the please strategy: a metacognitive learning strategy for improving the paragraph writing of...

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

The PLEASE Strategy: A Metacognitive Learning Strategy for Improving the ParagraphWriting of Students with Mild Learning DisabilitiesAuthor(s): Marshall WelchSource: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring, 1992), pp. 119-128Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511013 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 23:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.28 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:20:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511013?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE PLEASE STRATEGY: A METACOGNITIVE LEARNING STRATEGY

FOR IMPROVING THE PARAGRAPH WRITING OF STUDENTS WITH MILD

LEARNING DISABILITIES

Marshall Welch

Abstract. This study investigated the effectiveness of a metacognitive strategy, the PLEASE strategy, for teaching students with learning disabilities to write paragraphs. The investigation examined (a) students' metacognitive knowledge about prewriting planning, composition, revision, and parts of the paragraph; (b) student writing samples; and (c) student attitudes toward writing paragraphs. Results suggest that, compared to the traditional language arts curriculum used with a comparison group, the experimental treatment was significantly more effective in developing the metacognitive abilities of 6th graders with learning disabilities for prewriting planning, composition, and revision. Findings also suggest that students' attitude toward writing and writing instruction improved significantly following the experimental treatment.

Wallace and Bott (1989) noted that students are often required to demonstrate understanding and mastery of content through written composition assignments. Many students with learning disabilities, especially, experience difficulty and frustration when attempting to meet this complex demand. Specifically, written expression re- quires that students make a plan, translate the plan into sentences and paragraphs, and revise the information following a review (Pressley, Symons, Snyder, & Cariglia-Bull, 1989). Written communication reflects students' comprehension of concepts through acquisition and application of subskills associated with listening, talking, handwriting, reading, and spelling (Kameenui & Simmons, 1990; Mercer & Mercer, 1985).

Students with special needs often demonstrate poor planning and organizational skills associated with writing (Englert & Raphael, 1988; Lynch & Jones, 1989). In addition, Englert and Thomas (1987) found that many students with learning disabilities experience difficulty in idea generation as well as word and sentence production (Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Gregg, & An-

thony, 1989; Englert, Raphael, Anderson, An- thony, Fear, & Gregg, 1988; Houck & Billings- ley, 1989; Thomas, Englert, & Gregg, 1987). Further, they tend to generate syntactically im- mature sentences (Englert et al., 1988; Houck & Billingsley, 1989). Further, inefficient writers appear to be unaware of the purpose for writing (Alley & Deshler, 1979; Englert et al., 1988) and frequently lack sensitivity to textual struc- tures (Englert & Thomas, 1987; Englert et al., 1988; Englert et al., 1989; Graham & Harris, 1988; Houck & Billingsley, 1989; Wallace & Bott, 1989). Consequently, essays and paragraphs composed by students with learning disabilities often contain irrelevant details or inap- propriate conclusions (Graham, 1989).

Affective variables also appear to be associated with writing and writing instruction. For example, according to Smith (1984), students' atti-

MARSHALL WELCH, Ph.D., is Assistant Pro- fessor, Department of Special Education, the University of Utah.

Volume 15, Spring 1992 119



tudes toward writing are correlated with writing and writing instruction. Thus, students who are anxious tend to write shorter papers, are less

likely to express ideas clearly, take fewer chances when they do write, and often avoid the writing process (Smith, 1984). Process-Oriented Approach to Writing Instruction

The process-oriented approach to written expression has become a popular alternative instructional procedure as a result of the apparent limitations of traditional product-based instruction (Bos, 1988; Graves, 1983; Hume, 1983; Kameenui & Simmons, 1990; Newcomer, No- dine, & Barenbaum, 1988). The research literature suggests that successful writers are knowl-

edgeable and proficient in the goal-oriented processes of writing (Englert, Raphael, Fear, & Anderson, 1988; Flower & Hayes, 1981).

