Exceptional Children

Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 69-S9. 2006 Council for Exceptional Children.

TWA + PLANS Strategies for Expository Reading and Writing: Effects for Nine Eourth-Grade Students
LINDA H. MASON Pennsylvania State University KATIE HICKEY SNYDER DIANA P. SUKHRAM YORE KEDEM Umversity of Illinois. Urbana-Champaigti

r: ABSTRACT:

Understanding and writing about expository material is dijficidt for many students.

Content classroom activities and assessment tasks, however, are often structured within a framework of student reading followed hy extended written response. This multiple probe design across subjects study examined the expository comprehension and informative writing performance of 9 fourth-grade low-achieving students, 4 with disabilities and 5 without disabilities, following SelfRegulated Strategy Development (SRSD) instruction for TWA (Think before reading, think While reading, think After reading) and PLANS (Pick goals. List ways to meet goals. And, make Notes and Sequence notes). Student performance, as measured by oral and written retells, improved and was maintained following instruction. Students also liked the strategies as well as instruction, and believed that TWA + PLANS improved their reading and writing. ontent literacyinterpreting and applying knovi'ledge from expository texthas been referred to as the "quiet crisis' in American education (Gunning, 2003, p. 7). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results indicate that approximately 30% of all middle and high school students in the United States have difficulties in comprehending expository text and, therefore, do not perform competently in content (science and social studies) classes (Campbell, Homhro, & Mazzeo, 1999). Over half of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students, Furthermore, have some difficulty in expressing their ideas on paper (Greenwald, Persky, Campbell, & Mazzeo, 1999). Moreover, as noted by researchers, students with learning disabilities (LD) and other special needs have even greater difficulty with reading comprehension and writing r!i:iri ilieir peers without

Exceptional Children

disabilities (Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2003; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999). Compounding the problem, many teachers teach around the text and avoid writing assignments to compensate for students' poor reading and writing, sending a message to their students that reading and responding in writing to textbook material is not necessary. The positive attitude towards learning with which children begin school often deteriorates during the elementary years. The difficulties that many students with and wirhout disabilities have in comprehending expository text and writing informative responses, consequently, hegin in elementary school (Harris et al., 2003; Saenz & Fuchs, 2002). The resulting comprehension deficits and inability to produce written responses to text, by and large, limit student learning and application of content material (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). It is essential, therefore, that elementary students master expository reading comprehension and informative writing prior to middle and high school, before rhe general education curriculum shifts to predominantly content text-based instruction (Baker, Gertsen, & ScanIon, 2002). Estahlishing effective interventions for content literacy with young low-achieving students. Including those with disabilities, has been recognized as a research priority (National Institute of Ghild Health and Human Development, 2000; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002). Foundational research in teaching lowachieving students when and how to use reading and writing strategies has indicated that students' independent and successful strategy use can be cultivated (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1982; Pressley, Brown, El-Dinary, & Affierbach, 1995; Sinatra, Brown, & Reynolds, 2002), Furthermore, teaching students to use multiple strategies for reading comprehension or for writing has proven to significantly improve their reading comprehension or writing performance (Harris et al., 200.3; Swanson ec al., 1999; Tracey & Morrow, 2002). Effective methods for teaching reading comprehension strategies in tandem with writing strategies tor expository text comprehension and informative writing to low-achieving elementary students with and without disabilities have not been as well established. This multiple probe design across students study examines the effective-

ness of Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD; Harris & Graham, 1996) instruction for a multiple-strategy approach for expository reading comprehension and informative writing for students with and without disabilities who are at risk for failure in content classrooms. The effectiveness of instruction on students' reading comprehension and writing performance as well as the acceptability of treatment is assessed.

SELF-REGULATED DEVELOPMENT

STRATEGY

SRSD provides a pedagogical framework for teaching strategics to low-achieving students who struggle with learning. SRSD instruction embeds explicit procedures for teaching students to selfregulate strategy use throughout lessons. Graham, Harris, their colleagues, and other researchers have validated SRSD instrtiction for students with and without disabilities in over 25 intervention studies in the past 20 years (Graham & Harris, 2003; Harris & Graham, 1999). Although writing has been the focus of many SRSD studies, the use of this approach for teaching reading comprehension strategies has also noted improved student understanding of what has been read and what is remembered.
EXPOSITORY COMPREHENSION WITH TWA

TWA (Think before reading, think While reading, think Afi:er reading) incorporares previously validated cognitive reading strategies within a nine-step procedural facilitative framework tor promoting text engagement before, during, and after reading (see Figure 1). The first component of TWA, "Think before reading," includes three steps for stimulating the reader's prior knowledge. The first step within this component, "Think about the author's purpose," prompts students to consider text structure (informative vs, narrative text). The following two steps ("Think about what you know" and "Think about what you want to learn") are derived from Ogle's (1989) "What I Know, what do I Want to learn, what I Learned" (K-W-L) strategy. The "think While reading" component comprises three steps: "Think about reading speed," "Think about linking knowledge," and "Think

Fall 2006

about rereading parts." All three steps mirror procedures in Hansen and Pearson's (1983) inference study with poor readers (discuss previous experi-^ ence prior to reading, connect student's prior knowledge to the text, and expand knowledge by sharing ideas) and are similar to strategies developed by Graves and Levin (1989) for comprehension monitoring and rereading. The linking knowledge step encourages students to connect what is known about a topic with current text. The last component of TWA is "think After reading." For "Think about the main idea," students use the RAP (Read the paragraph. Ask yourself, "What is the main idea?" Put the main idea into your own words.) strategy (EIUs &C Graves, 1990). In order to "Think about summarizing information," students learn five rules described by Brown and Day (delete trivial information, delete redundant information, substitute superordinate terms for a list of terms or actions, select a topic sentence, and invent a topic sentence; 1983). The final step, "Think about what you learned," asks students to retell what they have read and learned in the passage as if the listener knows nothing about the topic. SRSD instruction for the TWA expository reading comprehension strategy has been validated as effective for improving expository reading comprehension for students with and without disabilities who struggle with reading. In an experimental group design study involving 32 fifthgrade students with and without disabilities. Mason (2004) examined the impact of TWA compared to reciprocal questioning (RQ; Manzo, 1969). Across five oral response measures assessing the comprehension of researcher-developed text (main idea statement, summary, retell quality, nutnber of main ideas in tetell, and number of information units in retell), students who received TWA instruction outperformed those in the RQ condition. Large to medium effect sizes were obtained on all posttest measures. Improvement maintained over 3 weeks of time on three of the five measures.
INFORMATIVE WRITING WITH PIANS

FIGURE

TWA Chart

7WA
T Think Before Reading Think about: The Aufhor's Purpose What You Know What You Want to Learn W While Reading Think about: Reading Speed Linking Knowledge Rereading Parts A After Reading Think about: The Main Idea Summarizing Information What You Learned

Teacher-assigned wtiting tasks are often vague and provide little guidance to help students who struggle with writing (Harris & Graham, 1999).

