The inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education curriculum and in district and state assessment programs has major implications for instruction because many of these students are expected to earn standard high-school diplomas and to meet the same standards as their typically achieving peers. This is especially problematic in the area of writing, which involves the use of many complex skills. This article reviews the research associated with a group of instructional programs on writing strategies that are part of the Learning Strategies Curriculum developed by researchers associated with the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. The research shows that students with disabilities can learn to use complex writing strategies to such an extent that they can write multi-paragraph themes appropriate for general education classes and that enable them to pass district and state competency tests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BuiY.N. (2002). The Demand Writing Instructional Model: Impacting the writing performance of students with learning disabilities and low-performing students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds on the statewide writing assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
2.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (1999). State student assessment programs: A summary report. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
DeshlerD.D.EllisE.S.LenzB.K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co.
4.
DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B. (1988). An instructional model for teaching students how to learn. In GradenJ.L.ZinsJ.E.CurtisM.L. (Eds.), Alternative education delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 391–411). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
5.
DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B.LenzB.K.BulgrenJ.A.HockM.F.KnightJ.EhrenB.J. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(2), 96–108.
6.
EgelkoB. (2002, February 22). State must provide for disabled on test. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A21.
7.
EllisE.S.DeshlerD.D.LenzB.K.SchumakerJ.B.ClarkF.L. (1991). An instructional model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 24(1), 1–14.
8.
EllisE.S.DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B. (1989). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities to generate and use task-specific strategies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(2), 108–119, 130.
9.
EnglertC.S.RaphaelT.E.AndersonL.M.GreggS.L.AnthonyH.M. (1989). Exposition: Reading, writing, and the metacognitive knowledge of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 5(1), 5–24.
10.
GoertzM.E.McLaughlinM.J.RoachV.RaberS.M. (2000). What will it take? Including students with disabilities in standards-based education reform. In ParrishT.ChambersJ.GuarinoS. (Eds.), Funding special education: Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association (pp. 40–61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Sage Publications.
11.
GrahamS.HarrisK.R.MacArthurC.A.SchwartzS. (1991). Writing and writing instruction for students with learning disabilities: Review of a research program. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89–114.
12.
HockM. (1998). The effectiveness of an instructional tutoring model and tutor training on the academic performance of underprepared college student athletes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
13.
HockM.F.DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B. (1993). Training strategic tutors to enhance learning independence: A new conceptualization of the process. Preventing School Failure, 38(1), 43–49.
14.
HockM.F.SchumakerJ.B.DeshlerD.D. (1995). Training strategic tutors to enhance learning independence: A new conceptualization of the tutoring process. Journal of Developmental Education, 19(1), 18–27.
15.
HockM.F.SchumakerJ.B.DeshlerD.D. (2001). The case for strategic tutoring. Educational Leadership, 58(7), 50–52.
16.
KearnsJ.F.KleinertH.L.ClaytonJ.BurdgeM.WilliamsR. (1998). Principal supports for inclusive assessment: A Kentucky story. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(2), 16–23.
17.
KleinertH.L.KennedyS.KearnsJ.K. (1999). The impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey. Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 93–102.
18.
KlineF.M.DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B. (1992). Implementing learning strategy instruction in class settings: A research perspective. In PressleyM.HarrisK.R.GuthrieJ.T. (Eds.), Promoting academic literacy: Cognitive research and instructional innovation (pp. 361–406). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
19.
KlineF.M.SchumakerJ.B.DeshlerD.D. (1991). Development and validation of feedback routines for instructing students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14(3), 191–207.
20.
McDonnellL.M.McLaughlinM.J.MorrisonP. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.
McNaughtonD.B.HughesC.A. (1999). InSPECT: A strategy for finding and correcting spelling errors: Instructor's manual. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
22.
McNaughtonD.HughesC.OfieshN. (1997). Proofreading for students with learning disabilities: Integrating computer and strategy use. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12(1), 16–28.
23.
MercerC.D.LaneH.B.JordanL. (1996, July). Empowering teachers and students with instructional choices in inclusive settings. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 226–236.
24.
MoranM.R.SchumakerJ.B.VetterA.F. (1981). Teaching a paragraph organization strategy to learning disabled adolescents (Research report #54). Lawrence: The University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
25.
NewcomerP.L.BarenbaumE.M. (1991). The written composition ability of children with learning disabilities: A review of the literature from 1980–1990. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 578–593.
26.
OlsonL. (2000). Indiana case focused on special education: Suit challenges high stakes testing. Education Week, 38, 1–15.
27.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
28.
PressleyM.BorkowskiJ.G.O'SullivanJ.T. (1985). Children's metamemory and the teaching of memory strategies. In PressleyD.L.MacKinnonG.E.WallerT.G. (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (pp. 111–153). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
29.
ScanlonD.J.DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B. (1996). Can a strategy be taught and learned in secondary inclusive classrooms?Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(1), 41–57.
30.
SchmidtJ. (1983). The effects of four generalization conditions on learning disabled adolescents' written language performance in the regular classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
31.
SchmidtJ.L.DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B.AlleyG.R. (1988/89). Effects of generalization instruction on the written language performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in the mainstream classroom. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 4(4), 291–309.
32.
SchumakerJ.B. (2003). The Theme Writing Strategy: Instructor's manual. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
33.
SchumakerJ.B.DeshlerD.D. (1992). Validation of learning strategy interventions for students with learning disabilities: Results of a programmatic research effort. In WongB.Y. (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 22–46). New York: Spring-Verlag.
34.
SchumakerJ.B.LyerlaK.D. (1991). The Paragraph Writing Strategy. Lawrence: The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
35.
SchumakerJ.B.SheldonJ.A. (1998). Fundamentals in the Sentence Writing Strategy: Instructor's manual. Lawrence: The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
36.
SchumakerJ.B.SheldonJ.A. (1999). Proficiency in the Sentence Writing Strategy: Instructor's manual. Lawrence: The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
37.
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.), Coming of age: Selected papers from the 18th International Conference of the Association for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities (pp. 170–183). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
38.
SchumakerJ.B.NolanS.M.DeshlerD.D. (1985). The Error Monitoring Strategy: Instructor's manual. Lawrence: University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
39.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities. Eighteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs.
40.
VaughnS.GerstenR.ChardD.J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99–114.
41.
WedelM.DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B. (1993). Results of instructing academically diverse classes to use a vocabulary strategy (Research Report). Lawrence: University of Kansas Center for Research in Learning Disabilities.
42.
YsseldykeJ.ThurlowM.LangenfieldK.NelsonJ.R.TeelucksinghE.SeyfarthA. (1998). Educational results for students with disabilities: What do the data tell us? (Technical Report 23). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
