Download - Learning About Learning Disabilities || Writing Instruction

243Learning about Learning Disabilities© 2012 Elsevier Inc.

All rights reserved.2012

Writing InstructionCharles A. MacArthur1, Zoi Philippakos1, Steve Graham2, and Karen Harris21University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA 2Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85069-3151, USA

9

Chapter Contents

Introduction 243Goals of Writing Instruction 244

Writing Tasks 244Writing Processes 245Writing to Learn 246Basic Skills and Conventions 247

General Recommendations for Writing Instruction 248Provide Time for Writing 248Create a Supportive Social Environment 249Integrate Writing and Reading 249

Writing Instruction for Students with LD and other Struggling Writers 250Explicit, Systematic Instruction in Self-Regulated Strategies 251Explicit, Systematic Instruction in Basic Skills 257Application of Technology in Writing Instruction 260Computer Support for Planning Processes 265

Concluding Comments 266References 267

CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION

Writing is a complex cognitive and social process. Proficient writ-ing requires awareness of the audience and purpose for particular tasks, knowledge of content, effective strategies for planning and revising, criti-cal reading, language ability, motivation, and self-regulation, as well as flu-ent text production. Even for skilled adults, writing is challenging, and most students find writing difficult. The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (Salahu-Din, Persky, & Miller, 2008) reported that only 33% of eighth-grade, and 24% of twelfth-grade students were proficient. Among special education students at eighth grade, only 6% scored proficient,

http://dx.doi.org/

Learning about Learning Disabilities244

and 46% were below basic. Students with learning disabilities (LD) perform more poorly than their normally achieving peers on all aspects of writing. They have less knowledge about writing, fewer skills with language, greater difficulties with spelling and handwriting, and less effective strategies for writing (Troia, 2006).

The purpose of this chapter is to review research relevant to the writ-ing needs of students with LD and struggling writers and to provide specific instructional recommendations to educators. We begin with a dis-cussion of the goals of writing instruction for all students and classrooms. Next, we provide general recommendations for a sound program of writ-ing instruction for all elementary and secondary students. The largest part of the chapter focuses on instructional approaches that have been studied intensively with students with LD and other struggling writers. We focus on three instructional approaches: instruction in self-regulated strate-gies for planning and revising; instruction in the basic skills of handwrit-ing, spelling, and sentence writing; and assistive technology for writing. Throughout the chapter, whenever possible, recommendations are based on empirically validated procedures. However, we have not limited our discussion just to evidence-based practices. Promising practices are empha-sized as well.

GOALS OF WRITING INSTRUCTION

A reasonable place to begin a discussion of writing instruction is with the desired outcomes. What do students need to know and be able to do in order to be successful in later education and in the workplace? Desired outcomes include knowledge about writing tasks, proficiency with cogni-tive strategies and processes, ability to use writing to support learning, and skills with writing conventions and fluent text production.

Writing TasksStudents need to learn to write for a wide range of audiences and purposes in a variety of forms. The Common Core State Standards (2010) organize writing outcomes according to three tasks with associated communicative purposes that are common to writing in school and the workplace: argu-ments to persuade; informative/explanatory texts to convey information clearly; and narratives to convey experience, real or imagined. The Writing Framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (National Assessment Governing Board, 2007) specifies the same three writing purposes: to persuade, to

Writing Instruction 245

explain, and to convey experience. Within these broad purposes, there are many specific purposes and forms of writing that differ in text structure, content, language, tone, style, and other characteristics. For example, per-sonal narratives, fables, adventure stories, and mysteries are all narratives with characters and problems, but they differ in content, structure, language, and style. For older students, science reports, literary analyses, and interpre-tations of historical events all seek to explain, but have dramatically different conventions for content, organization, and style. If the writing curriculum in a school focuses on a relatively narrow range of writing tasks, such as the five-paragraph essay, then students may not be prepared for the wide vari-ety of writing tasks they will encounter in later schooling and employment. One way to broaden the range of writing tasks is to teach writing in all content-area classes, so that students learn some of the purposes and con-ventions of writing in the disciplines (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008).

Knowledge of genres develops gradually over the school years (Donovan & Smolkin, 2006). Cognitive studies (Hayes & Flower, 1980; Torrance & Galbraith, 2006) have found that expert writers have considerable knowl-edge of common text structures and genres, which they use in generating and organizing content. In contrast, struggling writers have limited knowl-edge of and sensitivity to such text structures (Englert & Thomas, 1987).

Writing ProcessesIn addition to knowledge about types of writing, students need to acquire strategies for planning and revising. Proficient writers use a range of strate-gies to manage the complex processes of planning and revising. In gen-eral, younger and less skilled writers engage in far less planning than older and more proficient writers. One key difference between proficient and novice writers is that proficient writers engage in task analysis and goal setting during planning (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Hayes & Flower, 1980). Writers begin with general tasks but need to set sub-goals to direct their planning. In the process, they analyze the task, using knowledge about audience, purpose, and content. Experimental studies of goal set-ting have shown that directing students to set goals for planning an argu-ment (Ferretti, MacArthur, & Dowdy, 2000) or for revising an argument to consider audience (Midgette, Haria, & MacArthur, 2008) can improve the quality of their writing.

In addition to goal setting, proficient writers engage in a variety of planning strategies to generate and organize content, including brain-storming, outlining, mapping, free-writing, self-questioning, and using


text structure. Recent reviews of research on cognitive strategy instruction show that teaching planning strategies, especially strategies based on text structure with mnemonics or graphic organizers as scaffolds, can have sub-stantial effects on the organization and overall quality of written products (Graham, 2006; Graham & Perin, 2007).

Proficient writers also differ from less skilled writers in revising pro-cesses. Expert writers evaluate their texts throughout the writing process and revise to improve meaning, organization, language, and conventions, whereas, novice writers typically revise primarily for mechanical prob-lems (Fitzgerald, 1987). Revision is dependent on critical reading and self-evaluation processes. Prompting writers to ask evaluative questions, directly teaching evaluation criteria, and instruction in peer review all have been shown to support increased revision and improved writing quality (MacArthur, 2012).

Students also need to learn self-regulation strategies. Self-regulation is important in all areas of academic performance, but it is especially so in writing because of its complexity and challenge. Use of strategies clearly helps writers to self-regulate the writing process, and self-regulation has been recognized as a critical aspect of strategy development since the 1980s (Brown & Palincsar, 1982). In addition to writing strategies, spe-cific self-regulation processes play an important role in proficient writing (Graham & Harris, 2005; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). Several types of self-regulation strategies have been studied with regard to writing, includ-ing self-monitoring, self-instructions, goal setting, self-reinforcement, and management of time and environment. Further discussion of strategies and self-regulation is included in a later section on strategy instruction.