This lack of guidance, combined with students' inattention to organization and underdeveloped rhetorical goals, often results in ineffective writing (Bereiter & Scatdamalia, 1982). PLANS-SRSD instruction helps students by teaching them to break wtiting tasks into manageable subtasks (Grahatn, MacArthur, Schwartz, & Page-Voth, 1992). Figure 2 presents the three-step PLANS process: (1.) "Do PLANS: Pick goals. List ways to meet goals, And, make Notes and Sequence notes"; (2.) "Wtite and say more"; and (3.) "Test goals." Students begin the prewriting process by selecting goals ftom a potential list of writing goals or by developing theit own personal goals for improving their wtiting. They then develop a plan for meeting these goals. Students write planning notes prior to wtiting an essay. Once the essay is revised and completed, students check their essay to see if they have been successful in meeting their goals. By self-tegulating their

Exceptional Children

71

FIGURE

Three Steps for Planning and Writing

1. Do P L A N S

Pick Goals List Ways to Meet Goals And Make Notes And Sequence Notes

2. Write and Say More 3. Test Goals

writing throughout the writing process with PLANS, students can establish personal goals for writing products and can evaluate their own performance. Graham et al. (1992), in a multiple probe design across subjects study, evaluated PLANS with 4 fifth-grade students with learning disabilities. Students were taught to use PLANS while planning and writing a persuasive essay. Following instruction, student performance improved as METHOD measured by the length of time spent planning PARTICIPANTS and writing essays, che number of words written, the number of persuasive essay parts, and essay Students in an urban elementary school in a Midquality. Effect sizes for posttest and maintenance western university city participated in this study. (number of essay parts) performance using per- Forty-nine percent ofthe school's student populacentage of nonoverlapping data were 100%, and tion (57% White, 16.3% African American, 88% for generalization to story writing (number 23.1% Hispanic, and 3.7% Asian) was from lowof story parts; Graham & Harris, 2003). There income households. Seventy-one percent of all was also a shift in student perspectives regarding students in the school met state standards across what constitutes good writing, from a perspective ali testing. The 9 study participants were selected founded in writing mechanics to a perspective fo- by the principal, three fourth-grade classroom teachers, and a special education teacher, who cused on planning and content generation. identified fourth-grade students who could decode fourth-grade reading material but were TWA AND PLANS struggling with comprehension and writing in sciThe current study examined the efifectiveness of ence and social studies classes. Raw scores from an combining TWA and PLANS in a multiple strat- author-administered third-, fourth-, and fifthegy approach for expository reading comprehen- grade expository reading assessment (Qualitative

sion and informative writing (writing a summary or retell of what has been read). The intervention included two instructional pbases. In the first instructional phase, students read a passage, completing the before, during, and after components of TWA. TWA instruction was extended from the previous study (Mason, 2004) by asking students to write outline notes using the main idea and summary strategies learned in TWA. In the second instructional phase, TWA + PLANS, students used their TWA notes and components of PLANS to write an informative retell essay. The combined TWA + PLANS approach has foundations in three strands of cognitive theory (prior knowledge acquisition, Pressley et al., 1995; prepositional theory, Kintsch, 1983; dual coding theory, Sadoski & Pavio, 2001) that are critical for supporting student acquisition and facilitation for comprehension and writing. It was expected that reading comprehension and writing performance of underachieving students with and without disabilities would be improved by integrating reading and writing processes. This process teaches students to reformulate and extend their thinking about what has been read through writing outline notes for reading comprehension in combination with developing planning and writing goals for an essay.

Fall 2006

Reading Inventory'3, Leslie & Caldwell, 2001) were used to corroborate the accuracy of identification criteria. Four of the 9 students scored at the instructional decoding level on the fourthgrade passage (i.e., 7-14 reading errors) whereas 5 students scored at the independent level on the fourth-grade passage (i.e., no more than 6 reading errors). Five students scored at the Jrustrational level when answering open-ended oral reading comprehension questions (i.e., answer less than five out of eight questions) at the third-grade level, whereas 4 students scored at ihe Jrustrational \cvc\ on fourth-grade material. Students' special education status was obtained from their most current lER The school's IEP team determined disability status and special education eligibility based on state and local procedures. Testing information and other relevant IEP documentation for the 4 students with disabilities were not available.

INSTRUCTION

The students' TWA + PL/VNS instructor, a metnbet of the research team, followed procedures fundamental to the SRSD approach. Lessons were focused, structured, explicit, and individualized to address the cognitive, affective, and behavioral chatactetistics of each student (Hatris et al., 2003). Six strategy acquisition stages fostered student attainment of strategy usage: develop preskills, discuss the strategy, model the strategy, memorize the strategy, guided practice, and independent practice. Lessons included direct instruction in self-regulating learning through self-instruction, goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-reinforcement. Students in each instructional gtoup were taught until they met a criterion of independently using TWA + PLANS above baseline performances. Independence for TWA (reading comprehension) was documented first when the students identified and wrote four or more main ideas with supporting detail in their TWA outlines, and provided an otal retell with at least By self-regulating their writing throughout three main ideas frotn memory. Independence for the writing process with PLANS, students PLANS (writing performance) was documented when the student met writing goals by including can establish personal goals for writing four or more main ideas in the written products and can evaluate their own sumtnary/retell essays. performance. 7~U^ Lessons. Tbe instructor introduced and taught TWA first, before introducing TWA + The 9 students were randomly assigned to PLANS strategies. Detailed lesson plans and supone of three instructional groups (see Table 1 for porting reproducible materials ate available at individual student demographics). Three males http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/sped/twaplans. were in Group 1: Noah, a White male with an The purpose of the first lesson was to introIEP for emotional/behavioral disorder (EBD); duce TWA and to discuss each before-, while-, Robert, a White male with an IEP tor a learning and aftet-reading step. The instructor-led discusdisability (LD) and a speech and language impair- sion of what good readers do when reading was ment (SLI); atid John, an African American tnale followed by introducing a "trick" or strategy that receiving Title I reading services. Kelly, a White would help with reading. The mnemonic TWA female with an IEP for SLI; Amber, a White fe- chart was then introduced (illustrated in Figure male receiving Title 1 reading services; and Ned, a 1). Students were told that, like a pilot in control White male currently being screened, were in of a plane, they could use TWA to "control" their Group 2. Group 3 also had three participants: reading throughout the process. For example, "a Meredith, a White female; Michael, a White male pilot always checks the plane's speed and rereads with an IEP for LD; and Charisse, a White fe- instruments if he/she does not understand them." male receiving Title I reading services. There were The students and the instructor signed a learning no significant differences perceived in groups or conttact, with students setting a goal to learn and students prior to instruction; however, after use TWA, and the instructor committing to do lessons were begun the instructor noted that John her best in teaching the strategy. This first lesson required additional vocabulary support. and all subsequent lessons incorporated time for