Bos (1988) pointed out that while the writing processes or stages are often described or de- fined differently, the generic structure of process- oriented written instruction is generally agreed upon. Specifically, the fundamental structure of process-oriented writing involves prewriting planning, writing, and revision (Flower & Hayes, 1981), with a teacher assuming the role of facili- tator (Bos, 1988; Kameenui & Simmons, 1990). Graham and Harris (1988) suggested that teachers must "help students learn to monitor and or- chestrate the cognitive activities involved in the process of composing" (p. 511). Cognition, Metacognition, and Written Expression

The writing process consists of specific cognitive behaviors (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Raphael, En- glert, & Kirschner, 1989) that involve interactive subprocesses, which compete for writers' cognitive resources (McCutchen, 1988). Effective writing, therefore, is the result of the writer's selection of strategic behaviors from a repertoire of actions to complete the subprocesses of planning, writing, and revision. This selective behavior reflects the writer's understanding and control of the cognitive processes needed to express ideas in writing. Writ- ers' awareness and implementation of their repertoire of cognitive resources to complete a task or to solve a problem may be thought of as metacognition (Ellis & Lenz, 1987; Englert, Raphael, Fear, & Anderson, 1988; Flavell, 1981; Raphael et al., 1989; Simmons, Kameenui, & Darch, 1988).

Metacognitive proficiency varies considerably

between younger, novice writers and older, experienced writers (Bracewell, 1983; McCutchen, 1986, 1988; McCutchen & Perfetti, 1982; Mc-

Cutchen, Perfetti, & Basick, 1983). Based on a comprehensive review of research on the proficiency and application of children's metacognitive processes in writing narrative discourse, Gordon and Braun (1985) concluded that children are generally unaware of metacognitive processes prior to direct instructional intervention. Raphael et al. (1989) reported that students' writing ability improved significantly following instruction designed to enhance metacognitive awareness of the writing process.

If the task of writing is so complex for academ-

ically successful students, "imagine the reactions and difficulties of the student with low achievement" (Kameenui & Simmons, 1990, p. 420). Inefficient Learners and Metacognitive Ability

A key component of the effectiveness of process-oriented approaches to writing instruction appears to be related to recall and application of metacognitive processes. Metacognitive proficiency enables students to efficiently engage in prewriting planning, actual composition, and revision by means of overt cues. This is particu- larly important for low-achieving students or learners with specific learning disabilities, who experience frustration and failure due to ineffec- tive metacognitive skill development or application (Armbruster, Echols, & Brown, 1983; Deshler & Schumaker, 1986; Deshler, Schu- maker, Alley, Warner, & Clark, 1982; Englert et al., 1989; Loper & Murphy, 1985; Short & Ryan, 1984; Simmons et al., 1988; Tharp & Gallimore, 1985; Wong, 1985; Wong, Wong, & Blenkinsop, 1989).

In brief, inefficient learners do not appear to be aware of the subprocesses associated with writing, nor do they appear to have a repertoire of specific strategies to use when planning, writing, and revising written expression.

Process-oriented strategies for written expression have been developed that appear to be effective in facilitating the written expression of inefficient learners (Englert et al., 1988; Graves, 1983; Kerrigan, 1974). There is compelling evidence to suggest that written instruction incor- porating metacognitive strategies can significantly improve the written expression of inefficient learners (Bott & Wallace, 1989; En-

120 Learning Disability Quarterly



glert et al., 1988; Graham & Harris, 1988; Schumaker & Sheldon, 1985).

Ellis and Lenz (1987) conceptualized cognitive strategies as tools that can be used in cognitive processes. These tools, learning strategies, can be differentiated from traditional study skills based on the following characteristics: (a) they employ cues to implement cognitive strategies, metacognition, and application of rules and to take overt action; (b) they contain a series of steps leading to a specific outcome; (c) they involve task-specific rather than situation-specific skills; (d) they facilitate generalization of strategies to a variety of situations; (e) they consist of brief and simple steps; and (f) they employ a re- membering system (Ellis & Lenz, 1987). Englert, Raphael, Fear, and Anderson (1988) reviewed the literature and characterized effective writing programs as (a) including think-aloud activities that model cognitive strategies; (b) emphasizing the subprocesses and steps of writing in the con- text of composing papers; (c) developing metacognitive skills that facilitate planning, composition, and revision of written products; and (d) emphasizing why a writing strategy is important and when and how to use it.

Research reflects the overall promise of metacognitive strategies as an instructional tool for developing the written expression of students with learning disabilities. Specifically, investigations of the effectiveness of paragraph writing strategies have revealed significant improvement in student performance following strategic interventions (En- glert & Lichter, 1982; Englert et al., 1989; Moran, Schumaker, & Vetter, 1981; Wallace & Bott, 1989; Welch, 1990; Welch & Jensen, 1991).