Writing to LearnOne of the main purposes of writing in school settings is to support learning. Teachers ask students to summarize reading assignments, analyze texts or learning activities, take essay exams, and write research papers, all with the purpose of enhancing content learning. Research reviews show that writing activities do enhance content learning (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004). Furthermore, writing about texts that have been read supports enhanced reading comprehension (Graham & Hebert, 2010). Graham and Hebert found moderate to strong effects on reading comprehension from responding to a text in writing (e.g., personal reac-tions, analysis), summarizing texts, writing notes, and answering ques-tions about a text in writing. Writing about texts one has read involves


substantial skills that go beyond writing activities based on personal expe-rience or existing knowledge. For example, summarizing requires compre-hension of the main ideas in a text and skill in paraphrasing those ideas in one’s own words, and responding to a text requires comprehension plus some critical analysis. This reprocessing of information enhances under-standing of the content of the reading and increases future ability to read that type of text. Learning to write a research paper requires many addi-tional skills, such as searching for information, selecting and evaluating the information, taking notes, integrating information from multiple sources, and developing a main idea or thesis that integrates the information effec-tively. A solid writing instruction program should provide ample opportu-nities for students to write about what they read in the service of learning.

Basic Skills and ConventionsIssues of grammar and writing conventions are critical to any discussion of struggling writers. Berninger and Swanson (1994) modified Hayes and Flower’s (1980) model of writing, elaborating the empty “transla-tion” component to include sentence production and transcription com-ponents. Transcription factors, including handwriting, spelling, typing, and punctuation, have a significant impact on writing quality for young writers (Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, & Whitaker, 1997) and older struggling writers. Graham et al. (1997) found that handwriting fluency and spelling accounted for 25 to 42% of variance in writing quality for elementary school children, and there is evidence that typing fluency similarly affects quality for secondary students (Christensen, 2004) and primary students (Connelly, Gee, & Walsh, 2007). Many struggling writers have difficulties with handwriting that interfere with fluent writing and affect motivation and writing quality.

In addition, ability to write correct Standard English is important in its own right because errors can interfere with understanding and can affect the judgments of others about one’s ability. Students with LD and other struggling writers, of course, make far more errors than proficient writers. Unfortunately, problems with grammar can be persistent and difficult to remediate. Some difficulties stem from the fact that written text is more complex than oral text, so students need to learn more complex sentence structures for writing than they use in speaking. In addition, students who speak nonstandard English and non-native speakers have additional sources of difficulty with the complexities of English syntax. Despite the difficul-ties, the ability to write using correct and varied sentences and the ability


to produce text with reasonable fluency via handwriting and typing are important outcomes of writing instruction.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WRITING INSTRUCTION

Before considering the special needs of students with LD and other strug-gling writers, we would like to present briefly some recommendations about writing instruction for all students. The first step in preventing writ-ing problems is to provide a solid general writing curriculum based on research, where available, and recommendations of expert practitioners. The elements of effective writing instruction will vary by grade, but some key principles remain the same. From the goals discussed above, it follows more or less directly that a sound writing curriculum should include:l Instruction in writing for a wide range of audiences and purposes in a

variety of forms.l Instruction in the writing processes involved in planning, drafting, and

revising as well as strategies for self-regulation of the overall process.l Instruction in writing that is integrated with learning in content areas.l Instruction in the basic skills required for fluent text production and

use of standard English.In addition, we would like to make three other general recommenda-

tions for a sound writing curriculum:l Provide ample time for writing.l Create a supportive social environment.l Integrate writing and reading.

Provide Time for WritingOne essential element of an effective writing instruction program is ade-quate time for students to write. They need time to learn and practice the basic skills required. They need time to learn strategies for planning, draft-ing, and revising. They need time to learn about the various purposes that writing can serve. They need time to learn to evaluate their writing. And they need time to develop motivation and confidence in their ability.

Teachers should establish regular routines for writing instruction and practice that include daily opportunities for students to practice writing. In elementary school classes, teachers should set aside time devoted spe-cifically to writing plus arrange opportunities to write across the school day as part of instruction in reading and the content areas. Students should


spend time during the school day writing in class as well as writing for homework. In-class writing is important because it provides opportuni-ties for teachers to observe and evaluate students’ writing processes and difficulties as well as time to assist individual students. At the secondary level, writing assignments may be divided across many content area classes, which requires coordination by grade-level teams of teachers to ensure that students are receiving adequate time and instruction.

Create a Supportive Social EnvironmentTeachers should establish a supportive environment for writing in which students form a community of writers. Writing is a social process as well as a cognitive process. To learn writing as a meaningful process of commu-nication with others, student writers need response from readers. In a sup-portive environment, students feel connected to each other and the teacher, and they feel safe to share their ideas and writing. They can then learn to revise and improve their writing by giving and receiving feedback and revis-ing their writing. Publication of their writing for peers enhances motiva-tion and emphasizes the purpose of writing. The community should not be limited to peers in the classroom. Teachers should provide opportunities to write for a variety of audiences beyond the classroom, which can expand students’ sense of audience. Opportunities to share writing with other classes or external audiences have always been available and have increased with new forms of communication via the Internet (MacArthur & Karchmer-Klein, 2010). All of these social aspects of writing are emphasized in process approaches to writing, which have research support (Graham & Perin, 2007).

Integrate Writing and ReadingReading and writing are often taught as separate subjects at all levels from first grade through college, but it makes more sense to integrate them. Reading and writing are related from multiple perspectives (Tierney & Shanahan, 1996). From a social perspective, reading and writing are recip-rocal processes. Writers need responses from readers, and readers need to learn to think about the authors of the books they read. From a cognitive perspective, reading and writing draw on much of the same knowledge about print and text structure. From a pragmatic perspective, in most real world and academic settings, except for writing class itself, people rarely write without reading.