Exceptional Children

TABLE 1

Student Demographics Students Group 1 Noah Robert John Group 2 Kelly Amber Ned Group 3 Meredith Michael Charisse Female Male Female White White White 10.0 10.2 10.2 none LD Title I Independent 4th Instruction 4th Independent 4th Instruction 3rd Frustration 4th & 5th Frustration 3rd, 4th, & 5th Instruction 3rd Frustration 4th & 5th Female Female Male White White White 10.3 10.2 9.6 SLI Title I Screening potential EBD Independent 4th Instruction 4th Independent 4th Frustration 3rd, 4th, & 5th Frustration 3rd, 4th, & 5th Frustration 3rd, 4th, & 5th Male Male Male White White 10.3 10.3 EBD LD/SLl Title I Instruction 4th Independent 5 th Instruction 4th Instruction 3rd Frustration 4th & 5 th Instruction 3rd Frustration 4th & 5th Frustration 3rd, 4th. & 5th
Sex

Ethnicity

Age

Disability/ Other Services

Q_RI-3

Decoding

QRI-3 Comprehension

African 10.1 American

Note. QRI-3 = Qualitative Reading Inventory-3; EBD = emotional/behavioral disorder; LD = learning disability; SLI = speech and language impairment. students to practice memorizing the nine steps. Students were told that they would be asked to share the steps from memory in the next session and were taught to write the following reminder mnemonic to facilitate metnorization practice: T W A The second lesson began with the initial activity of al! lessons by asking the students to wtite out the TWA mnemonic and orally state the nine steps. Following this memorization practice, the teacher cognitively modeled (modeled while thinking out loud) how to use the strategy, and demonstrated how atid when to use TWA support materials (checksheet for self-monitoring, TWA graphic organizer for writing notes, rocket graph for self-reinforcement, and self-statement sheets). The checksheet was based on the Figure 1 TWA mnemonic; a sample of the graphic organizer is included as Appendix A. After modeling the before-read ing and whilereading steps, the instructor modeled how to complete the after-reading steps {develop main ideas, summaries, and retells). To promote visual processing while developing main ideas and summaries, the instructor used markers to highlight the sentences in the passage that related to the main idea (yellow), important details (blue), and trivial details (pink). The instructor modeled RAP steps (Ellis & Graves, 1990) and the five rules for summarization (Brown & Day, 1983) throughout tbe process of developing main ideas and summaries for each paragraph. After rereading and highlighting each text paragraph, the instructor modeled how to write notes on the TWA graphic organizer for main ideas and details, followed by otal rehearsal of paragraph summaries. For the last step, the teacher modeled how to complete an oral retell. Following the instructor's modeling, the students developed and recorded personal statements to be used befote ("I can do this even if it's long"), while ("I'm almost there, don't stop

74

FaU2006

ing each student to model TWA using a sample science passage. The student's ability to state a minimum of three main Ideas in retell was verihcd and recorded. The instructor praised students for their reading, outline, and oral retell growth and discussed how the next "trick" to be learned would help improve writing. Next in this individual session, the instructor and student evaluated the student's prior writing performance by examining a student written retell probe and discussing how TWA could help improve writing. The instructor introduced the concept of establishing writing goals using steps in the PLANS chart (Figure 2). At this time, the student selected or developed three goals for writing, recording the goals and methods for meeting goals on a goal sheet. Robert, for example, wrote Students were told that, like a pilot in the following goal: "Put a main idea for each control of a plane, they could use TWA to paragraph with important details" and described how he would meet the goal: "Use TWA to help "control" their reading throughout the with writing. Do the steps." The student-ins trueprocess. tor contract completed in the first lesson was revisited and updated to include goals for the The focus of all remaining TWA guided PLANS strategy. practice lessons was to scaffold instruction until In the subsequent group lesson, the instruceach student could independently implement all strategy steps without instructor or material tor discussed and modeled using the three prompts. The use of markers was gradually re- PIANS steps for writing an essay. Then the stuplaced by teaching the students to write "MI" for dents read a passage using TWA and wrote an inmain ideas and "D" for details alongside the ap- formative essay using PLANS. This lesson was propriate passage sentences, and by teaching them easy for most students; the difficult work of planto cross out trivial details. Instructional support ning the essayreading/understanding the pasmaterials were replaced with student products sage and writing the outHtiehad been practiced (i.e., students wrote their own TWA checksheet and mastered using the TWA outline format. Stuand outline on blank paper). dents wrote essays using the PLANS strategy to In the group setting, each student's ability to monitor their use of the individual goals develmeet the study's reading comprehension criterion oped in the prior lesson. Prior to writing, the inof independently reading a passage and writing a structor encouraged students to add detail to their TWA outline with a minimum of four main ideas TWA outlines, and to add to their essays while was evaluated. Students practiced oral retells, with writing and revising. After the student's essay was a minimum criterion of three main ideas. completed, the student and instructor checked PLANS Lessons. Prior to the first PLANS lesson, students participated in individual one-to- the essay to see if goals had been met. Students one sessions to document their current reading were permitted to revise the essay so that all goals comprehension performance and to examine pre- were met. This lesson was repeated until students instruction writing performance. The nistructor met the preestablished writing criterion: to indeassessed both the student's reading comprehen- pendently write essays that included at least four sion against the study criterion described above, main ideas. Instruction for the groups averaged and the student's oral retell performance by ask- fifteen 3O'mtn sessions.

now." "Think about it."), and after reading ("I learned something." "I did a good job today."). In lesson three, the instructor guided the students through completing the nine steps of TWA. The lesson included explicit instruction followed by gtoup discussion in developing main ideas, summaries, and writing outline notes to help students in selecting important text details. Students were encouraged to use the highlighters and the support materials. This lesson was repeated with group and peer collaborative practice until students demonstrated that they could use TWA with the supporting materials. Authentic science and social studies text material replaced researcher-developed text as students' main idea and summary development skills improved.

