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., Brooks, A., et al.

(2006). Tier 1 and tier 2 early intervention for handwriting and composing. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 44(1), 3–30.

Berninger, V. W., Nielson, K., Abbott, R., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008). Writing problems indevelopmental dyslexia: Underrecognized and undertreated. Journal of School Psychology, 46(1), 1–21.

De La Paz, S. (2007). Best practices in teaching writing to students with special needs. In S. Graham, C. A.MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 308–328). New York: Guilford.

Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L., Anthony, H., Stevens, D., & Fear, K. (1991). Making writingstrategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in writing in regular and special educationclassrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337–373.


http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/index.html

http://www.unl.edu/csi/

http://shop.ascd.org/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=1553

Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology(pp. 457–478). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing. P. Hogan (Ed.), Cambridge encyclopedia of language Sciences(pp. 848–851). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1994). The effects of whole language on children’s writing: A review ofliterature. Educational Psychologist, 29, 187–192.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1996). Addressing problems in attention, memory, and executive functioning:An example from self-regulated strategy development. In G. Reid Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.),Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 349–366). Baltimore: Brookes.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2002). Prevention and intervention for struggling writers. In M. Shinn, G.Stoner, & H. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive andremedial approaches (pp. 589–610). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005a). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learningdifficulties. Baltimore: Brookes.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005b). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers:Theoretical and programmatic research from the Center to Accelerate Student Learning. Journal ofSpecial Education, 39(1), 19–33.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2009a). Almost 30 years of writing research: Making sense of it all with TheWrath of Khan. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 58–68.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2009b). Evidence-based writing practices: Drawing recommendations frommultiple sources. British Journal of Educational Psychology (monograph series), 6, 95–111.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2011). Writing and students with disabilities. In L. Lloyd, J. Kauffman, & D.Hallahan (Eds.). Handbook of special education (pp. 422–433). London, UK: Routledge.

Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. Alliancefor Excellence in Education, Washington, DC (commissioned by the Carnegie Corp. of New York).

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 99, 445–476.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescent middleand high school. Alliance for Excellence in Education, Washington, DC (commissioned by the CarnegieCorp. of New York).

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & MacArthur, C. (2004). Writing instruction. In B. Wong (Ed.), Learning aboutlearning disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 281–313). Orlando: Academic.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Olinghouse, N. (2007). Addressing executive function problems in writing. InL. Meltzer (Ed.), Executive function in education: From theory to practice (pp. 216–236). New York:Guilford.

Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Best practices in writing instruction. NY: Guilford.Harris, K. R. (1982). Cognitive-behavior modification: Application with exceptional students. Focus on

Exceptional Children, 15(2), 1–16.Harris, K. R. (1986). The effects of cognitive-behavior modification on private speech and task performance

during problem solving among learning disabled and normally achieving children. Journal of AbnormalChild Psychology, 14, 63–76.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1985). Improving learning disabled students’ composition skills: Self-controlstrategy training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 27–36.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Self-regulated strategy development: A part of the writing process. In M.Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school(pp. 277–309). New York: Academic.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1994). Constructivism: Principles, paradigms, and integration. The Journal ofSpecial Education, 28, 233–247.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition andself-regulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Brookline Books.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic intervention research: Illustrations from the evolution ofself-regulated strategy development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 251–262.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2009). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Premises, evolution, andthe future. British Journal of Educational Psychology (monograph series), 6, 113–135.

Harris, K.R., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategyconstruction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392–405.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of abalanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(7),1–16.


Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students.Baltimore: Brookes.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Brindle, M., & Sandmel, K. (2009). Metacognition and children’s writing. In D.Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 131–153).Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Harris, K.R., Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Reid, R., & Mason, L. (2011). Self-regulated learning processesand children’s writing. B. Zimmerman and D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learningand performance (pp. 187–202). Routledge Publishers.

Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In M. Levy & S.Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications(pp. 1–27). Mahwah: Erbaum.

Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg(Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Kirsch, I., Braun, H., Yamamoto, K., & Sum, A. (2007). America’s perfect storm: Three forces changing ourNation’s future. Princeton: ETS.

Lane, K., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Weisenbach, J., Brindle, M., & Morphy, P. (2008). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing performance of second grade students with behavioral andwriting difficulties. Journal of Special Education, 41, 234–253.

MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of writing research. New York:Guilford.

Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effects onexpository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96,283–296.

Mason, L. H., Hickey Snyder, K., Sukhram, D. P., & Kedem, Y. (2006). Self-regulated strategy developmentfor expository reading comprehension and informative writing: Effects for nine 4th-grade students whostruggle with learning. Exceptional Children, 73, 69–89.

National Commission on Writing (2003). The neglected “R.” College Entrance Examination Board.Olinghouse, N., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2010). Evidence-based writing practices at the primary and

secondary/tertiary level. In M. Shinn, H. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for achievement andbehavior in a three-tier model including RTI (pp. 553–570). Washington, DC: National Association ofSchool Psychologists.

Persky, H., Daane, M., & Jin, Y. (2003). National assessment of educational progress: 2002 report card forthe nation and the states. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Reid, R., & Lienenmann, T. O. (2006). Strategy instruction for students with learning disabilities. New York:Guilford.

Rogers, L., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research.Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906.

Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., & Miller, J. (2008). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007 (NCES 2008-468).Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.Department of Education.

Sandmel, K. N., Brindle, M., Harris, K. R., Lane, K. L., Graham, S., Nackel, J., et al. (2009). Making it work:Differentiating tier two self-regulated strategies development in writing in tandem with schoolwide positivebehavioral support. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(2), 22–35.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in writtencompositions. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics (pp. 143–175). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Smyth, J. (1998). Written emotional expression: Effect sizes, out-come types, and moderating variables.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 174–184.

Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. W. (1996). Individual differences in children’s writing: A function ofworking memory or reading or both processes? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8,357–383.

Swedlow, J. (1999). The power of writing. National Geographic, 196, 110–132.Troia, G. A. (2006). Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. In C. A. MacArthur, S.

Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 324–354). New York: Guilford.Zimmerman, B., & Reisemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.


“An adjective is a word hanging down from a noun”: Learning to write and students with learning...

Documents

Transcript of “An adjective is a word hanging down from a noun”: Learning to write and students with learning...