One way to integrate reading and writing is to give students opportuni-ties to read many examples of a type of text before asking them to write


that type. When elementary school children are asked to write fictional stories, or subgenres of story like fables, they have usually had considerable experience reading such stories. However, students of all ages have had less experience reading the types of informative and persuasive text they are asked to write. For example, high school students often have difficulty writ-ing persuasive essays, as shown by performance on the NAEP (Saludin et al., 2008). Perhaps, one explanation is that they are seldom asked to read per-suasive essays in their classes. With proper experience, even young children can learn to write persuasively. For example, to introduce persuasive writ-ing to second-grade students, McCraw (2011) had children read numerous book reviews for the authentic purpose of choosing books for read-aloud lessons. Then children were guided to analyze the claims and evidence in several reviews before they finally wrote their own book reviews. We think it is good practice to give students at all ages the opportunity to read and analyze model papers before attempting to write their own.

Reading and writing are also integrated when students write about the texts they have read. Students write summaries of reading passages, analyze the readings, take essay exams on what they learned from reading, and read sources for research papers. All of these types of integrated reading and writing instruction require careful instruction and practice. Content area classes provide many opportunities to teach these skills. Students generally see writing to learn as a meaningful purpose for writing. As noted ear-lier, research indicates that writing about reading enhances reading com-prehension (Graham & Hebert, 2010), writing skill, and content learning (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004).

WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LD AND OTHER STRUGGLING WRITERS

In the remainder of this chapter, we focus on aspects of instruction that have been studied with students with LD in attempts to find instruc-tional methods that meet the special needs of these struggling writers. We focus on three topics: instruction in self-regulated strategies for planning and revising; instruction in the basic skills of handwriting, spelling, and sentence writing; and assistive technology for writing. All students need instruction in strategies for planning and revising, but students with LD can benefit from more explicit systematic instruction. All students need to master basic skills, but students with LD often find these skills particularly difficult and need specialized instruction. Finally, all students need to learn


to use technology for writing, but special technological tools can be of particular benefit to struggling writers.

Explicit, Systematic Instruction in Self-Regulated StrategiesAs noted earlier, all students need to develop strategies for planning, drafting, and revising. Younger and less skilled writers engage in far less planning and revising than older and more proficient writers. Process approaches teach writing as a process that involves planning, draft-ing, and revising and aim to help students learn to engage in those pro-cesses. However, students with LD may need quite explicit and systematic instruction to master strategies well enough to use them independently. Most of the research on strategies instruction in writing has been done by researchers interested in students with LD or other struggling writers (e.g., Deshler & Schumaker, 1986; Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, & Stevens, 1991; Graham & Harris, 1993; Wong, Hoskins, Jai, Ellis, & Watson, 2008) though the research has demonstrated positive effects for students of all ability levels (Graham, 2006). A recent meta-analysis of strategy instruc-tion in writing (Graham, 2006) found large and consistent effects on both the organization of written texts and their overall quality. Effects were found for narrative, persuasive, and comparison writing; for planning and revising; and for elementary and secondary students. In addition, effects were found for students with LD, low achieving students, and typically achieving students, though considerably more research focused on students with LD. A review of all experimental research on writing instruction for students in grades 4 to 12 (Graham & Perin, 2007) also reported large effects for strategy instruction in writing. Both reviews also found that strategy instruction was more effective when it included self-regulation strategies.

One well known program of strategy instruction is the Cognitive Strategies Instruction in Writing (CSIW) program developed by Englert and her colleagues (Englert et al., 1991). In CSIW, the writing process is divided into strategies for planning, organizing, writing, editing, and revis-ing (with the mnemonic POWER). The strategies are supported by “think sheets” that guide students through the process. For example, the planning think sheet asks students to consider audience and purpose, to brainstorm content, and to begin to group ideas into categories. The organize think sheets are graphic organizers that are specific to text structures. For exam-ple, the procedural graphic organizer prompts students to consider where the activity will take place, what materials are needed, and the sequence


of steps involved. The edit and revise think sheets include questions spe-cific to the text structure as well as general evaluation criteria. To help students internalize the strategies incorporated in the think sheets, teach-ers explained and modeled the strategies, guided student practice until coaching was no longer needed, led class discussions on the strategies, and helped students to understand when and where the strategies could be used. In a study in which fourth and fifth grade students with LD and low and high achieving students were given CWIS instruction, the students wrote papers of higher quality. Their papers contained more ideas, and were better organized than the papers written by students in the control classes that followed a general writing process approach. In addition, stu-dents of all ability levels made gains in metacognitive knowledge. In sub-sequent writing, Englert and her colleagues (2006) have emphasized the critical role of interactive dialogue, peer support, and meaningful writing tasks in the development of students’ strategies and writing achievement.

Self-Regulated Strategy DevelopmentThe most extensive program of research on writing strategies has focused on the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model of Graham and Harris (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris, Santangelo, & Graham, 2008). Like other approaches to teaching writing strategies, the SRSD model includes instruction in the characteristics of good writing, explicit explanation and think-aloud modeling of specific writing strategies, discussion of when and where to use strategies, and extensive guided practice. Instructional support is gradually withdrawn as students master the strategies. In addition, SRSD includes instruction in metacognitive, self-regulation strategies. Students learn to set goals for performance to motivate their efforts. They learn to self-monitor their use of strategies and self-evaluate their writing performance. An important aspect of self-regulation in the SRSD model is the use of self-statements during the writing process to direct their efforts and manage motivation. Self-statements help students to replace prior negative thoughts with more constructive ones.

Six instructional stages provide the framework for SRSD (Harris & Graham, 2005). These stages provide a “metascript”, or general instruc-tional guidelines that can be modified, combined, or reordered to meet teacher and student needs. The stages are recursive; if a specific concept is not mastered when introduced at a specific stage, it can be revisited as instruction proceeds to another stage. Depending on students’ understand-ing, a particular stage may not be needed at all. For example, if students


already have a clear understanding of the purposes of a particular genre, and demonstrate understanding of criteria of good writing, the first stage (Develop Background knowledge) may be omitted or require less time for development. The stages also provide for flexible adaptation to the needs of individual students; for example, the types of self-regulatory procedures (e.g., self-instructions, goal setting, self-monitoring) taught to students are determined on an individual basis.

Two examples of strategies studied using the SRSD model are included in Boxes 9.1 and 9.2. Box 9.1 shows a strategy focused on plan-ning a persuasive essay with rebuttals that might be appropriate for high school students. Box 9.2 displays a peer-revision strategy focused on per-sonal narratives that might work well in elementary schools.