Excfptiorml Children

says for each student were examined. One of the authors tested students, telling them that there The research instruLtor received exten.sive training was no time limit for testing, and to do their best in implementing thf TWA lessons (including leswork. Testing for each probe data point was comson practice and videotaping a practice modeling pleted in one to three 30-min sessions. lesson), and had prior experience in teaching Outlme. TWA instruction included teaching TWA + PLANS to 'i fifth-grade students (Mason, students to write an outline; students could then Snyder, Jones, & Kcdcm, unpublished data). The apply this skill during TWA + PLANS instruction instructor used detailed lesson plans with sample for the planning and goal setting components of scripts for each instructional group and lesson, PLANS. At independent performance for TWA and checked off each instrticrional step as it was and TWA + PLANS, in either group or individual implemented. Thirty percent of ali lessons were sessions, students read the passage and used the tape-recorded. The third author listened to and taught strategies to either write an outline (TWA) recorded the pcrccntagf ol .steps completed in the or oudine/essay (TWA + PLANS) without assislessons. Fidelity of treatment was 99% for the tance from the instructor or peers (with the exnumher of steps checked by the instructor and ception of John, who was provided supplemental 97% for the tape-recorded steps. vocabulary support throughout instruction and group probing sessions). The outlines provided READING PASSAGES evidence of student learning following both IWA and TWA + PLANS instruction, and were critical The research team selected 20 reading passages, in establishing that students met criterion perfor250 to 325 words in Ictigtii, photocopied in hlack mance. In both before- and after-instruction and white trom ftfth-gradc science (Cohen, Del probing sessions, when students were told to Giorno, Harlan, McC^ormack, & Staver, 1986) write notes (see below), they often did not do so; and social studies {Clarcia, Gelo, Greenow, therefore, the outline measure lacks experimental Kracht, & White, 1997) textbooks. The selected control. passages were self-contained; in other words, they Oral Retell. Scripted directions that asked the did not refer to prior material in the text or to the student to write notes and state an oral retell were pictures/charts in the textbook. The Dale-Chall read out loud by the assessor at each probing sesreadability formula was used to corroborate a sion. Following these directions, the student refourth-grade reading level (Chali, Bissex, Conard, ceived a randomly assigned and counterbalanced & Harris-Sharpies, 1996). Because this study ocassessment-selected science or sociai studies pascurred during the spring .st-mcster,fifth-gradepassage. Before the student read the passage, the assages were selected to tninimize the effect of sessor provided a mini-sight word iesson for three material being presented ihat had recently been predetermined researcher-identified unfamiliar studied in the students' science or social studies challenge words (e.g., proper nouns not found on class. A fourth-grade general etlucation teacher grade-level readability lists). The assessor read the and an ave rage-achieving fourth-grade student exwords out loud, led choral practice, and told stuamined the passages hir acceptability. Eight pasdents that they could ask the assessor to read the sages, 250 to 275 wortis in length, were chosen words on the cards at any time. Students had acand then randomly assigned and coimterbalanced cess to a yellow marker, a blue marker, a pink across assessment sessions. The remaining pas- marker, pencils, and lined paper. Students were sages were used for instruction. asked to read the passage silently or out loud,
INSTRUCTIONAL TRLA/MFNT MEASURI-S

To establish criterion performance for TWA reading comprehension instruction, three independently written outlines for each student were examined. To establish criterion performance for TWA + PLANS, three independently written es76

were told that they could use any of the materials provided, and were asked to write notes. The assessor encouraged students to use everything they had learned to help them read the pa.ssage. After the student had read the passage, the assessor asked the student to tell orally everything that was read and learned in the passage, as if the assessor

FaU2006

knew nothing about the passage topic, without performance before and after instruction. Nine looking at the passage or any written notes. The students were randomly assigned to three instrucassessor collected the passage and notes when stu- tional groups of three students. Students' reading dents indicated tbey were ready to state the oral comprehension and informative writing perforreteli. Student orai responses at baseline and after mance was evaluated based on ability to orally instruction were transcribed on lined paper, tape- retell as well as write an essay after reading a pasrecorded for accuracy, and typed later. sage. Baseline performance for each student was Written Retell. After completing the oral collected prior to instruction. Additional baseline retell, the assessor gave students tbe same passage data for both oral and written retelhng were coland any written notes, and asked them to write lected for instructional Groups 2 and 3 following an essay that told everything that was read and instruction for Group 1. In addition, a probe for learned in tbe passage, as if the assessor knew each student in Group 3 followed instruction for nothing about the passage topic. Once again, the Group 2. research assessor encouraged students to use evImmediately foliowing each group's TWA inerything tbey had learned to help them write tbeir struction, student achievement as noted in their essay; they could use any of the materials pro- ability to write a IWA outline with a minimum vided, and were asked to write notes. There was of four main ideas for three passages was docuno time limit for student writing. If a student mented to reflect the stability of postinstruction needed time beyond the allowed 30 min from the performance. During the individual one-to-one class, the assessment was continued tbe following session following TWA instruction, each student day. Students read their completed essays to the provided one orai retell. Students had three perassessor, who made notes for any writing that was formance opportunities for written retelling imunreadable. Reteiis were typed iater by tbe asses- mediately following TWA + PLANS instruction. sor, who corrected speiling, capitalization, and Instruction for Group 2 began only after punctuation. Group 1 students achieved the criterion fot I'WA Treatment Acceptability. To eliminate effects + PLANS was achieved and verified. This process of students' seif-reporting opinions directiy to tbe was repeated for Group 2 prior to instruction for instructor, the noninstructional authors con- Group 3. Four to 6 weeks after instruction, we ducted postinstruction oral interviewing. Stu- conducted additional oral and written retell shortdents were asked six questions regarding their term maintenance of performance probes for the impressions of instruction and tiie TWA + students (two probes for Group 1 and onc probe PLANS strategies: (1.) "Has using the TWA + for Group 2). These were collected at a time conPLANS strategies helped you to become a better sistent with postinstructional probes taken for reader? How?" (2.) "What have you learned since otber groups. Due to timing (the end of tbe working witb Katie [the instructor]?" (3.) "How school year), students in the third group received do you tbink this wili belp otber chiidren?" (4.) only one short-term maintenance probe. A long"If you were the teacher, what wouid you change term maintenance {12 weeks following final in the lessons? Why?" (5.) "If you were the sbort-term maintenance probe) oral and written teacher, would you add anything to help children reteli probe, taken during the first week of school learn to read and write?" (6.) "From these lessons, following tbe summer break, was obtained for tbe what things have most helped you become a bet- six students who had returned to the school. ter reader and writer?" Interviewers recorded students' oral responses on a questionnaire form. SCORING AND RELIABILITY Interviews were tape-recorded to ensure accuracy Research assessors typed outlines and oral and and integrity, and transcribed and typed later. written retells for scoring. Reteiis were assigned a number so that the scorers, two advanced univerEXPERIMENTAL DESIGN sity students, would be unaware of the testing sesA multiple probe design across subjects (Horner sion, student, and school. Scorers did not know & Baer, 1978) was employed to evaluate student the purpose of the intervention or details about
77

