Understanding and writing about expository material is difficult for many students. Content classroom activities and assessment tasks, however, are often structured within a framework of student reading followed by extended written response. This multiple probe design across subjects study examined the expository comprehension and informative writing performance of 9 fourth-grade low-achieving students, 4 with disabilities and 5 without disabilities, following Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) instruction for TWA (Think before reading, think While reading, think After reading) and PLANS (Pick goals, List ways to meet goals, And, make Notes and Sequence notes). Student performance, as measured by oral and written retells, improved and was maintained following instruction. Students also liked the strategies as well as instruction, and believed that TWA + PLANS improved their reading and writing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerS.GertsenR.ScanlonD. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 65–77.
2.
BereiterC.ScardamaliaM. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In GlaserR. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol, 2, pp. 1–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
BrownA. L.DayJ. D. (1983). Macro rules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14.
4.
CampbellJ. R.HombroC. M.MazzeoJ. (1999). Trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance. Education Statistics Quarterly, 2, 31–36.
5.
ChallJ. S.BissexG. L.ConardS. S.Harris-SharplesS. H. (1996). Qualitative assessment of text difficulty: A practical guide for teachers and writers. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
6.
ChamblissM. J.CalfeeR. C. (1998). Textbooks for learning: Nurturing children's minds. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
EllisE. S.GravesA. W. (1990). Teaching rural students with learning disabilities: A paraphrasing strategy to increase comprehension of main ideas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10, 2–10.
9.
GarciaJ. R.GeloD. J.GreenowL. L.KrachtJ. B.WhiteD. G. (1997). Our United States. Needham, MA: Silver Burdett Ginn.
10.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–344). New York: Guilford Press.
11.
GrahamS.MacArthurC.SchwartzS.Page-VothV. (1992). Improving the compositions of students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving product and process goal setting. Exceptional Children, 58, 322–334.
12.
GravesA. W.LevinJ. R. (1989). Comparison of monitoring and mnemonic text-processing strategies in learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 12, 232–236.
13.
GreenwaldE. A.PerskyH. R.CampbellJ. R.MazzeoJ. (1999). NAEP 1998 writing report card for the nation and the states. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1, 23–28.
14.
GunningT. G. (2003). Building literacy in the content areas. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
15.
HansenJ.PearsonP. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 821–829.
16.
HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
17.
HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (1999). Programmatic intervention research: Illustrations from the evolution of self-regulated strategy development. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 251–262.
18.
HarrisK. R.GrahamS.MasonL. H. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35, 1–16.
19.
HarrisK. R.GrahamS.MasonL. H. (2004). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.
20.
HarrisK. R.GrahamS.MasonL. H. (2006). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and motivation of young struggling writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 295–340.
21.
HornerR. D.BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple probe technique: A variation of the multiple probe baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.
22.
KintschW. (1983). Memory for text. In FlammerA.KintschW. (Eds.), Discourse processing (pp. 186–204). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
23.
LeslieL.CaldwellJ. (2001). Qualitative reading inventory-3. New York: Longman.
24.
ManzoA. V. (1969). The request procedure. The Journal of Reading, 13, 123–126, 163.
25.
MasonL. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283–296.
26.
MasonL. H.SnyderK.JonesD. P.KedemY. [Self-regulating expository reading comprehension and informative writing: Effects for five 5th-grade students]. Unpublished data.
27.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Comprehension, Part II: Text comprehension instruction. In Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.htm.
28.
OgleD. M. (1989). The know, want to know, learn strategy. In MuthK. D. (Ed.), Children's comprehension of text (pp. 205–223). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
29.
PressleyM.BrownR.El-DinaryP. B.AfflerbachP. (1995). The comprehension instruction that students need: Instruction fostering constructively responsive reading. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 215–224.
ReidM.BorkowskiJ. (1987). Casual attributions of hyperactive children: Implications for teaching strategies and self-control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 296–307.
32.
SadoskiM.PavioA. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33.
SaenzL. M.FuchsL. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 31–41.
34.
SextonM.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (1998). Self-regulated strategy development and the writing process: Effects on essay writing and attributions. Exceptional Children, 64, 295–311.
35.
SinatraG. M.BrownK. J.ReynoldsR. E. (2002). Implications of cognitive resource allocation for comprehension strategies instruction. In BlockC. C.PressleyM. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 62–76). New York: The Guilford Press.
36.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
37.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford.
38.
TrabassoT.SeccoT.Van Den BroekP. (1984). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In MandlH.SteinN. L.TrabassoT. (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 83–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
TraceyD. H.MorrowL. M. (2002). Preparing young learners for successful reading comprehension. In BlockC. C.PressleyM. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 219–233). New York: The Guilford Press.