The purpose of the present study was to in- vestigate the effectiveness of a metacognitive strategy known as the PLEASE strategy for teaching students with learning disabilities to write paragraphs. Specifically, the investigation examined (a) students' metacognitive knowledge associated with prewriting planning, composition, revision, and parts of the paragraph; (b) writing samples of students; and (c) students' attitude toward writing paragraphs.

PLEASE STRATEGY The PLEASE strategy was developed to ad-

dress specific types of written expression deficits related to prewriting planning, composition, and paragraph revision. The curriculum, consisting of

an instructional support manual for teachers and an instructional video cassette, incorporates the effective instructional techniques described above (Englert, Raphael, Fear, & Anderson, 1988) and all the essential elements of a metacognitive learning strategy (Ellis & Lenz, 1987). (See Welch and Jensen, 1991, for a detailed description of the curriculum and its development.) The Strategy

Designed to facilitate metacognitive problem solving, the strategy provides students with a repertoire of behaviors through the use of a first- letter mnemonic that cues students on how to complete the writing task independently.

The first step of the PLEASE strategy, "P," represents the action, PICK. Students are taught how to (a) pick their topic, (b) pick their audience, and (c) pick the appropriate textual format (enumerative, compare/contrast, cause and effect) given the topic, purpose, and audience.

The letter "L," the second strategy step, refers to LIST. Students are taught various techniques of listing information about the topic to be used in sentence generation, ongoing evaluation, and organizational planning (Alley & Deshler, 1979; Kytle, 1970).

The ongoing evaluation process is specifically incorporated in the third step, "E," which represents the action of EVALUATE. Students are taught how to evaluate if their list is complete and then plan the best way to organize/or se- quence the ideas that will be used to generate supporting sentences (Alley & Deshler, 1979).

Kerrigan (1974) suggested that a paragraph should begin with a short, simple sentence that makes one statement to introduce the reader to the topic. The fourth objective/step of the PLEASE strategy, therefore, is "A," which stands for ACTI- VATE THE PARAGRAPH WITH A TOPIC SEN- TENCE. Students are instructed how to write a short and simple declarative topic sentence that will "activate" the written idea for the reader.

The fifth step, represented by the letter "S," cues students to extrapolate information from their list of generated ideas to SUPPLY SUP- PORTING SENTENCES. Students assimilate and master skills that subsequently allow them to write a single sentence based on an item from their list. Gradually, students enhance the idea by generating clarifying or "expansion" sentences.

The final component of the strategy, "E," re- minds students to END WITH A CONCLUDING




SENTENCE AND EVALUATE. That is, they are

taught how to rephrase their topic sentence by using synonyms to generate a concluding sentence. This final step also provides the students with a last opportunity to evaluate or "police" their written work for capitalization, overall ap- pearance, punctuation, and spelling using the C.O.P.S. proofing strategy (Ellis & Lenz, 1987). Teacher Support Materials

An instructional support manual accompanying the strategy (Link & Welch, 1989) provides a series of lessons for each step. For every lesson, a list of necessary materials, advanced organizers, vocabulary terms, instructional objectives, and mastery criteria is included, in addition to sample game-like learning activities, overhead trans- parencies for lesson presentations, and work- sheets. Accompanied by a video teacher manual, the instructional support materials also explain how to use the instructional video presentations together with the other instructional activities.

Instructional video. The video presentations (Welch & Link, 1989) show students what each step of the PLEASE strategy is and how to use it. A series of visual metaphors, presented in a variety of locations, facilitate mediation and comprehension of the parts of the paragraph, the function of each part, and the metacognitive processes associated with prewriting planning, composition, and revision.

For example, the parts of a paragraph are compared to the parts of a bologna sandwich: the meat is the main idea, condiments such as

mustard, mayonnaise, and lettuce constitute the

supporting details, while the top piece of bread is the topic sentence and the bottom the concluding sentence. Another example of the visual mediators is the introduction and description of the topic sentence, which takes place in a movie theater. In this setting, students learn that the topic sentence is analogous to a sneak preview, which is a short, simple statement of something "Coming soon to a paragraph near you."

The video presentations consist of seven steps: stated learning objectives, lead-in activities, focused viewing activities, segmented viewing activities, postviewing discussion, follow-through activities, and evaluation (Reeves, 1989). Stu- dents see a total of seven video segments. The introductory segment is approximately 20 minutes long, the remaining six, averaging approximately eight minutes in length, each introduces a subsequent step of the PLEASE strategy.

