The purpose of this study was to investigate both quantitative and qualitative differences in narrative composition among learning disabled students as a function of the amount of procedural facilitation provided. Procedural facilitation included story grammar cue cards, verbal reminders for character development, and a metacognitive check-off procedure. No significant differences were detected between the two experimental groups, which differed only with respect to verbal reminders for developing characters. Both experimental groups, however, differed significantly from the control group in the quality of stories produced. The findings support the assumption that, though most learning disabled students have acquired basic story schema knowledge, they may require a systematic procedure to assist in accessing story schemata during narrative composition tasks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonR.C. (1978). Schema directed processes in language comprehension. In LesgoldA., PeligrinoJ., FokhemaS., & GlaserR. (Eds.), Cognitive psychology and instruction (pp. 67–82). New York: Plenum.
2.
BarenbaumE.NewcomerR, & NodineB. (1987). Children's ability to write stories as a function of variation in task, age, and developmental level. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 175–188.
3.
BereiterC., & ScardamaliaM. (1987). The psychology of written composition.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
EnglertC., & RaphaelT. (1988). Constructing well-formed prose: process, structure and metacognition in the instruction of expository writing. Exceptional Children, 54, 513–520.
5.
FlowerL., & HayesJ. (1980). The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints. In GreggL. & SteinbergE. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
GordonG, & BraunC. (1985). Metacognitive processes: Reading and writing narrative discourse. In Forrest-PressleyD.L.MacKinnonG., & T.WallerG. (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (Vol. 2, pp. 1–76). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
7.
GouldJ. (1980). Experiments on composing letters: Some facts, some myths, and some observations. In GreggL.W. & SteinbergE.R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 97–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. (in press a). A components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology.
9.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. (in press b). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at composing essays: Self-instructional strategy training. Exceptional Children.
10.
GrahamS.HarrisK., & SawyerR. (1987). Composition instruction with learning disabled students: Self-instructional strategy training. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20, 1–11.
11.
GravesA.W. (1986). The effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1, 90–100.
12.
GravesA.W. (1987, April). Metacomprehension training vs. direct instruction training. Paper presented at the annual Americal Educational Research Association meeting, Washington, DC.
13.
GravesA.W., & LevinJ.R. (1989). Comparison of monitoring and mnemonic text-processing strategies in learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 232–236.
14.
HallahanD. PLloydJ.KosiewiczM.M., & GravesAW. (1979). Self-monitoring of attention as a treatment for a learning disabled boy's off-task behavior. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 24–32.
15.
HammillD., & LarsenS. (1983). Test of Written Language.Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
16.
HumesA. (1983). Putting writing research into practice. The Elementary School Journal, 81, 3–17.
17.
IdolL. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehensive strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 196–205.
18.
IdolL., & CrollV. (1987). Story-mapping as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 214–230.
19.
KosiewiczM.M.HallahanD.P.LloydJ., & GravesA.W. (1982). The effects of self-instruction and self-correction procedures on handwriting performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 71–79.
20.
MandlerJ. (1982). Some uses and abuses of a story grammar. Discourse Processes, 5, 305–318.
21.
MandlerJ., & JohnsonN. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 11–151.
22.
McArthurC., & GrahamS. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42.
23.
MontagueM.MadduxC, & DereshiwskyM. (1990). Story grammar and learning disabled students’ comprehension and production of narrative prose by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 190–197.
24.
NezworskiTSteinN., & TrabassoT. (1982). Story structure versus content in children's recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 196–206.
25.
PiankoS. (1979). A description of the composing processes of college freshman writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317–336.
26.
RentelV., & KingM. (1983). Present at the beginning. In MosenthalP.TamorL. & WalmsleyS.A. (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (pp. 139–176). New York: Longman.
27.
RipichD., & GriffithP. (1988). Narrative abilities of children with learning disabilities and nondisabled children: Storystructure, cohesion, and propositions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 165–173.
28.
ScardamaliaM., & BereiterC. (1986). Research on written composition. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 778–803). New York: Macmillan.
29.
SteinN. (1982). What's in a story: Interpreting the interpretations of story grammars. Discourse Processes, 5, 319–335.
30.
SteinN., & GlennG. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In FreedleR. (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
31.
SteinN., & TrabassoT. (1982). What's in a story: An approach to comprehension and instruction. In GlaserR. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 213–267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
TorgesenJ. (1982). The learning-disabled child as an inactive learner: Educational implications. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 17–23.
33.
WhaleyJ.F. (1981). Readers’ expectations for story structure. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 90–114.
34.
WordenRE. (1986). Prose comprehension and recall in disabled learners. In S.CeciJ. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neurological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 241–261). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