Exceptional Children

called one MI or a cluster of unrelated details, (d) a retell in which the student attempted to recall one or more chunks of related details earned a score of 3, (e) a retell in which the student produced fairly well-organized but less complete recall containing two or more organized chunks of information earned a score of 4, (f) a score of 5 was obtained for a retell in which the student recalled groups of MI and details from several parts ofthe passage, and (g) a score of 6 was assigned if Outline. During the intervention, to establish the response completely captured the gist of the that students met criterion performance in TWA passage. Researcher-developed anchor retells were instruction, the instructor examined student writ- provided for each scoring point and passage durten outlines. A student met criterion when he or ing training and actual scoring. The number of she noted four main ideas (four out of five to six IU, counted regardless of importance to meaning phrases or sentences previously identified by the or text structure, was calculated by counting the first author and two elementary teachers). After number of phrases or sentences that captured one the intervention, two advanced university stu- idea or piece of information^described by Tradents who were unaware of the probe, student, basso, Secco, and Van Den Broek (1984) as and school scored all written outlines, including "event meaning." All measures were scored twice, those used for criterion as well as those written by one time by each scorer. Reliability for each tneastudents during subsequent probing. The first ausure was established by dividing the scorer's agreethor and two elementary teachers developed and ments by the total number of disagreements and compiled six potential main idea anchors for each agreements of the measure. Where differences ocpassage for use during scoring. All outlines were curred scores were averaged. Reliability for each scored twice, one time by each scorer. Reliability, measure was calculated to be as follows: MI = calculated at 100%, was established by dividing 95%, Q = 82%, IU ^ 93%, and W = 100%. the scorer's agreements by the total number of disagreements and agreements ofthe measure. Retells. Three scores from each oral retell and four scores from each written retell were derived. The number of main ideas (MI) was used for primary analysis. The MI score assessed the student's ability to find and write or remember key points in a passage. Four out of five to six phrases ot sentences previously identified as noted previously were provided as MI anchors, lo determine the score of MI told or written, the number of MI given in the student's response was counted. A secondary analysis was completed using a holistic quality score (Q) and the number of information units (IU). In addition, the number of words (W) was obtained for the written retell. The holistic Q score evaluated the student's ability to cluster information from the passage in an organized manner. Q scores ranged from 0 point to 6 points: (a) a score of 0 was assigned tor a response that did not retell anything from the passage, (b) a score of 1 was assigned to a retell that recalled one detail, (c) a score of 2 was assigned to a retell that reR ES U
L.TS

inscruction. Scorers received a 2-hr training session to ensure accuracy and reliability in scoring each measure. The first author conducted this session, which included presenting procedures, anchor points and rubrics for scoring each score; controlled practice for each score; and independent practice for each score. In addition, scorers received the full text of each assessment passage. Scorers worked independently to complete scoring the outlines and retells.

MI

IN

OUTLINE

Although asked to write notes and to use everything they had learned to help them remember what was read, no student wrote outline notes in the first three baseline probes. Interestingly, the three students in Group 3 did demonstrate some note-taking awareness prior to instruction; both Michael and Charisse each wrote two sentences prior to their fourth-probe oral retell, each capturing one MI. Neither student wrote notes during the fifth preinstruction probe. During her fifth preinstruction probe, Meredith asked if she could write notes, saying that "it helps me remember"; when told she could do so, however, she did not write notes for either oral or written retell. All students except John and Michael met criterion for writing outline notes by writing ei-

FaU2006

ther four or five MI independenriy on three ouriines for passages read following TWA instruction. Michael and John wrote only three Mi on the third postinstruction TWA outline. After TWA + PLANS instruction, all students wrote four to five MI on the two mdependenc group session writing probes, with the exception of Meredith {who wrote six Mi on one outline) and Charisse (who vi'rote three MI on one outline). Noah, Keiiy, and Ned did not write outline notes during any individuai retell probing session. Robert, Meredith, and Charisse continued writing an outline throughout ail probing phases, maintaining four to five Mi in each outline. In his final one-tO'One writing probe, John wrote an outline with two MI. Although Amber did not write an outline for her second individuai writing probe, she did write six Mi and five Mi on the first and third individual probes. Michael decreased performance to three MI on the first individual probe; he did not write an outline on his last probe.

Robert and Charisse increased MI written during their best postinstruction performance by five; Kelly, Ned, and Michael increased MI by four; and Noah and John increased by three. Amher and Meredith increased Mi by three, reaching the ceiling of six possible MI. Both John and Ned returned to haseiine performance during the first individual probing session. Throughout subsequent probing, all students in Groups 1 and 2 maintained or continued improving performance above baseiine performance {Group 3 was unavailable). All students participating in long-term maintenance probing maintained performance above their baselines with a range of two to six MI.
SECONDARY ANALYSIS

Table 2 reports quality, information units, and words written for the oral and written reteiis by group means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for probing phases (baseline, postinstruction, and long-term maintenance). Due to student attrition, iong-term measures, although indicating ORAL MI maintenance of sidlls learned when compared to Prior to instruction, baseiine orai retell probes for haseiine for each group, lacic the consistency individual students were relatively stable, with no needed to discuss group M and SD in a meaningstudent scoring above two oral MI per probe (see ful way. Figure 3). After TWA instruction, ail students The quality results, both orai and written met the criterion by orally stating at ieast three retell, indicated similar growth for all groups. Difmain ideas m an oral retell, as documented hy ferences in means from baseiine to postinstructeacher notes. Mi in the first orai retell probe fol- tion ranged 2.17 M to 3.00 M points higher at lowing instruction (ranging one to five Ml) indi- postmstruction for both measures. Variability in cated that all students except Michael improved the quality of both oral reteiis and written reteiis performance above their individual best baseline increased after instruction; standard deviations score. John and Kelly returned to baseline perfor- ranged from the lowest change of .65 SD to 1.04 mance during later probing; both, however, im- SD for Group 3 oral retells to .60 SD to 1.45 SD proved scores in subsequent probing. Long-term for Group 1 orai reteiis. When compared to other probing for Robert, Kelly, Amber, Meredith, and groups at baseiine. Group 2 had greater variability Charisse was maintained above baseline, with a in the quaiity of their written retells (1.11 SD) at range of two to four oral Mi's. Miciiael returned baseiine; postinstruction variabiiicy (1.19 SD) into his best baseline score during his final probe. dicated iittie change. Information unit mean differences, baseline WRITTEN MI to postinstruction, was quite different for the oral During baseline probing, ai! students with the ex- reteiis (range of 5.34 M to 5.86 M point growth) ception of Amber, Meredith, and Charisse wrote and written retells (range of 8.23 M to 17.87 M no more than one Mi {see Figure 4), Charisse point growth). Group variability (baseiine to wrote two MI during one haseiine probe; Amher postinstruction) for the number of information and Meredith wrote up to three Mi. Probes taiien units oraliy stated was inconsistent across groups. immediately foiiowing instruction indicated that The standard deviation for Group 1 increased

Exceptional Children

FIGURE

Main Ideas in Oral Retell

Basdinc Probes

Ticatrocnt Critnion

PostinsttuctioD Probes

Uuig-Terai Maintenance

Noah Robert John

Noah 0.].1.5.4.3 Robert 0.2.0.4.5.3.3 John 0.0.0. 1.0.2

Week Week I 2

Week) 3

Kelly Amber Ned Kellv nno .3.1.3 Amber 7r, 1 < 1 . 5.5.4 Ned M.I

Week Week 1 2

Week 3

Week! 7 L

I Week 12

Week | Week

16

26

\ \

*I

Meredith Michael Charlsse Meredith 0.1.0.1.1.4 4 Michael O.I.OO.y, | , | Charisse 0.0.0.0.0. 2 2

