Twenty-seven learning disabled students in grades four through six engaged in interactive journal writing with their teachers in seven resource rooms (special education pull-out programs). Dialogue journal writing took place by means of a microcomputer program, and was carried out over a two- to three-month period. Although journal writing requires a conversational style, the literature suggests this might be affected both by learning disabled students' social and communicative abilities and by teachers' predisposition to engage in evaluative, “recitation”-style interactions in the classroom.
A variety of discourse features of the journals were analyzed. In general, students engaged appropriately in written interaction with their teachers, but the journals tended to be dominated by teachers. For example, teachers wrote more, asked more questions, and introduced more new topics, including more topics that led to extended sequences or topic chains. Analysis of teacher input suggested that teachers used more complex than simple questions, and both students and teachers responded to a relatively high proportion of each others' initiations. In addition, various examples showed that teachers were able to be more conversational and less “teacher-like” in their discourse: that is, they were able to use a more personal style than otherwise common in the classroom. Analysis of the journals suggested that when such conversational style occurred, the topics were maintained to a greater extent than when the discourse was of a more traditional nature.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllingtonR. L. (1991). Children who find learning to read difficult: School responses to diversity. In HiebertE. H. (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and policies (pp. 237–252). New York: Teachers College Press.
2.
BlackS. D.LevinJ. A.MehanG.QuinnC. N. (1983). Real and non-real time interaction: Unraveling multiple threads of discourse. Discourse Processes, 6, 59–75.
3.
BlalockJ. (1982). Persistent auditory language deficits in adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 604–609.
4.
BryanT. (1977). Learning disabled children's comprehension of nonverbal communication. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 501–506.
5.
BryanT.BryanJ. (1978). Social interactions of learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1(1), 33–38.
6.
BryanT.DonahueM.PearlR. (1981). Learning disabled children's peer interactions during a small-group problem-solving task. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4(1), 13–22.
CartwrightG. (1968). Written language abilities of educable mentally retarded and normal children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 72, 499–505.
11.
CortesC. (1986). The eduction of language minority students: A contextual interaction model. In Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students. Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.
12.
CosdenM. A.GerberM. M.SemmelD. S.SemmelM. I. (1987). Microcomputer use within micro-educational environments. Exceptional Children, 53, 399–409.
13.
DeFordD. (1980). Young children and their writing. Theory Into Practice, 19, 157–162.
14.
DeFordD.HarsteJ. (1982). Child language research and curriculum. Language Arts, 59, 590–600.
15.
DenoS.MarstonD.MirkinP. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368–370.
16.
EdelskyC.DraperK.SmithK. (1983). Hookin'em in at the start of school in a “whole language” classroom. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 14, 257–281.
17.
ElasserN.John-SteinerV. P. (1977). An interactionist approach to advancing literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 355–369.
18.
FarleyJ. (1984). An analysis of written dialogue of educable mentally retarded writers. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 181–191.
19.
GarrettM. K.CrumpW. D. (1980). Peer acceptance, teacher preference, and self-appraisal of social status among learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(3), 42–48.
20.
GerberM. (1985). Spelling as concept-governed problem solving: Learning-disabled and normally achieving students. Advances in Reading/Language Research, 3, 39–75.
21.
GerberM.HallR. (1984). The development of spelling in learning disabled and normal students (Monograph No. 1). Austin, TX: Society for Learning Disabilities and Remedial Education.
22.
GoodladJ. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill.
23.
GoodmanK.GoodmanY. (1981). A whole-language comprehension-centered view of reading development. Occasional Paper No. 1. Tucson: University of Arizona, Program in Language and Literacy.
24.
GoodmanY. (1989). Roots of the whole language movement. Elementary School Journal, 90, 113–127.
25.
GoodmanY. M.GoodmanK. S. (1990). Vygotsky in a whole-language perspective. In MollL. (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 223–250). New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
GravesD. (1984). Microcomputers and writing. Classroom Computer Learning, 4(8), 20–24.
27.
GreshamF. M.ReschlyD. J. (1986). Social skill deficits and low peer acceptance of mainstreamed learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 23–32.
28.
HarsteJ.BurkeC. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: both the teaching and learning of reading are theoretically based. Claremont, CA: Claremont Reading Conference Yearbook.
29.
HermreckL. A. (1979). A comparison of the written language of LD and non-LD elementary children using the inventory of written expression and spelling. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Kansas.
30.
Interlearn, Inc. (1985). The dialogue maker. Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA: Author.
31.
IsaacsonS. (1985). Assessing written language skills. In SimonC. S. (Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success: Assessment methodologies for language/learning disabled students (pp. 403–424). San Diego: College-Hill Press.
32.
KerchnerL. B.KistingerB. J. (1984). Language processing/word processing: Written expression, computers and learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 329–335.
33.
KreeftJ. (1984). Dialogue writing: Bridge from talk to essay writing. Language Arts, 61(2).
34.
KreeftJ.ShuyR. W.StatonJ.ReedL.MorroyR. (1984). Dialogue writing: Analysis of student-teacher interactive writing in the learning of English as a second language. NIE Final Report (NIE-G-83–0030). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
35.
LaineC.SchultzL. (1985). Composition theory and practice: The paradigm shift. Volta Review, 87(5), 9–20.