Stage 1: Develop background knowledge. In the first stage, stu-dents learn the background knowledge needed to apply the strategies, usually knowledge about types of writing and the characteristics of good writing. For example, before learning a strategy for persuasive writing (see Box 9.1), students need to understand the common elements of persua-sive writing, such as position, reasons, evidence, responses to opposing positions, and conclusion. Teachers might spend time discussing situa-tions in which students have used persuasion or reading persuasive texts to make sure that students understand the elements and the language used

Box 9.1 Strategy for Writing a Persuasive EssayTHINK

Who will read this?Why am I writing this?

STOPSuspend judgment (generate ideas for each side of the issue)Take a side (decide your position)Organize ideas (select ideas to include and order them for writing)Plan more as you write (continue planning while writing)

DARE: REMEMBERl Develop your topic sentencel Add supporting ideasl Reject arguments for the other sidel End with a conclusion

Source: Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander, 2008.


to discuss them. Often instruction begins with an examination of model pieces of writing to analyze what makes them effective.

Stage 2: Discuss it. The second stage includes an examination of students’ current strategy use and writing performance and discussion of the strategy to be learned. Students examine their current writing per-formance and discuss the strategies they use to accomplish specific writ-ing tasks. The examination of current performance should be positive in anticipation of the gains expected from learning and applying the strat-egy. This initial guided evaluation of students’ writing provides a baseline against which to measure improvement. Students may graph their cur-rent performance and identify goals for learning. For example, they might graph the number of story elements included in their story. The target writing strategies are then introduced, and their purpose and benefits are discussed with the students. At this point, students are asked to make a commitment to learn the strategies and be active collaborators in the learning process. The teacher may also decide to explore with students any negative or ineffective self-statements or beliefs that currently affect their writing.

Stage 3: Model it. In this stage the teacher models the strategy, thinking aloud while planning, drafting, and revising a composition. Think-aloud modeling makes the cognitive processes visible to the stu-dents and is essential to strategy instruction. The modeling should be done at the level of the teacher’s goal for the students and should include some of the common problems that students might experience. The model-ing should also include appropriate self-instructions, including problem

Box 9.2 Peer Revising StrategyLISTEN and READ along as the author reads the story.TELL what it is about and what you liked best.READ it to yourself and make NOTES about:

CLARITY? Is there anything you don’t understand?DETAILS? What information/details could be added?

DISCUSS your suggestions with the author.Author: Make changes on the computer.(Note that evaluation questions in step 3 should be tailored to the ability of

the students, the genre, and the focus of instruction.)

Source: MacArthur, Schwartz, & Graham, 1991.


definition, planning, strategy use, self-evaluation, coping and error cor-rection, and self-reinforcement statements. After the writing strategy has been modeled, the students and teacher discuss the strategy and the self-statements used by the teacher. The students may then develop and record their own self-statements.

Stage 4: Memorize it. At this stage the steps of the writing strate-gies, any mnemonics or graphic organizers, and self-statements developed at the previous stage are memorized. The students may paraphrase the steps of the strategies; however, it is important to maintain the meaning of each step. The memorize stage is especially needed by students who may face memory difficulties. Although memorization is a low-level process, it is important because students will not be able to use a strategy indepen-dently if they do not remember the steps.

Stage 5: Support it. In this stage teachers and students collabora-tively apply the strategies and self-statements to complete writing assign-ments. Teachers gradually release responsibility for management of the strategies to students. Self-regulation procedures, including goal setting and self-assessment, may be introduced at this time. Students set goals to improve specific aspects of their writing and use the strategies and self-instructional procedures to mediate their performance. The guided sup-port stage is the longest in time and is challenging for teachers. Teachers need to evaluate the progress of the students to mastery of the strategies and provide just the right amount of support for individual students. It is important for teachers to give feedback to students both on their mas-tery of the strategy and on their progress in writing. Students also need to develop their self-evaluation and goal-setting abilities to progress toward independent self-regulation.

Stage 6: Independent performance. Independent performance is less a separate stage than the natural endpoint of guided practice. SRSD is a mastery model, so students should continue to receive guided practice until they demonstrate that they can apply the strategy independently and produce improved writing. Stopping short of this goal has negative effects on student motivation as they conclude that strategy instruction is one more approach that will not work for them. From a motivational perspec-tive, one goal of SRSD is to convince students that they can be successful if they use the right strategy.

Procedures for promoting generalization and maintenance, includ-ing the use of self-reflection are integrated throughout all stages of SRSD. These include class discussions of opportunities to use the strategies in


other settings, analyses of how the strategies might need to be modified to work for different assignments, and evaluation of the success of attempts at generalization.

Further resources on SRSD. SRSD has met criteria for evidence-based practice as established by panels of independent researchers (see Baker, Chard, Ketterlin-Geller, Apichatabutra, & Doabler, 2009; National Center for Response to Intervention, www.rti4success.org/instruction-Tools/). Resources to support implementation of SRSD are available. Descriptions and further discussion can be found in Graham and Harris (2005); Harris, Graham, and Mason (2003); and Sandmel et al. (2009). Lesson plans and support materials are provided in Harris, Graham, Mason, and Friedlander (2008). All of the stages of SRSD instruction can be seen in both elementary and middle school classrooms in the video, “Teaching students with learning disabilities: Using learning strat-egies” (ASCD, 2002). Online interactive tutorials on SRSD are available at: http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/resources.html. Finally, a website devoted to strategies instruction can be found at www.unl.edu/csi/.

Final Comments on Strategy InstructionStrategy instruction should not be viewed as an isolated part of writing instruction or as a complete writing program. Rather, strategy instruction is most effective when it is integrated in an overall writing program that has all the characteristics of good writing instruction discussed above (Graham & Harris, 2005; Englert, 2006). Strategies are compatible with the emphasis on the writing process, teacher conferencing, and peer collaboration found in classrooms following an overall process approach (MacArthur, Schwartz, Graham, Molloy, & Harris, 1996). Within a process approach to writing instruction, strategies instruction provides the explicit instruction and per-sistent guided practice needed by many students with LD.

Maintenance and generalization of strategies is one of the most dif-ficult challenges for instruction. Although students may possess the know-how, they may not possess the will to use the strategies or to use them with sufficient care. Consequently, teachers should consider students’ goal orientations and attitudes when providing strategy instruction, and employ procedures that facilitate mindful use of strategies. It is important to moni-tor whether students continue to use the strategies over time and whether they adapt them to new settings and tasks. Continuing discussions with students about application of strategies in other settings should continue throughout the school year. Working together with other teachers at


the same grade level or across grades to emphasize common strategies is another way to promote generalized use. Learning to use strategies inde-pendently is a long-term process that requires concerted effort over time.