METHOD Subjects

Subjects were sixth-grade students with specific learning disabilities residing in a suburban area of the intermountain-west. The students' two teachers had completed a one-week sum- mer workshop on learning strategies. The seven subjects - six male and one female - were taught the PLEASE strategy three times a week during 30-minute lessons for approximately 20 weeks in a resource room setting. Concurrently, 11 subjects - seven males and four females -

Table 1 The PLEASE Strategy for Written Expression

P = PICK.A TOPIC L U= S YOUR IDEAS ABOUT THE TOPIC E = EVALUATE YOUR LIST A = ACTIVATE THE PARAGRAPH WITH A TOPIC SENTENCE

S = SUPPLY SUPPORTING SENTENCES E = EN WITH A CONCLUDING SENTENCE

AND EVALUATE YOUR WORK




from another school in the same district served as a comparison group. Subjects' average age was 12 years, 5 months.

The comparison group was selected from a list of schools in the same district. Five prospective comparison sites were identified on the basis of their similarities to the treatment group in terms of socioeconomic status and student characteristics. Additionally, the potential sites were imple- menting traditional language arts curricula that did not incorporate process-oriented instruction or metacognitive strategies.

Following administrative approval at the district and building levels, a resource room was selected to serve as a comparison group. The students in this group received language arts instruction using the regular curriculum, which focused on parts of speech, grammatical structure, and writing mechanics such as punctuation and capitalization. The language arts instruction took place four times a week during 20-minute lessons for 20 weeks. Typically, a brief teacher presentation on a specific aspect of the parts of speech or grammar was followed by workbook exercises and writing assignments completed during individual seat-work practice activity.

Teachers participating in the investigation pro- vided the investigator with a range of intelligence and achievement test scores as district policy would not allow the investigator to access student files. The Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children-Revised (Wechsler, 1974) Full Scale IQ scores for both groups ranged from 74 to 109. The range of Written Expression grade-equiva- lent scores on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho- educational Battery Part II (Woodcock & John- son, 1977) for both groups was 4.8 to 2.5.

Despite the one relatively low IQ score, students in both groups met state eligibility criteria for special education services as students with learning disabilities, using a discrepancy software program distributed by the Utah State Office of Education. All students in the treatment group were Caucasian and had a middle socioeconomic background. In the comparison group, one student was Hispanic whose primary language was English. The remaining students in the comparison group were Caucasian, and all came from a middle socioeconomic status group.

To minimize the possibility of a Hawthorne effect (Borg & Gall, 1983), students were not informed of the experimental conditions. In addition, the pe-

riod between the pretreatment and posttreatment measures of performance reduced the likelihood of students becoming testwise, which might otherwise have affected their posttreatment scores. Unequal class size was the result of enrollment and could not be controlled by the investigator. Data Collection

Student survey. Students were asked to complete a brief survey (developed by modifying similar metacognitive surveys described by Faigley, Cherry, Jolliffe, and Skinner, 1985), designed to assess their knowledge of paragraphs and the metacognitive processes associated with prewriting planning, actual compositions, and proofing/revising. This includes understanding the parts of the paragraph and their function as well as a step-by-step process that cues the student throughout paragraph composition. Before students can select from a repertoire of actions, they need to be able to assimilate steps and actions to complete the processes of planning, writing, and revision.

The survey consisted of three items: (a) What are the parts of a paragraph? (b) What is the job of each part of the paragraph? and (c) Describe or list the steps you use when planning and writing a paragraph. (For the purpose of this survey, the fundamental parts of a paragraph were de- fined as a topic sentence, supporting sentences, and concluding sentences [Donald, Moore, Mor- row, Wargetz, & Werner, 1978; Mills, 1977].)

A dichotomous scoring procedure was used. One point was awarded for each correct response, while a zero was given for incorrect responses or no response. To obtain a percentage score, the total of awarded points was divided by the total points possible (14) and multiplied by 100. The scoring procedure, which is useful for assessing fluency, sentence structure, organization, and ideation (Minner, Prater, Sullavan & Gwaltney, 1989), is described in detail in both the instructional support manual and the video presentation.