\ Week Week 1 2 Week 3 Week 7 Week 12 Week 16 Week 26

Criterion of independence in writing at least 4 main ideas in 3 outlines and orally stating at least 3 main ideas in 1 oral retell

SO

Fall 2006

FIGURE

Main Ideas in Written Retell

Baseline Probes

Treatment

Poslinstrvction Probes

Long-Tenn Maintenance

A
Noah I Robert

Noah 1.2.1.4.5,4,3,3 Roben 0.0.0. 5.5.5. 6.4.4 John 0.1.1.3.4.1.2.2

Week Week Week I 2 3

Week Week Week Week Week Week 26 " 6""! 6 7 12 16

z: 7
Week Week Week Week
1 2 3 7

Kelly I Amber Ned

Kelly 0.0.1.0.5.4.3.3.6 Amber 0.3.3.3.^4,6.3,5 Ned 0.1.0.1.5.4.1.3

Week I Week Week Week Week -.^1 j II 12 16 26

Meredith Michael Cliarisse Meredith 0.1.0.0.3.6.5^6 Michael O.l.O.O.Q. 5,4,?. 2 Charisse 0.1.2.1.1.3.4.6.5

Week Week Week Week Week 1 2 3 7 12

Week Week Week Week 15 15 16 26

Exceptional Children

ei

TA

BLE

Secondary Analysis: Means and Standard Deviations (SD)

Instructional Group Baseline Means Postinstruction Means Long- Term Maintenance Means

Measure

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

Oral Retell Quality Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 .89 (.60) 1.33 (.65) 1.33 (.72) 4.22 (1.30) 4.33 (2.27) 3.47 (4.21) 1.00 (.71) 1.17 (1.11) 1.67 (.82) 3.44 (1.59) 5.08 (3.75) 4.80 (5.33) 28.33 (12.58) 36.42 (29.84) 29.20 (25.39) 3.11 (1.45) 3.50 (1.04) 4.33 (1-53) 4.00 (1 student) 4.50 (2 students) (.71) 2.33 (3 students) (1.53)

Information Units

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

9.56
(4.92) 10.17 (4.17) 9.33 (4.04) 3.47 (1.19) 4.17 (1.19) 4.44 (1.24) 11.67 (4.97) 18.58 (8.63) 22.67 (9.60) 81.80 (31.46) 129.67 (49.33) 136.67 (59.34) 12.00(1 student) 12.50 (2 students) (3.54) 10,33 (3 students) (8.50) 4.00 (1 student) 5.50 (2 students) (.71) 4,00 (3 students) (2.00) 14.00(1 student) 23.50 (2 students) (6.36) 19,00 (3 students) (12.77) 77.00 (1 student) 146.00 (2 students)

Written Retell Quality Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Information Units

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Words Written

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

(2.83) 123.00 (3 students) (104.65)

from 1.30 SD co 4.92 SD whereas Group 2 increased from 2.27 SD to 4.17. Group 3 had a small decrease in variability (4.21 SD to 4.04 SD). Standard deviations (baseline to postinstruction) for the written retells approximately doubled for Groups 2 and 3. As with oral retelling. Group 1 had the largest variability in the written retells. 1.59 SD to 4.97 SD.

The mean difference for number of words written baseline to postinstruction ranged from 53.47 M (Group 1) to 107.47 M (Group 3) point growth. Standard deviations for each group reflect a similar pattern to the one noted for information units orally stated or written: Group 1 demonstrated the largest variability (12.58 SD to 31.46 SD).

82

Fall 2006

SOCIAL VALIDITY

All of the students indicated that the TWA + PLANS strategy had helped them become better readers and writers. Amber responded; "Like now in the classroom I go back and read and I'll go bacic and reread, I think about my reading speed and what the author is trying to teil me." Robert stated, "Now I know not just to write the main idea in the paragraph but also the details." Noah and Charisse related what they had learned: "How to write 3 or more paragraphs." "Learned to reread, to think before I read, link my knowledge." When asked how TWA could heip other children, John responded: "If they are kind of bad at reading it can heip them more at reading and writing. TWA will help them." All students responded that they would add nothing to heip children iearn to read. Ned responded, "No, Katie [the itistructor] has done good!" John and Keily had the following comments regarding changing the lessons: "I wouldn't really want to change anything because it's good how it is." "Maybe about the writing part, write less because changing rhe writing part your hand gets tired when youre writing long." When asked what most helped them, students responded, "Me writing hetter details atid the main idea in a paragraph," "Reading speed, linking knowledge, rereading parts." "Rereading parts," " i WA, since I know it so well it's helped me with reading and writing and getting through problems with reading," "i really don't know because most of it has heiped tne. Now I icnow how to read booics and fuily understand them."

strated improvement in reading comprehension hy producing more correct text main ideas in oral retelling, outlining, and written retelling. Gains in the numher of information units orally recalled from the text reflect an increased memory for text. Reflecting a hetter understanding of text, students' ahiiity to organize information for both oral and written retelling improved as noted in the quaiity scores. Written retell essays were longer, containing more units of information and number of words written. It is equally impressive that student performance, for hoth orai retells and written reteiis, maintained above-haseline performance after the 3-month summer break fot those students who returned to the school (Noah, John, and Ned did not return). Students were fairiy consistent in their abilities to give an oral retell across measures (main idea, qualiry, numher of information units) prior to instruction; after instruction, however, performance gains varied across students and groups. For oral retell Mi, Noah, Robert, Meredith, and Amber achieved a high ievei of performance above haseiine immediately following instruction; however, both Noah and Roberts oral retell performance declined over time. Ned's MI performance in oral retelling increased over time. John, Kelly, Michael, and Charisse made smaller gains for main ideas in orai reteiling when compared with their peers. These differences and variability were also reflected in the group performance resuits for quality and the numher of information units. Oniy Amher and Meredith maintained a high level of stable performance in oral retelling across measures over time. The inconsistency for some students' oral reteii performance was noted throughout instruction and parallels students' outlining performance. According to instructor notes during instruction, John, Michael, Charisse, and Kelly, although demonstrating verbally that they had correctly identified main ideas, were inconsistent in independently meeting the criterion of writing four main ideas in an outline and often required verbal reminders to write more. On the other hand, Robert, Meredith, and Amber, who consistently demonstrated the ability to write four to six main ideas on an outline and completed their work independently, had a more stable oral retelling performance. Furthermore, although ali students'

DISCUSSION

Student performance in providing an orai reteil and written retell after reading a science or social studies passage prior to and after SRSD instruction for TWA + PLANS was evaluated in this study. Baseline performances revealed no observed meaningfui text engagement, planning, or outlining, resulting in orai reteiis and written retells that did not clearly demonstrate understanding of what was read. Results across measures (main idea, quality, information units, and words written) indicated gains and variability across students and groups aher instruction. Students demon-