Explicit, Systematic Instruction in Basic SkillsThere is a strong relation between the fluency and quality of children’s writing and their proficiency with text production skills such as hand-writing and spelling (Graham et al., 1997). Moreover, efforts to improve such skills can also result in corresponding improvements in writing per-formance (Berninger et al., 2005, 2008; Graham, Harris, & Chorzempa, 2002; Graham, Harris, & Fink, 2000; Christensen, 2005). Consequently, we recommend that teachers devote instructional time to teaching text production skills, especially handwriting and spelling, to students with LD. Such instruction should not dominate the writing program, however, and should focus on those skills that are most likely to make a difference.

HandwritingThe basic goals of handwriting instruction are to help students develop writing that is legible and can be produced quickly with little conscious attention. Legibility and fluency can support students’ written production and communication. However, if text production is slow or tedious, the writer is more likely to resent writing or to produce papers limited in content and poor in ideas. Therefore, explicit instruction in handwriting is critical. This involves teaching students an efficient pattern for forming individual letters as well as how to hold their pen or pencil and position the paper they are writing on (Graham, 1999). Also, posture while writ-ing is important. Handwriting instruction does not and should not require hours of time practicing individual letters. Instead, once a letter is intro-duced, students should spend a short time carefully practicing the letter, receive help as needed (including subsequent review), and evaluate their own efforts. Fluency in handwriting is best promoted through frequent writing, and develops gradually over time (Graham & Weintraub, 1996).

We would also like to point out that providing extra handwriting instruction to young children experiencing difficulty with this skill may help to prevent later writing problems. For instance, Graham et al. (2000) provided first grade children (who had slow handwriting and generally poor writing skills) with approximately 7 hours of additional handwrit-ing instruction. Three times a week, each child met with a tutor for 15 minutes of instruction. Each 15-minute lesson involved four activities. For


the first activity, Alphabet Warm-up, students learned to name and iden-tify the letters of the alphabet. With the second activity, Alphabet Practice, three lower case letters, sharing common formational characteristics (e.g., l, i, and t) were introduced and practiced. The tutor modeled how to form the letters, followed by the student practicing each letter by tracing it three times, writing it three times inside an outline of the letter, copying it three times, and circling the best formed letter. Three lessons were devoted to mastering each letter set, with the second and third sessions primar-ily involving letter practice in the context of single words (e.g., lit) or hinky-pinks (rhyming word such as itty-bitty). The third activity, Alphabet Rockets, involved asking the child to copy a short sentence quickly and accurately for a period of three minutes. The sentence contained mul-tiple instances of the letters that were emphasized in Alphabet Practice during that lesson (e.g., Little kids like to get letters.). The number of letters written was recorded on a chart and during the next two lessons, students tried to beat their previous score by writing at least three more letters during the specified time period. With the fourth activity, Alphabet Fun, the student was taught how to write one of the letters from Alphabet Practice in an unusual way (e.g., as long and tall or short and fat) or use it as part of a picture (e.g., turning an i into a butterfly or an s into a snake). Students who received this extra instruction became quicker and bet-ter handwriters than peers assigned to a contact control group receiving instruction in phonological awareness. They also evidenced greater gains in their ability to craft sentences and generate text when writing a story.

SpellingThe basic goal of spelling instruction is to help students become proficient and fluent in spelling words they are likely to use in their writing. This involves learning the common regularities and patterns underlying English orthography; the correct spelling of frequently used words; as well as strate-gies for studying new words, applying knowledge of spelling (e.g., spelling by analogy), and proofreading (Graham, 1999). Frequent reading and writing contribute to spelling development, as they serve as a source for additional learning, a context for practicing newly learned skills, and a reminder on the importance of correct spelling in practical and social situations. Children also need to become familiar with external aids to spelling such as the dic-tionary, thesaurus, spell checkers, or asking another person for help.

In addition, spelling instruction and practice play a role in the devel-opment of reading skills. In early literacy, invented spelling, that is,


encouraging children to say the sounds of words to spell unknown words, helps to develop phonemic awareness and letter-sound associations. As stu-dents learn more complex orthographic and morphological patterns, spell-ing and reading instruction are mutually reinforcing.

A survey conducted by Graham and colleagues (2008) with 168 pri-mary teachers suggested that teachers did employ a number of strategies for spelling instruction with or without peer interaction and the majority of them reported teaching spelling 90 minutes a week. We recommend devoting 60–75 minutes a week to spelling instruction in the elementary grades.

As with handwriting, providing extra spelling instruction to young children experiencing difficulty with this skill may help to prevent later writing problems. For example, Graham et al. (2002) provided second grade children who were poor spellers and writers with approximately 12 hours of additional spelling instruction. Pairs of students met with a tutor three times a week for 20 minutes each lesson. Instruction involved six units with six lessons each, and each unit contained five instructional activities.

During the first lesson of each unit, children completed a word sort-ing activity (activity one) that focused on the spelling patterns taught in that unit (these primarily centered on long or short vowel patterns). With the tutor’s help, students first sorted word cards into two or three spell-ing pattern categories. Each category was represented by a master word (e.g., the words “made,” “maid,” and may were the master words for the three patterns representing the long /a/ sound), and children placed each word card in the appropriate category. If the children placed a word in the wrong category, the tutor corrected the mistake and modeled out loud how to decide where the word should be placed. Once all words were placed, the tutor helped students state rules for the patterns emphasized in that word sort (e.g., When you hear a long /a/ in a small word, the “a” is often followed by a consonant and silent “e.”). Students then generated words of their own that matched the patterns. Next, the word cards were reshuffled and students completed the word sort again, getting help and feedback as needed. At the end of each lesson, students were encouraged to “hunt” for words that fit the target patterns (activity two).

During the second lesson and continuing through lesson five, stu-dents studied eight new spelling words (activity three). These were words that students had misspelled previously, and each word matched one of the spelling patterns emphasized in that unit. Students used two


basic procedures to study these words. One procedure, “Graph Busters,” involved students recording the number of times they correctly practiced the words during a lesson using a traditional study strategy. The second procedure involved studying words while playing a game with a peer part-ner. Spelling Road Race was one of the games. It consisted of a laminated board with a racing track divided into 30 segments. When children cor-rectly spelled one of the spelling words, they moved a place for each letter or word.