Writing sample. In addition to the survey, which was designed to assess students' metacognitive knowledge base, actual writing samples were examined to determine if the metacognitive strategy was implemented. Writing samples were collected before and after the treatment by the classroom teachers, who scored both the survey and writing samples. Samples were evaluated by assessing whether they contained a topic sentence, a minimum of three supporting




sentences, and a concluding sentence. In addition, each sentence was evaluated to determine if it was grammatically correct and served its function in the paragraph. One point was awarded for each sentence that exhibited correct

grammatical form; a zero was given for incom-

plete sentences. The teachers then collabora-

tively determined if each of the three basic components of the paragraph was adequately functional; that is, whether the topic sentence introduced the topic and whether the supporting sentences supported the topic. One point was awarded for each supporting sentence that was relevant to the topic, regardless of its grammatical form, to acknowledge the student's effort at idea and sentence generation. Finally, the teachers determined if a concluding sentence ade-

quately restated the main idea of the paragraph. One point was awarded if a concluding sentence was present, regardless of its grammatical form.

This assessment process provides valuable information about the presence, form, and function of a topic sentence, and the required minimum of three supporting and a concluding sentence-data that can be used to estimate students' ability and to identify performance deficits.

Absence of specific components such as a topic sentence or supporting sentences indicates that the student is not using these basic parts of a simple paragraph. This information may be used to determine which parts of the paragraph need instructional attention. If, however, a topic sentence or supporting sentences are present, but in incorrect form, the need to teach grammatical sentence structure has been identified. Further, writing samples may contain sentences that do not support the topic or main idea. Again, this information suggests that the student does not care- fully monitor idea and sentence generation.

The two teachers working with the treatment group scored the survey and writing samples separately and then compared the results of their inde- pendent scoring. They discussed any discrepancies to reach mutual agreement on final interpretation of the student responses. A research assistant conducted a supplementary scoring of the samples, resulting in an interrater reliability of .77.

Attitude measure. The attitudinal measure was administered by the classroom teacher working with one student at a time. The teacher read to and showed the students 33 index cards, each containing positive statements related to

writing paragraphs (e.g., I CAN WRITE A PARAGRAPH WITHOUT GETTING FRUS- TRATED OR UPTIGHT). The students were instructed to indicate if each statement reflected their own attitudes. Using a tally sheet, the teacher counted the number of statements students identified as accurately reflecting their attitudes. To obtain a percentage rate, the total number of these responses was divided by 33 and multiplied by 100. A high percentage reflects a positive attitude, while lower percent- ages generally reflect less positive attitudes. Data Analysis

An angular, or arcsin, transformation was ap- plied to pretreatment and posttreatment raw percentage scores before analysis to ensure the stabil- ity of the variances as both the pretest and posttest data are binomially distributed. Mean scores of actual percentage rates are reported for purposes of

clarity. These are summarized in Table 2. Statistical analysis was performed separately for

the survey on students' metacognitive knowledge, writing sample data, and attitudes in two stages. First, individual student percentage scores of both dependent variables derived from the pre- and posttreatment measures were subjected to a one- way analysis of variance to compare the comparison and treatment group pretest performance.

Second, an analysis of covariance was used to determine the effect of the treatment. Pretreat- ment scores were employed as the covariate. The pre-/posttreatment scores of the two groups were compared following adjustment for the linear effect of the pretreatment score.

RESULTS An analysis of covariance did not reveal a signifi-

cant linear effect of the pretreatment measure on any of the posttest scores. An analysis of variance with repeated measures was used as a follow-up analysis because a covariate (pretest effect)was not present. A significant difference was not found between groups on pretreatment scores for the survey of students' metacognitive knowledge. However, an analysis of variance revealed a statistically significant difference between treatment groups (F(1,16) = 114.87, p<.0001). Thus, the posttreatment mean scores of the experimental treatment group (n=7, X=.60, SD= .07) were significantly higher than those of the comparison group (n=11, X=.000, SD=.00). The comparison group's posttreatment




Table 2 Treatment Group Percentage Mean Scores

Survey on Metacognitive Knowledge and Parts of Paragraph Pretreatment Posttreatment

Experimental X = .029 X = .602 (n=7) SD = .03 SD = .07

Comparison X = .014 X = .000

(n=11) SD = ,03

SD = .00

Students' Writing Samples Pretreatment Posttreatment

Experimental X = .37 X = .79 (n=7) SD = .159 SD = .20

Comparison X = .32 X = .42

(n=11) SD = .19 SD = .15

Students' Attitudes Pretreatment Posttreatment

Experimental X = .66 X = .89

(n=7) SD = .16 SD = .14 Comparison X = .73 X = .74

(n=11) SD = .13 SD = .12

mean score was a result of all students returning the survey forms with either incorrect or no responses. Effect size on the survey variable is .988, the power of between-group difference 1. Estimate size is partial eta-square, which is an overestimate of actual effect size; however, it is a consistent measure.