Exceptional Children

outlining indicated that rhey had learned to identify main ideas immediately following both TWA instruction and subsequent TWA + PLANS instruction, not all studenrs chose to write outline notes during later maintenance probing. For the students iti this study, it appears that writing notes in outline format supported a stable postinstruction oral retell performance. The written products (outlines and essays) following TWA + PLANS instruction provide evidence of improved reading comprehension performance beyond that given in the oral retell. Furthermore, in addition to gains in reading comprehension, students improved their writing performance for an expository retell essay. Written retell essays were longer and more organized following TWA + PLANS instruction when compared to retell essays written at baseline. Six students demonstrated stable postinstruction written retell performance. One student, Charisse, actually improved writing performance over time. Michael and Kelly, conversely, bad unstable postinstruction performance over time. As with the oral retelling, students' written outline production appeared to contribute to the stability of the written retell essays. Robert, Meredith, Amber (who skipped one outline), and Charisse wrote outlines for each essay, resulting in better written retells when compared with students who were inconsistent in writing outline notes (Noah, John, Kelly, Ned, and Michael). The difference in maintaining performance after instruction for students wbo struggle with writing when compared to average-achieving peers is well documented (Graham & Harris, 2003). Increased scaffolding during instruction as well as booster sessions following instruction is often required to support learning and performance gains over time (Harris & Graham, 1999). Although ali students tn this study had memorized and learned to apply the strategy steps during instruction, stability and level of performance may have been improved by providing opportunities to practice TWA + PLANS for reading, outlining, and writing after establishing criterion performance. Noah, John, Kelly, Ned, and Michael, for example, may have benefited from additional supported and independent practice throughout instruction as well as booster sessions following instruction for both oral and written

retelling. Charisse, who was able to write an outline (but often with only three main ideas), may bave benefited from extra support in the main idea strategy. As noted by Graham and Harris (2003), methods to enhance strategic behavior over time need to be developed and validated. Instruction can be strengthened by adding components that address the affective behaviors of studetits wbo are having difficulty in maintaining the motivation for completing the task. In tbis study, two 30niinute writing periods were often needed for the production of a good written outline and retell essay for the expository passages read. Sotne students had difficulty maintaining the attention needed co complete ail strategy components. Some students simply stopped writing tbe oudine and, as documented by instructor notes, these studeEits also tended to be resistant to writing. Noah, for example, became agitated when asked to extend responses on the outline or essay. As Kelly noted in postinstruction interviewing, "Change tiic writing part, write less." Future studies might consider supports to enhance student motivation for staying with the task. Prior research witb students with LD (Reid & Bori(owskl, 1987) and witb SRSD writing instruction (Sexton, Harris, & Grahatn, 1998) bas indicated that combining strategy instruction with attribution instruction bas a positive effect on performance and adaptive attributions. Aithougii each lesson began with a discussion of how tbe strategies would belp students' reading comprehension and writing, the TWA and TWA + PLANS interventions in this study did not include an expiicit attribution training component. Students were not directly asked to attribute tfieir success to cither effort or strategy use. In other words, students self-monitored tbeir performance, indicating that they iiad completed strategy steps; however, evaluation of resuits in terms of product quality or effort expended by the student was not done. Furthermore, aithough students' interview comments indicated that the strategies were helpful, it was difficult to evaluate students' tbinking in regard to the actual appiication of ail strategy steps. Despite the variabtitty in student performance for botb oral and written retell, SRSD instruction for TWA + PLANS appeared to support students' expository reading performance as mea-

84

Fall 2006

sured orally and in writing. In addition, students' writing improved across measures. StLidents liked instruction and felt positive about its benefits for both reading and writing. An iilustrative example of Robert's gains in oral and written reteii performance is provided in Appendix B. iMI't.iCAl IONS Unlike the students in the current study who were taught and who learned a combined approach, students who were previously taught only TWA for reading comprehension were unable to generalize strategies for comprebension to improving writing (Mason, 2004). ibe current study provides evidence that teacher-directed explicit seifregulated strategy instruction, guided practice, and independent practice tor botb reading comprehension and writing foster growth in reading comprehension and writing for students wbo struggle with expository text reading and writing. Although SRSD for TWA + PLANS instruction for improving performance is documented in this study, tbe benefit of combining TWA-SRSD witb PLANS-SRSD instruction to improve both reading comprehension and writing is not clear and should be examined through components analysis study. Furtbermore, future research is needed to replicate findings for a larger, more diverse sample of students and to establish ecological validity (real classroom application) and generalizability of tbe treatment. Inconsistent documentation of oral retelling and outline performance across all design phase probes limits tbe findings for botb these measures. There is evidence, however, tbat TWA reading comprebension with outlining improved oral retell performance, and tbat TWA + PLANS witb outlining was more beneficial in improving writing than rWA + PLANS when outlining was not completed. The results, as demonstrated in tbis study, reflect tbe difficulty in getting students to apply what has been learned, particularly for students v/ith special needs who are struggling academically. To foster student application of learned skills, as discussed previously, students' continued fluency in using tbe TWA + PLANS strategies should be evaluated over time. After iastruction, student application of the strategics should be checked to ensure tbat the student has not inad-

vertently made modifications that limit tbe effectiveness of the strategies. Although SRSD for TWA + PUNS instruction includes validated stages of instruction necessary for strategy acquisition and effective procedures for self-regulated learning, some students may require more explicit help in seeing tbe impact of the strategies on performance (Harris, Grabam, & Mason, 2004; Harris, Grabam, & Mason, 2006). Methods may need to move beyond the description and discussion of strategy benefits as was facilitated in tbe current study. Specific procedures for teaching students to understand tile strengths and wcaioicsses of a strategy, and to see how individual strategy components support each phase of an academic task, should be embedded into instruction for those students who have difficulties with maintaining learned skiils.

Specific procedures for teaching students to understand the strengths and tveaknesses of a strategy, and to see how individual strategy components support each phase of an academic task, should be embedded into instruction for those students who have difficulties with maintaining learned skills.
Expository text, as written in commercial science and social studies textbooks, does little to nurture and foster students' reading comprebension (Chambliss & Calfee, 1998). Tbis lack was evident as we watched the nine students in this study struggle, even though we initially used researcbcr-dcveloped text intended to be more student-friendly. Although instruction was individualized and expiicit, some students (Kelly and Michael, for exampie) may have benefited from additional suppiemental or one-to-one directed instruction. In addition, students iike John, who lack critical prc-skills, require support and modifications to TWA + PLANS instruction. Minl-iessons supporting vocabuiary development should be provided for students iike Jobti. For tbe most part, the students in tbis study benefited from the criterionbased self-regulated strategy instruction provided in expository reading comprehension and

Exceptional Children

informative writing, and were abie to improve both their understanding of material and rlieir ability to write about what had been read. As noted by Meredith {when asiced how much TWA and PLANS might help other students), "A lot because some don't know about reading and writing .so they need help."
REFERENCES

dents with learning disabilities using a strategy invoiving product and process goal setting. Exceptional Children. 58, 322-334. Graves, A. W., & Eevin, j . R. (1989). Comparison of monitoring and mnemonic text-ptocessing strategies in learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 12, 232-236. Greenwald, E. A., Petsky, H, R., Campbeil, J. R., &c Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 writing report card for the nation and the states. Edueation Statistics Quarterly,