Also starting in the second lesson and continuing through lesson five, students practiced sound-letter associations for consonants, blends, dia-graphs, and short vowels (activity four). Using flash cards with a picture on one side (e.g., a “cat”) and the corresponding letter on the other side (“c”), students practiced 9 to 16 associations during each lesson.

Students completed a word building activity (activity five) during les-sons two through five. This involved building words with rimes that fit the target spelling patterns. They were asked to create as many real words as they could from a rime (e.g., “ay”) and 18 different consonants, blends, and digraphs.

In the final lesson of each unit, students completed three tests. One test was on the eight words they studied, a second was on words that were studied in the previous two units, and a third was on words that matched the rimes used during the word building activity. Students not only learned and maintained almost all of the words taught, but their perfor-mance on two standardized tests of spelling improved dramatically as well. Even more importantly, there was a corresponding improvement in their writing and reading skills.

Spelling instruction is an important component of writing develop-ment. Frequent reading and writing activities can support students in better learning and applying conventional spelling. Activities that allow students to compare words to learn patterns and derive rules are more effective than teaching rules. Also, the application of research based prac-tices for spelling is more likely to support students’ needs.

Application of Technology in Writing InstructionThe new Common Core State Standards (2010) include facility in writ-ing with computers as a core part of writing proficiency, based on the argument that the use of computers to write has become nearly univer-sal in academic and workplace writing, as well as in everyday life. The next round of writing assessments in the National Assessment of Educational


Progress will require students to write using word processors (National Assessment Governing Board, 2007). Fortunately, research indicates that technology, if used properly, can enhance the writing of students with LD and other struggling writers. Word processors with spell checkers can make it easier for struggling writers to produce and revise written work. Related applications like word prediction, speech synthesis, and speech recognition offer additional support for transcription. Outlining programs and concept mapping software can help with planning. The Internet offers new opportunities for students to learn by sharing their writing with wider audiences and by integrating multiple media.

Before discussing specific technological tools, we discuss two general issues that teachers need to consider in planning instruction (MacArthur, 2009). First, technological tools can support the writing process and help students to write more fluently and correctly. However, tools also impose new burdens and challenges; they may require training or make writing more complex in some ways. For example, word processing compensates for problems with handwriting, but it requires learning to type. Dictating using speech recognition removes most concerns with the mechanics of writing, but it requires clear enunciation and introduces new editing issues. Whether a particular technological tool will increase or decrease the overall challenge of writing depends on the skills and motivation of indi-vidual students and the quality of training.

Second, the effects of writing tools for struggling writers depend very much on how the tools are integrated with instruction. For example, word processors make revising much easier, and skilled writers may revise more frequently and effectively when they write on a computer. However, for students with limited knowledge of how to evaluate their own writing, using a word processor is unlikely to improve their revising or writing. Similarly, search tools on the Internet greatly expand the amount of infor-mation available to use in writing, but most students, especially those with limited reading and writing skills, will need careful instruction to take advantage of this opportunity. Computers are powerful tools for writing but their effects depend on instruction that takes advantage of that power.

Word ProcessingWord processors are flexible writing tools that can support the physical, cognitive, and social processes involved in writing. Most obviously, they ease the physical processes involved in revising, which can support instruc-tion in writing as a process involving cycles of planning, drafting, and


revising. For struggling writers, the editing capabilities make it possible to produce texts that are free of errors and easy to read. Typing is a major help for students with handwriting problems though it is a skill itself that must be learned. Writing on a computer can also support the social pro-cesses involved in writing by increasing opportunities for publication and collaborative work. It is far easier to work collaboratively at a computer screen than via handwriting on paper. Completed work can be published in many forms, both print and electronic.

A moderate amount of research has investigated the effects of word processing in combination with instruction. A recent review of 19 studies with students in grades 4 to 9 (Graham & Perin, 2007) found a moderate effect on quality of writing (ES = 0.51) for writers in general but a larger effect (ES = 0.70) for low achieving writers. Research on the effects of word processing on revising suggests that typically achieving students may make more revisions with a word processor (Goldberg, Russell, & Cook, 2003). However, MacArthur and Graham (1987) found no differences in the amount or quality of revisions made with paper and pencil or word processing by students with LD.

To take advantage of the editing capabilities of word processing, stu-dents with LD need instruction and support in learning to revise for meaning as well as errors. The revising skills of students with LD can be improved by instruction in strategies for evaluating and revising their writing. Several studies have combined word processing and strategy instruction in teaching revisions, resulting in increases in the number of substantive and mechanical revisions made by students with LD as well as improvement in the quality of their texts (Graham & MacArthur, 1988; MacArthur, Schwartz, & Graham, 1991; Stoddard & MacArthur, 1993). In the peer revision strategy developed by MacArthur et al. (1991), students worked in pairs applying specific evaluation criteria (see Box 9.2).

In addition to supporting revision, word processors enhance publish-ing by making it possible to produce neat, printed work in a wide vari-ety of professional-looking formats, including newsletters, illustrated books, business letters, and signs and posters. The motivation provided by printed publications may be especially important for students with LD who often struggle with handwriting and mechanics. For classrooms that have just one or two computers, the best use of the equipment may be for publishing projects. Students can work together on a class newsletter or other project, or they can select their best writing for inclusion in a literary magazine. In recent years, the Internet has provided even more


opportunities for publication of work, and publication that goes to much wider audiences than school and family.

An important practical consideration in using word processing is that students must develop some proficiency in typing. Otherwise, the attention required by typing and the slower rate of production may negatively affect the length and quality of writing. Although there is not much research on the effects of typing proficiency, one study (Russell, 1999) did find that the effect of word processing depended on typing skill; it had a positive effect on essay quality for high school students with above average typing speed (20+ wpm) but a negative effect for students with below average typing. Handwriting fluency predicts writing quality (Graham et al., 1997), so it makes sense that typing fluency would have a similar effect. Although typ-ing can be easier than handwriting for many students with LD, students will need instruction and practice to develop adequate skill. A variety of software programs are available to provide the needed practice.