No significant difference emerged between groups on the pretest scores of the writing samples, suggesting that students' overall writing ability prior to treatment was comparable. An analysis of variance revealed a statistically significant difference between treatment groups (F(1,16) = 24.82, p<.0001). The posttreatment mean score of the experimental treatment group (n=7, X=.79, SD=.20) was significantly higher than that of the comparison group (n=11, X=42, SD=.15). Effect size was .513; the power of between-group differences was estimated at .960.

Attitudinal mean scores on the pretest were not significantly different, suggesting that students' attitudes toward writing were comparable prior to intervention. Statistically significant results emerged in comparisons of pre- and

posttreatment mean scores for time, F(1,16) = 15.92, p<.0011, and for time-by- group effect F(1,16) = 15.92, p<.0011. The posttreatment attitudinal mean score for the treatment group (n= 7, X=.89, SD=. 14) was significantly higher than for the comparison group (n=11, X=.74, SD=.12). Effect size for this variable was .474 and the power of between-group difference was estimated at .929.

A supplementary regression analysis using the posttreatment scores was conducted to determine to what extent student attitude can predict performance on the survey of metacognitive knowledge of paragraph composition versus actual paragraph composition. The analysis did not reveal a significant correlation between students' attitude and their metacognitive knowledge. However, the regression analysis did show a moderate correlation (r=.58) between attitude and paragraph composition (t Ratio = 2.84 p < /t/ .0119).

DISCUSSION This study investigated the effectiveness of a




video-assisted metacognitive strategy, PLEASE, for

teaching students with learning disabilities to write

paragraphs. Specifically, the investigation examined (a) students' metacognitive knowledge about prewriting planning, composition, revision, and paragraph parts; (b) students' writing samples; and (c) students' attitude toward writing paragraphs.

The study reflects an effort to extend the vali- dation of strategic interventions (deBettencourt, 1987; Lynch & Jones, 1989) by determining if there is a select segment of the student population for whom strategies are effective (deBetten- court, 1987). The earlier investigations were conducted to determine the effectiveness of the video-assisted strategic intervention with academ-

ically at-risk (Welch & Jensen, 1991) and nor- mally achieving students in a mainstream English class (Welch, 1990). Results showed that the video-assisted strategic instruction was effective; however, additional research must be conducted to determine the impact of the intervention on students with learning disabilities.

The results of the present investigation, together with those of previous studies, suggest that the video-assisted strategic intervention described here is effective in a number of educational settings and with a variety of student populations. Such wide generalization would facilitate strategy transfer from a resource room to a mainstream setting for students with learning disabilities. If non-learning disabled students were using the same strategy in a mainstream setting, it would minimize any potential stigmatization attached to using a "special" instructional technique. In addition, use of the video- assisted strategic intervention in both mainstream and special education settings would facilitate col- laboration between classroom teachers and special education teachers.

The metacognitive strategy, PLEASE, was found to be effective for developing students' metacognitive knowledge of paragraph composition. It is noteworthy that the comparison group's posttreatment mean score resulted from the students returning the survey either blank or with incorrect responses. This finding may be ex- plained by a phenomenon Smith (1984) described as "writing apprehension": "If an evaluation process convinces students that they are poor writers, they may demonstrate behaviors associated with writing apprehension, thus less- ening their chances for successes. When they risk writing again, they are likely to receive an-

other negative evaluation" (Smith, 1984, p. 4). If students in the comparison group perceived

the survey as an evaluation procedure, their writ-

ing apprehension may have resulted in conced- ing behavior. Nevertheless, these students did not correctly name the parts of the paragraph or their function; nor did they correctly state and compose a paragraph. Students in the treatment group, on the other hand, were significantly more proficient at stating and describing the metacognitive steps of planning, composition, and revising. Thus, the results appear to confirm similar findings suggesting that direct instruction in metacognitive strategies significantly increases students' metacognitive knowledge of the writing process (Gordon & Braun, 1985; Raphael et al., 1989). In this investigation, students were found to employ the metacognitive strategy in actual composition of paragraphs.

