The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of planning time and procedural facilitation on the narrative compositions of junior high school students with learning disabilities and normally achieving students (N = 60). Specifically, this study compared compositions dictated or written with no planning time, planning time only, or planning time plus procedural facilitation in the form of a story grammar cue card. Dependent variables included both quality and quantity measures. Results indicated that normally achieving students generally produced significantly higher quality and longer stories than students with learning disabilities who wrote or dictated stories. Significant differences between groups were no longer apparent, however, when time and structure were provided for planning narratives. Educational implications for both learning disabled and normally achieving students were discussed.
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., PelegrinoJ., FokhemaS., & GlaserR. (Eds.), Cognitive psychology and instruction (pp. 67–82). New York: Plenum.
2.
BereiterC., & ScardamaliaM. (1987). The psychology of written expression.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3.
BurtisP.BereiterC.ScardamaliaM., & TetroeJ. (1983). The development of planning in writing. In WellsG. & KrollB. (Eds.), Explorations in the development of writing (pp. 153–174). Chichester, England: John Wiley.
4.
FlowerL., & HayesJ. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In GreggL. W. & SteinbergR.E. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
GrahamS. (1982). Composition research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 14, 1–16.
6.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. (1989). A components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353–361.
7.
GrahamS.MacArthurC. A., SchwartzS., & Page, V. (in press). Improving learning disabled students’ compositions using a strategy involving product and process goal setting. Exceptional Children.
8.
GravesA. (1986). The effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, I, 90–100.
9.
GravesA., & LevinJ. (1989). Comparison of monitoring and mnemonic text-processing strategics in learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 232–236.
10.
GravesA.MontagueM., & WongY. (1990). The effects of procedural facilitation on story composition of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 5, 88–93.
11.
HallahanD.LloydJ., Kosiewicz, M., & GravesA. (1979). Selfmonitoring of attention as a treatment for a learning disabled boy's off-task behavior. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2.24–31.
12.
HammillD., & LarsenS. (1983). Test of written language.Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
13.
LaughtonJ., & MorrisN. (1989). Story grammar knowledge of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 8795.
14.
MacArthurC. A., & GrahamS. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42.
15.
MandlerJ., & JohnsonN. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 11–15.
16.
McCutcheonD., & PerfettiC. (1982). Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. Text, 2, 113–119.
17.
MontagueM. (1989). Story quality scale. Unpublished narrative assessment tool.
18.
MontagueM.MadduxC., & DereshiwskyM. (1990). Story grammar and comprehension and production of narrative prose by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 190–197.
19.
RentelV., & KingM. (1983). Present at the beginning. In MosenthalP.TamorL. & WalmsleyS. (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (pp. 139–176). New York, NY: Longman.
20.
ScardamaliaM., & BereiterC. (1986). Research on written composition. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd cd., pp. 778–803). New York, NY: Macmillan.
21.
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.
22.
ThomasC.EnglertC., & GreggS. (1987). An analysis of errors and strategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 21–30.
23.
WechslerD. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-revised.New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.
24.
WordenP. E. (1986). Prose comprehension and recall in disabled learners. In CeciS. J. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neurological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 241–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