Spell checkers are very helpful for students with LD and other writ-ers who struggle with spelling. However, they will not automatically cor-rect all errors. In one study (MacArthur, Graham, Haynes, & De La Paz, 1996), middle school students with LD corrected 37% of their spelling errors with a spell checker compared to 9% unaided. College students with LD (McNaughton, Hughes, & Clark, 1997) fixed 60% of their errors using a spelling checker compared to 11% with handwriting. The most significant limitation of spell checkers is that they fail to identify about one-third of spelling errors because the errors are other real words, includ-ing homonyms and other close approximations (e.g., “whet” for “went”). Furthermore, spell checkers do not always suggest the correct spelling, especially when words are badly misspelled. Finally, some students fail to pick out the correct suggestion from the list, especially if it is not the first suggestion. Students need instruction in strategies for using spell check-ers successfully. Students can be taught to try alternate, perhaps phonetic, spellings when the desired word does not appear. They also need to learn to proofread for the errors not flagged by the checker.

One important practical problem is access to computers. To gain the full benefit from word processing, students need to complete the entire composing process from first draft to publication on the word processor. Drafting with pencil and paper and then typing on the word processor is difficult for students without touch-typing skills. It is slow and they often introduce new errors. Potential solutions include computer labs devoted to writing or sets of inexpensive laptops designed just for word processing.


Assistive Technology to Support TranscriptionWord processors with spelling checkers can offer significant help to strug-gling writers in translating their words into text fluently and accurately. In this section, we consider three tools that go beyond word processing to offer further support in transcription—speech synthesis, word prediction, and speech recognition.

Speech synthesis. Speech synthesis, or text-to-speech, software con-verts text into speech. Many standard word processors have some speech capabilities. Reading support software designed for individuals with read-ing disabilities generally includes speech along with word-by-word or sentence highlighting on the screen, so that it is possible to follow along with the reading. Similar capabilities are included in some word processing programs designed for young children or students with literacy problems. Speech synthesis may help students monitor the adequacy of their writing, including spelling and grammar. Little research has investigated the effects on writing. In a study of college students with LD (Raskind & Higgins, 1995), students detected more errors with speech synthesis than without, although the difference was not large. One promising idea is to use speech synthesis after a spell checker to find the errors missed.

Word prediction. Word prediction was originally developed for individuals with physical disabilities to reduce the number of keystrokes required to write, but it is also helpful for students with severe spell-ing problems. As the user begins to type a word, the software predicts the intended word and presents a list of words from which to choose. Depending on the sophistication of the software, predictions are based on spelling, word frequency, individual patterns of use, and syntax. Generally, speech synthesis is available to read the choices. MacArthur (1998, 1999) found that word prediction resulted in substantial improvements in the readability and spelling accuracy of writing by students with LD with severe spelling problems. As with any tool, there are new burdens as well. Students need to attend to the list of suggestions and make choices, which can slow text production. For students who make relatively few errors, it is probably better to follow the common recommendation to ignore spelling during drafting and use a spelling checker later.

Speech recognition. Dictation is one clear way to avoid difficulties with transcription, and students with LD generally can produce higher quality text through dictation than via handwriting (Reece & Cummings, 1996). However, dictation to a person is not practical in most settings, and it compromises the writer’s independence. Speech recognition software


makes dictation possible without the support of another person. It also makes it possible for the writer to see the developing text, which is important in ongoing planning and sentence generation. However, cur-rently available speech recognition still has some limitations. Accuracy of recognition is not perfect. Furthermore, users must articulate clearly, dic-tate punctuation and formatting, and monitor the accuracy of the text. In addition, users must learn new editing procedures; instead of misspelled words, they need to learn to look for incorrect words.

Several studies have found that speech recognition can provide signif-icant benefits to students with LD who need the support. Higgins and Raskind (1995) found positive effects on the quality of writing for college students with LD. Quinlan (2004) found positive effects for middle school students with problems in writing fluency. MacArthur and Cavalier (2004) studied speech recognition as a test accommodation for high school stu-dents with LD, comparing it to handwriting and dictation to a person. Students with LD wrote essays of higher quality with speech recognition than handwriting, and even better essays when dictating to a person. No differences in quality were found for students without LD. In addition, the rate of errors was lower with speech recognition than handwriting.

Effective training in the use of speech recognition involves training the system to recognize students’ speech and training students to speak clearly and monitor and correct errors. In addition, planning strategies become more important because a good plan facilitates smooth dictation. Using speech recognition also presents some difficult practical issues. It is difficult to use in a school setting because it requires a relatively quiet environ-ment, and it is probably socially unacceptable to dictate in public. Thus, schools may need to provide separate facilities or encourage use at home.

Computer Support for Planning ProcessesStudents with LD often have difficulty with planning processes such as setting goals, generating content, and organizing their ideas. Computer applications that support outlining and concept mapping or that prompt students with questions to help with idea generation and organization have potential to enhance planning processes.

Outlining and concept mapping are common practices for orga-nizing ideas prior to writing, both in schools and among experienced writers. As discussed earlier in this chapter, planning strategies based on text structure and mapping have been shown to be effective ways to improve the writing of students with LD. Many word processors include


outlining programs and software for concept mapping is commonly available. Electronic outlining and mapping are more flexible than paper and pencil versions. Ideas can be inserted and rearranged easily. In addi-tion, ideas on concept maps can be automatically converted to outlines to provide a linear organization for writing. A few studies have explored the use of concept-mapping software. Anderson-Inman and her col-leagues (e.g., Anderson-Inman & Horney, 1998) have conducted a num-ber of descriptive and qualitative studies of concept mapping as a tool to support reading and studying, though not specifically for writing. Sturm and Rankin-Erickson (2002) compared planning with concept map-ping software, hand-drawn concept maps, and no maps with adolescents with learning disabilities. Essays were longer and higher in quality in both concept-map conditions than in the no-map condition. Our colleagues (Klein, MacArthur, & Najera, 2008) studied concept mapping with nor-mally achieving fifth-grade students and found a positive impact on orga-nization but not overall quality.

The interactive capabilities of computers can be used to develop pro-grams that prompt writers to engage in planning processes. Englert and her colleagues (Englert, Zhao, Dunsmore, Collings, & Wolbers, 2007) developed an online writing support program that included prompts for idea generation, organization, and revision and that included graphic orga-nizers. They reported increased length and quality of writing for students with LD. Overall, the effects of concept mapping software and prompting programs, like other applications, depends on the quality of the instruction in using them for planning.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The success of schools teaching writing should be judged not only in terms of how well students develop the skills necessary for meeting aca-demic and occupational demands, but also on whether students are motivated to write and understand how to use writing for social com-munication and recreation. In our efforts to improve the writing of stu-dents with LD, we do not want to lose sight of the critical goals of helping students learn to appreciate writing and to enjoy doing it. In this chapter we have presented a variety of procedures that, when applied in concert, should help students realize all of these goals.