Baker, S., Gertsen, R., & Scanloti, D. (2002). Procedu- !, 23-28. ral facilitators and cognitive strategies; Tools for unrav- Gunning, T. G. (2003). Building literacy in the content eling the mysteries of comprehension and tiie wtiting areas. Boston: Allyn &C Bacon. process, and for providing meaningful access to the Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instructional general cutriculum. Learning Disabilities Research and study: Improving the inferential comprehension of Practice, 17, d^^-ll. good and poor fourch-grade tcidcn. Journal of EducaBereiter, C , & Scardamalia, M, {1982). From conver- tional Psychology. 75, 821-829. sation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmentai process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Harris, K. R., & Graham. S. (1996). Making the writinstructional psychology (Vol, 2, pp. 1-64}. Hillsdale, ing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. NJ: Eribaum. Brown, A. L, & Day, J. D. (1983). Macro rules for Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic insummarizing texts: The development ot expertise./owr- tervention research: Illustrations from the evolution of nal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14. self-reguiated strategy development. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 251-262. Campbell, J. R.. Hombro, C. M., & Maz7.eo, J. (1999). Trends in academic progress: Three decades of student Harris. K. R.. Graham. S., & Mason, E. H. (2003). performance. Education Statistics Quarterly, 2, 31-36. Self-regulated strategy deveiopment in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction fot Chall, J. S., Bissex, C. L., Conard, S. S., & Harrisstudents with disabilities. Eocus on Exceptional Children, Sharpies, S. H. (1996), Qiialitative assessment of text dif35, 1-16. ficulty: A praetieal guide for teachers and writers. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2004). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Chambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (1998). Textbooks for Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and learning: Nurturing children's minds. Maiden, MA: self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self'regulated strategy development. Contemporary EduBlackweii. cational Psychology, 30, 207-241. Cohen, M. R., Del Ciorno, B. J., Harlan, J. D., McCormack. A. J,. & Staver, J. R. (1986). Sctenee. Glen- Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, E. H. (2006). Improving che writing performance, knowledge, and view, IL: Scott, Foresman. motivation of young struggling writers: Effects of selfEllis, E. S., & Graves, A. W. (1990). Teaching rutal sturegulated strategy development with and without peer dents with learning disabilities: A paraphrasing strategj' support. American Educational Research fournal, 43, to increase comprehension of main ideas. Rural Special 295-340. Edueation Quarterly, 10. 2-10. Garcia, J. R.. Gelo, D. J., Greenow, L. L.. Kracht, J. B., Hotner, R. D., & Baer, D, M. (1978). Multiple probe & White, D. G. (1997). Our United States. Needham, technique: A variation of the multiple probe baseiine. four7ial ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189-196. MA: Silver Burdett Ginn. Graham, S., &L Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A metaanalysis of SRSD studies. In H. I., Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323-344). New York: Guiiford Press. Graham, S., MacArthur, C , Schwartz, S., & PagcVoth, V, (1992). Improving the compositions of stuKintsch, W. (1983). Memory for text. In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Discourse processing (pp. 186-204). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Leslie, E.. & Galdwell, J. (2001). Qualitative reading inventory-3. New York: Longman. Manzo, A. V. (1969). The request procedure. The fournal ofReading, 13, 123-126, 163.

Fall 2006

Mason, L H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy Snow, C, E., Burlis, M. S,, & GHfFin, P. (1998]. Predevelopment versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on venting reading difficulties in young children. Washingexpository reading comprehension among struggling ton, DC: National Academy Press. tc^AcTs. Journal of Educational Psychobgy, 96, 283-296. Swanson, H, L, Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). InterMason, L, H., Snyder, K,, Jones, D, P, & Kedem, Y, ventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta[Seif-regulating expository reading comprehension and analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Cullford. informative writing: Effects for five 5th-grade stuTrabasso, T, Secco, T., & Van Den Broek, P (1984), dents]. Unpublished data. Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandl, N. National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelL. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehenopment. (2000). Comprehension, Part II: Text compresion oftext (pp. 83-110). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. hension instruction. In Report ofthe National Reading Tracey, D. H,, & Morrow, L. M. (2002). Preparing Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment ofthe scientific research literature on reading and Its young learners for successful reading comprehension. implications for reading instruction: Reports ofthe sub-In C, C, Block &C M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension ingroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754), Washington, struction: Research-based best practices (pp. 219-233). DC: U.S, Government Printing Office, Available: New York: The Guilford Press. www. nichd, nih.gov/publications/nrp/report, htm Ogle, D. M. (1989). The know, want to know, learn strategy. In K. D. Muth (Ed.), Children's comprehensionABOUT THE AUTHORS of text (pp. 205-223). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. LINDA H. MASON (CEC PA Federation), AssisPressley, M., Brown, R., El-Dinary, P B., & Afflerbach, tant Professor, Department of Educational and P. (1995). The comprehension instruction that students School Psychology and Special Education, Colneed: Instruction fostering constructively responsive lege of Education, Pennsylvania State University, reading. Learning Dlsahilities Research and Practice, 10, University Park, K A T I E H I C K E Y S N V D E R . 215-224. Doctoral Student, Department of Curriculuqi RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for unand Instruction; DIANA P. SUKHRAM (CEC IL derstanding: toward an R&D program in reading compreFederation), Doctoral Student, Department of hension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Available: http:// Special Education; and YORE KEDEM. Doctoral www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/ Student, Department of Curriculum and InstrucMRl465.pdf Reid, M., & Borkowski, J. (1987). Casual attributions tion, College of Education, University of Illinois, of hyperactive children: Implications for teaching Urbana-Champai gn. strategies and self-control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 296-307. Sadoski, M., & Pavio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A Correspondence concerning this article should be dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ:addressed to Linda H. Mason, Department of EdErlbaum, ucational and School Psychology and Special EdSaenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the ucation, 210 CEDAR, University Park, PA 16802 reading difficulty of secondary students with learning (e-mdll: Ihml2@psu.edu). disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 3141. Preparation of this article was funded by the U.S. Sexton, M., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1998), Self- Department of Education's Office of Special Edregulated strategy development and the writing process: ucation Programs (Crant #H324C030e49). The Effects on essay writing and attributions. Exceptional opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the Children. 64, 295-311. position or policy of the Department of EducaSinatra, G. M., Brown, K .}., & Reynolds, R. E. (2002), Implications of cognitive resource allocation tion, and no official endorsement should he for comprehension strategies instruction. In C. C. inferred. Block &c M. Pressley (Eds,), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp, 62-76), New York: Manuscript received April 2005; accepted The Guilford Press. December 2005.

Exceptional Children