Perhaps most important, students' attitudes toward writing and writing instruction improved significantly following video-assisted strategic intervention. These findings appear to call into question Clark's (1983) contention that there is no evidence of specific learning benefits from employing a specific medium to deliver instruction. Reeves (in press) disagreed with Clark's con- clusion that media are irrelevant, suggesting that certain types of media formats are more effective with certain types of instructional demands.

Based on the quantitative analysis and the qualitative information obtained during post-hoc interviews, the appeal of the video presentations in this study may be an important instructional- design factor with a student population that has traditionally experienced failure and frustration in written expression. Thus, the video presentation appears to be effective in introducing and model- ing strategy steps.

More importantly, the video may be an effective tool during attribution retraining as a means of addressing critical student attitudes toward writing and writing instruction. During follow-up interviews, teachers from the treatment group reported that students enjoyed the learning activities, especially the video presentations. Conse- quently, the video-assisted strategic intervention may play a key role in what Mercer and Mercer (1985) suggested as the first step in written expression instruction: creating a positive attitude and climate. Student composition of paragraphs appears to be moderately correlated with student




attitude toward writing and writing instruction. Further investigations into the efficacy of the

PLEASE strategy for written expression are war- ranted. Specifically, additional research is needed to examine students' attitudes toward written expression using the video-assisted instruction. Researchers must also assess the impact of video-assisted instruction on student and teacher attitudes compared to strategy instruction that does not employ video presentations. Different age and ethnic/socioeconomic groups must be included in future investigations in addition to the extent to which newly acquired skills are generalized to other settings and written tasks. Future investigations should also involve more teachers, as well an increased student population. Finally, other forms of evaluation, such as formal and informal assessment procedures, must be included as dependent measures.

REFERENCES Alley, G., & Deshler, D. (1979). Teaching learning

disabled adolescents: strategies and methods. Denver: Love.

Armbruster, B.B., Echols, C., & Brown, A. (1983). Role of metacognition in reading to learn: a de- velopmental perspective (Report No. 40). Urbana- Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.

Borg, W.R., & Gall, M.D. (1983). Educational research: an introduction (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

Bos, C.S. (1988). Process-oriented writing: instructional implications for mildly handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54, 521-527.

Bracewell, R.J. (1983). Investigating the control of writing skills. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S.A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: principles and methods (pp. 177-206). New York: Longman.

Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445-459.

deBettencourt, L. (1987). Strategy training: A need for clarification. Exceptional Children, 54, 24-30.

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

Deshler, D., Schumaker, J., Alley, G., Warner, M.M., & Clark, FL. (1982). Learning disabilities in adoles- cent and young adult populations: research implica- tion (Part I). Focus on Exceptional Children, 15(1), 1-12.

Donald, R.B., Moore, J.D., Morrow, B.R., Wargetz, L.G., & Werner, K. (1978). Writing clear paragraphs. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ellis, E.S., & Lenz, B.K. (1987). A component analysis of effective learning strategies for LD students. Learning Disabilities Focus, 2(2), 94-107.

Englert, C.S., & Lichter, A. (1982). Using statement-

pie to teach reading and writing skills. Teaching Exceptional Children, 14, 164-170.

Englert, C.S., & Raphael, T.E. (1988). Constructing well-formed prose: process, structure, and metacognitive knowledge. Exceptional Children, 54, 513-520.

Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., Anderson, L.M., An- thony, H.M., Fear, K.L., & Gregg, S.L. (1988). A case for writing intervention: strategies for writing informational text. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3 (2), 98-113.

Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., Anderson, L.M., Gregg, S.L., & Anthony, H.M. (1989). Exposition: reading, writing and the metacognitive knowledge of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 5(1), 5-24.

Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., Fear, K.L., & Anderson, L.M. (1988). Students' metacognitive knowledge about how to write informational texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 18-46.

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

Faigley, L., Cherry, R.D., Jolliffe, D.A., & Skinner, A.M. (1985). Assessing writers' knowledge and processes of composing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Flavell, J.H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W.P. Dickson (Ed.), Children's oral communication skills (pp. 35-60). New York: Academic Press.

Flower, L.S., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.

Gordon, C.J., & Braun, C. (1985). Metacognitive processes: reading and writing narrative discourse. In D.L. Forrest-Pressley, G.E. MacKinnon, & T.G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (Vol.2, pp. 1-76). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Graham, S. (1989, April). The role of production fac- tors in learning disabled students' compositions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameri- can Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1988). Instructional rec- ommendations for teaching writing to exceptional students. Exceptional Children, 54, 506-513.