Finally, if we are to improve in any meaningful way how and what stu-dents with LD write, we must be dedicated to the importance of writing.


Too often special education teachers have made writing instruction the stepchild to reading or math. We have found through our own experi-ences in working with schools and teachers that they are often hesitant and sometimes resistant to allocating sufficient time for writing instruction; they often fear that making such a commitment will have negative con-sequence because students will get less of something really important like reading. We would argue that writing and reading are mutually reinforcing. Teaching writing has powerful effects on students’ reading achievement. Therefore, we would like to encourage teachers to provide daily writ-ing instruction, integrate reading and writing across the curriculum, and attempt to engage students in meaningful and purposive writing activities.

REFERENCESAnderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In

D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology (pp. 15–44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2002). Teaching students with learning disabilities in the regular classroom: Using learning strategies [videotape 2]. Retrieved 11/15/11 from <http://shop.ascd.org/productdisplay.cfm?productid=602084>.

Baker, S. K., Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Apichatabutra, C., & Doabler, C. (2009). Teaching writing to at-risk students: The quality of evidence for Self-Regulated Strategy Development. Exceptional Children, 75, 303–318.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flower’s model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. C. (1994). Butterfield (Ed.), Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (Vol. 2, pp. 57–82). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

Berninger, V. W., Rutberg, J. E., Abbott, R. D., Garcia, N., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., Brooks, A., et al. (2005). Tier 1 and Tier 2 early intervention for handwriting and com-posing. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 3–30.

Berninger, V. W., Winn, W. D., Stock, P., Abbott, R. D., Eschen, K., Lin, S. J., et al. (2008). Tier 3 specialized writing instruction for students with dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 21, 95–129.

Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 1–17.

Christensen, C. A. (2005). The role of orthographic-motor integration in the production of creative and well-structured written text for students in secondary school. Educational Psychology, 25, 441–453.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.

Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 479–492.

http://shop.ascd.org/productdisplay.cfm?productid=602084


Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1986). Learning strategies: An instructional alternative for low-achieving adolescents. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 583–590.

Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2006). Children’s understanding of genre and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 131–143). New York: Guilford.

Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(2), 93–105.

Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writ-ing instruction research. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 208–221). New York: Guilford.

Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making writing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in writing in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337–372.

Englert, C. S., Zhao, Y., Dunsmore, K., Collings, N. Y., & Wolbers, K. (2007). Scaffolding the writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an internet-based technology to improve performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(1), 9–29.

Ferretti, R. P., & MacArthur, C. A. (2000). The effects of elaborated goals on the argumen-tative writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 694–702.

Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57, 481–506.

Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A metaanalysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1), 1–51.

Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabili-ties: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78–98.

Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 187–207). New York: Guilford.

Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (1988). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at revis-ing essays produced on a word processor: Self-instructional strategy training. Journal of Special Education, 22, 133–152.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. J. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. New York: Brooks.

Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent stu-dents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.

Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and pros-pects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8(1), 7–87.

Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 170–182.

Graham, S., Harris, K. J., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669–686.

Graham, S., Harris, K. J., & Fink, B. F. (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 620–633.


Graham, S., Morphy, P., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Saddler, B., Moran, S., et al. (2008). Teaching spelling in the primary grades: A national survey of instructional prac-tices and adaptations. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 796.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabili-ties. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35, 1–16.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Harris, K. R., Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2008). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Going beyond NLEs to a more balanced approach. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 36, 395–408.

Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (1995). Compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning dis-abilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 159–174.

Karchmer-Klein, R., MacArthur, C. A., & Najera, K. (2008, Dec.). The effects of concept map-ping software on fifth grade students’ writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.

MacArthur, C. A. (1998). Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects on the dialogue journal writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 1–16.

MacArthur, C. A. (1999). Word prediction for students with severe spelling problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 158–172.

MacArthur, C. A. (2009). Technology and struggling writers: A review of research. Teaching and Learning Writing: Psychological Aspects of Education—Current Trends: British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 6, 159–174.

MacArthur, C. A. (2012). Evaluation and revision processes in writing. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), Past, Present, and Future Contributions of Cognitive Writing Research to Cognitive Psychology (pp. 461–483). London: Psychology Press.

MacArthur, C. A., & Cavalier, A. (2004). Dictation and speech recognition technology as accommodations in large-scale assessments for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 43–58.

MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Haynes, J. B., & DeLaPaz, S. (1996). Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: Performance comparisons and impact on spelling. Journal of Special Education, 30, 35–57.

MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revi-sion strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 201–210.

MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., Graham, S., Molloy, D., & Harris, K. R. (1996). Integration of strategy instruction into a whole language classroom: A case study. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(3), 168–176.

McCraw, S. B. (2011). Little writers—Big opinions: The impact of exposing first graders to persuasive writing. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark. DE.

McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Clark, K. (1997). The effect of five proofreading condi-tions on the spelling performance of college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 643–651.

Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. A. (2008). The effects of content and audience awareness goals for revision on the persuasive essays of fifth- and eighth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 21, 131–151.


National Assessment Governing Board, (2007). Writing framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.

Quinlan, T. (2004). Speech recognition technology and students with writing difficulties: improving fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 337–346.

Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. (1995). Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading effi-ciency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 141–158.

Reece, J. E., & Cummings, G. (1996). Evaluating speech-based composition methods: Planning, dictation, and the listening word processor. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing (pp. 361–380). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Russell, M. (1999). Testing writing on computers: A follow-up study comparing perfor-mance on computer and on paper. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7, 20.

Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., & Miller, J. (2008). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007 (No. (NCES 2008–468). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Sandmel, K. N., Brindle, M., Harris, K. R., Lane, K. L., Graham, S., Nackel, J., et al. (2009). Making it work: Differentiating tier two Self-Regulated Strategies Development in writing in tandem with school-wide positive behavioral support. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(2), 22–35.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-reg-ulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 7–25.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59.

Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 76–103.

Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1996). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2 (Vol. 2).

Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 67–81). New York: Guilford.

Troia, G. A. (2006). Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 324–336). New York: Guilford.

Wong, B. Y. L., Hoskyn, M., Jai, D., Ellis, P., & Watson, K. (2008). The comparative effi-cacy of two approaches to teaching sixth graders opinion essay writing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 757–784.

Download - Learning About Learning Disabilities || Writing Instruction

Top Related