This article describes how a story grammar cueing system can be used as a teaching approach for improving writing. The cueing system introduces a self-regulatory mechanism into task performance which may take the form of a monitoring checklist or a simple series of steps. This assistance, however, does not involve teaching substantive matter. Instead, it is designed to provide a scaffold to facilitate completion of the task. Recent research has demonstrated that students with learning disabilities generally write higher quality stories when they are directed to use story grammar cue cards or a check-off system for story parts. This article provides specific recommendations for teaching students how to use these procedures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckI. (1991). Teaching social studies in the development of literacy. Paper presented at the University of Maryland Conference on Literacy, College Park, MD.
2.
BrooksR. (1987). Story telling and the therapeutic process for children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 20.546–550.
3.
EllisE.LenzK., & SabornieE. (1987). Generalization and adaptation of learning strategies to natural environments: Part 2: Research into practice. Remedial and Special Education. 8, 6–23.
4.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. (1989). Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353–361.
5.
GrahamS.HarrisK.MacArthurC.SchwartzS. (in press). Writing and writing instruction with students with learning disabilities: A review of a program of research. Learning Disability Quarterly,
6.
GravesA. W., & MontagueM. (1990). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive cues on story composition of learning disabled students. Paper presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL.
7.
GravesA. W.MontagueM., & WongY. (1990). The effects of procedural facilitation on story composition of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 5, 88–93.
HammillD., & LarsenS. (1983). Test of Written Language.Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
10.
LaughtonJ., & MorrisN. (1989). Story grammar knowledge of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 8795.
11.
MacArthurC. & StoddardB. (1990, April). Teaching learning disabled students to revise: A peer editor strategy. Paper presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting, Boston, MA.
12.
MontagueM. (1989). Story quality scale. Unpublished narrative assessment tool.
13.
MontagueM.MadduxC., & DereshiwskyM. (1990). Story grammar comprehension and production of narrative prose by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 19097.
14.
MontagueM.GravesA., & LcavcllA. (1991). Planning, procedural facilitation, and narrative composition of junior high students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 219–224.
15.
MontagueM.LeavellA., & GravesA. [Improving narrative compositions of junior high students with learning disabilities]. Unpublished raw data.
16.
PressleyM.BeardP., & BrownR. (in press). Is good reading comprehension possible? In PressleyM., HarrisK., & GuthrieJ. (Eds.), Academic competence and literacy.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17.
TorgesenJ. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Educational implications. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 42–52.
18.
ScardamaliaM., & BereiterC. (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and remedial capabilities in children's composing. In MartlewM. (Ed.), The psychology of written language: Development and educational perspectives (pp. 67–95). London: John Wiley.
19.
ScardamaliaM., & BereiterC. (1986). Research on written composition. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778–803). New York: NY Macmillan.
20.
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: Ablcx.
21.
WongB.. & JonesW. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in LD and normally-achieving students through self-questioning techniques. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–240.
22.
WongB. (1985). Issues in cognitive-behavioral interventions in academic skill areas. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,13,451491.
