The effects of an interactive multimedia (IM) software program for teaching comma strategies to students with learning disabilities (LD) were determined with regard to the students’ sentence-editing and sentence-construction skills. Students with LD at the middle-school and high-school levels were randomly selected in their intact cohorts for the experimental and control groups. Results showed that the experimental students completed the software program and readily learned information about and mastered the comma strategies. Additionally, experimental students at both school levels significantly outperformed the control students with regard to the percentage of correct commas inserted in an editing task. Moreover, they inserted significantly fewer incorrect commas. They also outperformed the control students with regard to the construction of complete sentences containing correct comma usage when prompted to write certain kinds of sentences while writing about a topic. Furthermore, both cohorts of experimental students with LD significantly outperformed their corresponding age groups of students who participated in validating the editing task. Therefore, this study indicates that students with LD can learn and generalize complex writing skills through the use of an IM program at a high level of quality.
AlleyG. R.DeshlerD. D. (1979). Teaching the learning disabled adolescent: Strategies and methods. Denver, CO: Love.
2.
ArcherA.HughesC. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Efficient and effective teaching. New York, NY: Guilford.
3.
BrindleM.GrahamS.HarrisK. R.HeberM. (2016). Third and fourth grade teacher’s classroom practices in writing: A national survey. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 929–954. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9604x
4.
BuiY.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (2006). Effects of a comprehensive package of writing strategy interventions on the writing performance of students with disabilities on state writing competency exams. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 244–260. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00221.x
5.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin.
6.
DatchukS. M. (2016). Writing simple sentences and descriptive paragraphs: Effects of an intervention on adolescents with writing difficulties. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 166–188. doi:10.1007/s10864-015-9236-x
7.
DatchukS. M. (2017). A direct instruction and precision teaching intervention to improve the sentence construction of middle school students with writing difficulties. Journal of Special Education, 51, 62–71. doi:10.1177/0022466916665588
8.
DatchukS. M.KubinaR. M. (2017). A writing intervention to teach simple sentences and descriptive paragraphs to adolescents with writing difficulties. Education and Treatment of Children, 40, 303–326. doi:10.1353/etc.2017.0013
9.
DatchukS. M.KubinaR. M.MasonL. H. (2015). Effects of sentence instruction and frequency building to a performance criterion on elementary aged students with behavioral concerns and EBD. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 23, 34–53. doi:10.1080/09362835.2014.986604
10.
DatchukS. M.RodgersD. B. (2018). Text writing within simple sentences: A writing fluency intervention for students with high-incidence disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34, 23–34. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12185
11.
DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (1988). An instructional model for teaching students how to learn. In GradenJ. L.ZinsJ. E.CurtisM. J. (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 391–411). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
12.
DockrellJ. E.LindsayG.ConnellyV.MackieC. (2007). Constraints in the production of written text in children with specific language impairments. Exceptional Children, 73, 147–164. doi:10.1177/001440290707300202
13.
EllisE. S.DeshlerD. D.LenzB. K.SchumakerJ. B.ClarkF. L. (1991). An instructional model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23, 1–14. doi:10.17161/foec.v23i6.7530
14.
GillespieA.GrahamS. (2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80, 453–473. doi:10.1177/0014402914527238
15.
GrahamS. (2008). Effective writing instruction for all students. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning.
16.
GrahamS.CollinsA. A.Rigby-WillsH. (2017). Writing characteristics of students with learning disabilities and typically achieving peers: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 83, 199–218. doi:10.1177/0014402916664070
17.
HockM. F.PulversK. A.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (2001). The effects of an after-school tutoring program on the academic performance of at-risk and students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 172–186. doi:10.1177/074193250102200305
18.
HughesC. A.DeshlerD. D.RuhlK. L.SchumakerJ. B. (1993). Test-taking strategy instruction for adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 189–198. doi:10.1177/106342669300100307
19.
HughesC. A.SchumakerJ. B. (1991). Test-taking strategy instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 2, 205–221. doi:10.1080/09362839109524787
20.
HughesC. A.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D.MercerC. O. (1988). The test-taking strategy: Instructor’s manual. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
21.
JohnsonA. C.WilsonJ.RoscoeR. D. (2017). College students’ perceptions of writing errors, text quality, and author characteristics. Assessing Writing, 34, 72–87. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2017.10.002
22.
KiuharaS. A.GrahamS.HawkenL. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 136–160. doi:10.1037/a0013097
23.
KlineF. M.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (1991). Development and validation of feedback routines for instructing students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 191–207. doi:10.2307/1510849
24.
KoutsoftasA. D.GrayS. (2012). Comparison of narrative and expository writing in students with and without language learning disabilities. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 395–409. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0018)
25.
LancasterP. E.LancasterS.SchumakerJ. B.Van ReusenA. K. (2005). A multimedia program for teaching students the self-advocacy strategy. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
26.
LancasterP. E.LancasterS. J. C.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (2006). Effects of a computerized program on use of the test-taking strategy by students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 165–179. doi:10.2307/27740366
27.
LancasterP. E.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (2002). The development and validation of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self-advocacy strategy to students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 277–302. doi:10.2307/1511358
28.
LancasterP. E.SchumakerJ. B.HughesC. A. (2007). A multimedia program for teaching students the test-taking strategy. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
29.