36.
LCHC Newsletter. (1982). Model systems for the study of learning disabilities. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 42–65.
37.
MehanH. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
MollL. (Ed.). (1990). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
MoranM. (1981). A comparison of formal features of written language of learning disabled, low-achieving and high achieving secondary students (Research Report No. 34). Lawrence: Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
40.
MorrisN.CrumpW. D. (1982). Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 163–172.
41.
MorroyR. (1984). Teacher strategies: Their effect on student writing. In KreeftJ.ShuyR. W.StatonJ.ReedL.MorroyR. (Eds.), Dialogue writing: Analysis of student-teacher interactive writing in the learning of English as a second language (pp. 124–152). NIE Final Report (NIE-G-83–0030). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
42.
MortonL. L.LindsayP. H.RocheW. M. (1989). A report on learning disabled children's use of lab-based word processing versus pencil-and-paper for creative writing. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 35, 283–291.
43.
MyklebustH. (1972). Development and disorders of written language, Volume 1 of Picture Story Language Test. New York: Grune & Stratton.
44.
MyklebustH. (1972). Development and disorders of written language, Volume 2 of Studies of normal and exceptional children. New York: Grune & Stratton.
45.
NaimanD. (1988). Telecommunications and an interactive approach to literacy in disabled students. Final Report. New York: New York University.
46.
NewmanJ. M. (1985). Whole language: Theory in use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
47.
PeytonJ. (1988). Dialogue writing—Bridge from talk to essay writing. In StatonJ.ShuyR.KreeftJ.ReedL. (Eds.), Dialogue journal communication (pp. 88–106). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
48.
PoplinM. S. (1988a). The reductionist fallacy in learning disabilities: Replicating the past by reducing the present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 389–400.
49.
PoplinM. S. (1988b). Holistic/constructivist principles of the teaching/learning process: Implications for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 401–416.
50.
PoteetJ. (1979). Characteristics of written expression of learning disabled and non-learning disabled elementary-school students. Diagnostique, 4, 60–74.
51.
RaforthB. A.RubinD. L. (Eds.). (1988). The social construction of written communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
52.
RhodesL. K.Dudley-MarlingC. (1988). Readers and writers with a difference: A holistic approach to teaching learning disabled and remedial students. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
53.
RielM. (1985). Functional learning environments for writing. In MehanH. (Eds.), Computers in classrooms: A quasi-experiment in guided change (pp. 135–200). NIE Final Report. San Diego: University of California.
54.
RuedaR. (1986). A descriptive analysis of teacher input strategies in microcomputer-based interactive writing with mildly handicapped students (Technical Report No. 46). Santa Barbara: University of California, Project TEECh (Technology Effectiveness with Exceptional Children).
55.
SedlakR.CartwrightG. (1972). Written language abilities of EMR and nonretarded children with the same mental age. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 95–99.
56.
ShuyR. (1984). The function of language functions in the dialogue journal interactions of nonnative English speakers and their teacher. In KreeftJ.ShuyR. W.StatonJ.ReedL.MorroyR. (Eds.), Dialogue writing: Analysis of student-teacher interactive writing in the learning of English as a second language (pp. 204–245). NIE Final Report (NIE-G-83–0030). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
57.
ShuyR. (1988). The oral language basis for dialogue journals. In StatonJ.ShuyR.KreeftJ.ReedL. (Eds.), Dialogue journal communication (pp. 73–87). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
58.
SoenksonP. A.FlaggC. L.SchmitsD. W. (1981). Social communication in learning disabled students: A pragmatic analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 283–286.
59.
SpekmanN.RothF. (1984). Intervention strategies for learning disabled children with oral communication disorders. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 7–18.
60.
StatonJ. (1981a). Analysis of writing in dialogue journals as a communicative event. In HumesA.CronnellB.LawlorJ.GentryL. (Eds.), Moving between practice and research in writing (pp. 86–90). Los Alamitos, CA: SWRL Educational Research and Development.
61.
StatonJ. (1981b). Literacy as an interactive process. The Linguistic Reporter, 24(2), 1–5.
62.
StatonJ. (1984). Dialogue journals as a means of enabling written language acquisition. In KreeftJ.ShuyR. W.StatonJ.ReedL.MorroyR. (Eds.), Dialogue writing: Analysis of student-teacher interactive writing in the learning of English as a second language (pp. 152–203). NIE Final Report (NIE-G-83–0030). Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
63.
StatonJ. (1985). Using dialogue journals for developing thinking, reading, and writing with hearing-impaired students. Volta Review, 87, 127–152.
TharpR.GallimoreR. (1989). Rousing mind to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
66.
VideenJ.DenoS.MarstonD. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Research Report No. 84). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
67.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (ColeM.John-SteinerV.ScribnerS.SoubermanE., Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
WertschJ. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes: A clarification and application of Vygotsky's theory. Human Development, 22, 1–22.
69.
WertschJ. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
70.
WiigE. H.HarrisS. P. (1974). Perception and interpretation of nonverbally expressed emotions by adolescents with learning disabilities. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38, 239–245.
71.
ZaragozaN. (1987). Process writing for high-risk and learning disabled students. Reading Research and Instruction, 26, 290–301.