LancasterP. E.SchumakerJ. B.LancasterS. J.DeshlerD. D. (2009). The efficacy of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a test-taking strategy to students with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21, 17–30. doi:10.1177/016264340602100202
30.
LaneS. E.LewandowskiL. (1994). Oral and written compositions of students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 142–153. doi:10.1177/073428299401200204
31.
LunsfordA. A.LunsfordK. J. (2008). “Mistakes are a fact of life”: A national comparative study. College Composition and Communication, 59, 781–806.
32.
MacArthurC. A.GrahamS.SchwartzS. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revising behavior among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 61–73. doi:10.2307/1510373
33.
McCormickC. B.SchererD. G. (2018). Child and adolescent development for educators. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
34.
MoranM. R. (1981). Performance of learning disabled and low achieving secondary students on formal features of a paragraph-writing task. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 271–280. doi:10.2307/1510948
35.
MyersB.ParkS. Y.NakanoY.MuellerG.KoA. (2008, September). How designers design and program interactive behaviors. Paper presented at the 2008 IEEE symposium of visual language and human-centric computing, Herrsching am Ammersee, Germany.
36.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author.
37.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2008). Adolescent literacy and older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 211–218.
38.
NewcomerP. L.BarenbaumE. M. (1991). The written composing ability of children with learning disabilities: A review of the literature from 1980 to 1990. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 578–593. doi:10.1177/002221949102401001
39.
PoplinM. S.GrayR.LarsenS.BanikowskiA.MehringT. (1980). A comparison of components of written expression abilities in learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at three grade levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 46–53. doi:10.2307/1510674
40.
PressleyM.McCormickC. (2007). Child and adolescent development for educators. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
41.
ReynoldsC. J.HillD. S.SwassingR. H.WardM. E. (1988). The effects of revision strategy instruction on the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 540–545. doi:10.1177/002221948802100904
42.
SaddlerB.AsaroK.BehforoozB. (2008). The effects of peer-assisted sentence combining on four young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6, 17–31.
43.
SaddlerB.BehforoozB.AsaroK. (2008). The effects of sentence-combining instruction on the writing of fourth-grade students with writing difficulties. Journal of Special Education, 42, 79–90. doi:10.1177/0022466907310371
44.
SaddlerB.GrahamS. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the writing performance of more ad less skilled young writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 43–54. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.43
45.
SchmidtJ. L.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B.AlleyG. R. (1988). Effects of generalization instruction on the written language performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in the mainstream classroom. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 4, 291–309. doi:10.1080/0748763880040406
46.
SchumakerJ. B. (2019). Proficiency in the theme writing strategy: Narrative writing. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
47.
SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (1992). Validation of learning strategy interventions for students with LD: Results of a programmatic research effort. In WongB. Y. L. (Ed.), Intervention research with students with learning disabilities (pp. 22–46). New York, NY: Springer.
48.
SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (2009). Adolescents with learning disabilities as writers: Are we selling them short?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 81–92. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00282.x
49.
SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D.AlleyG. R.WarnerM. M.ClarkF. L.NolanS. (1982). Error monitoring: A learning strategy for improving adolescent academic performance. In CruickshankW. M.LernerJ. W. (Eds.), Best of ACLD (Vol. 3, pp. 170–183). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
50.
SchumakerJ. B.SheldonJ. B. (1985). Proficiency in the sentence writing strategy: Instructor’s manual. Lawrence: The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
51.
SchumakerJ. B.SheldonJ. B. (1998). Fundamentals in the sentence writing strategy: Instructor’s manual. Lawrence: The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
52.
SchumakerJ. B.SheldonJ. B. (2008). A multimedia program for teaching the commas strategies to students. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
53.
SchumakerJ. B.WalshL. D. (2005). Effects of a multimedia program for teaching four comma rules to students with LD. Final report for Phase I of Grant #R44 HD043618-03 funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
54.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM. (1998). Experimental intervention research for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 276–321. doi:10.3102/00346543068003277
55.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
56.
Van ReusenA. K.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (1989). Effects of a student participation strategy in facilitating the involvement of adolescents with learning disabilities in the individualized educational program planning process. Learning Disabilities, 1, 23–34. doi:10.1177/001440299406000510
57.
Van ReusenT.BosC.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (1994). The self-advocacy strategy: Instructor’s manual. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
58.
WarnerM. M.SchumakerJ. B.AlleyG. R.DeshlerD. D. (1980). Learning disabled adolescents in the public schools: Are they different from other low achievers?Exceptional Education Quarterly, 1, 27–35. doi:10.1177/074193258000100207
59.
WolfM. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.
60.
Woods-GrovesS.FordJ. W.HuaY.NeilK. M. (2017). Efficacy of an electronic editing strategy with college students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52, 422–436.
61.
Woods-GrovesS.HuaY.TherrienW. J.KaldenbergE. R.KihuraR. W.HendricksonJ. M. (2015). An investigation of the efficacy of an editing strategy with postsecondary students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 95–108.
62.
Woods-GrovesS.HughesC. A.RodgersD. B.Balint-LangelK.AlqahtaniS. S.NeilK. M. (in press). College students with intellectual and developmental disabilities use technology in the editing process. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