Graves, D.H. (1983). Writing: teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Houck, C.K., & Billingsley, B.S. (1989). Written expression of students with and without learning disabilities: differences across grades. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 561-569.

Hume, A. (1983). Putting writing research into practice. Elementary School Journal, 84, 3-18.

Kameenui, E.J., & Simmons, D.C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: the prevention of academic learning problems. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Mer- rill.

Kerrigan, W.J. (1974). Writing to the point: Six basic steps. New York: Harcourt Brace Javonovich.

Kytle, R. (1970). Pre-writing by analysis. College Composition and Communication, 21, 380-385.

Volume 15. Spring 1992 127



Link, D.P., & Welch, M. (1989). Write, PL.E.A.S.E.: a strategy for efficient learning and functioning in written expression (instructional support manual). Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Department of Special Education, Educational Tele-Communications.

Loper, A.B., & Murphey, D.M. (1985). Cognitive self- regulatory training for underachieving children. In D.L. Forrest-Pressley, G.E. MacKinnon, & T.G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (Vol. 2 pp. 223-266). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Lynch, E.M., & Jones, S.D. (1989). Process and product: a review of the research on LD children's writing skills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 74-86.

McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and lin- guistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431-444.

McCutchen, D. (1988). Functional automaticity in children's writing: a problem of metacognitive control. Written Communication, 5(3), 306-324.

McCutchen, D., & Perfetti, C.A. (1982). Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. Text, 2, 113-139.

McCutchen, D., Perfetti, C.A., & Basick, C. (1983, April). Young writers' sensitivity to local coherence. Paper presented at the meeting of the Ameri- can Educational Research Association, Montreal.

Mercer, C.D., & Mercer, A.R. (1985). Teaching students with learning problems (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Mills, H. (1977). Commanding paragraphs. Glen- view, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Co.

Minner, S., Prater, G., Sullavan, C., & Gwaltney, W. (1989). Informal assessment of written expression. Teaching Exceptional Children, 21(2), 76-79.

Moran, M., Schumaker, J., & Vetter, A. (1981). Teaching a paragraph organization strategy to learning disabled adolescents (Research Report No. 54). Lawrence: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.

Newcomer, P., Nodine, B., & Barenbaum, E. (1988). Teaching writing to exceptional children: reaction rec- ommendations. Exceptional Children, 54, 559-561.

Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B.L., & Cariglia- Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruction research comes of age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-30.

Raphael, T.E., Englert, S., & Kirschner, B.W. (1989). Students' metacognitive knowledge about writing. Re- search in the Teaching of English, 23(4), 343-379.

Reeves, T.C. (in press). Ten commandments for the evaluation of interactive multi-media in higher education. Journal of Computing and Higher Education.

Reeves, E. (1989). A seven step lesson plan for using instructional television. Vision, 4(2), 2.

Schumaker, J., & Sheldon, J. (1985). Learning strategies curriculum: the sentence writing strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas.

Short, E.J., & Ryan, E.G. (1984). Metacognitive differences between skilled and less skilled readers: re- mediating deficits through story grammar and attri-

bution retraining. Journal of Educational Psychol- ogy, 76, 225-235.

Simmons, D.C., Kameenui, E.J., & Darch, C.B. (1988). The effect of textual proximity on fourth- and fifth-grade LD students' metacognitive awareness and strategic comprehension behavior. Learn- ing Disability Quarterly, 11, 380-394.

Smith, M.W. (1984). Reducing writing apprehension. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.

Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1985). The logical status of metacognitive training. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13(3), 455-466.

Thomas, C.C., Englert, C.S., & Gregg, S. (1987). An analysis of errors and strategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special Education, 8(1), 21-30.

Wallace, G.W., & Bott, D.A. (1989). Statement-pie: a strategy to improve the paragraph writing of adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 541-543.

Welch, M. (1990). An investigation of the effectiveness of a process-oriented, video-assisted metacognitive strategy for developing paragraph writing skills (Tech. Rep. No. 1). Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Department of Special Educa- tion, Educational Tele-Communications.

Welch, M., & Link, D.P. (1990). Informal assessment of paragraph composition: A tool for acknowledging student effort and attitudes during instructional de- cision making. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Welch, M., & Jensen, J. (1991). Write, P.L.E.A.S.E.: A video-assisted strategic intervention to improve written expression. Remedial and Special Educa- tion, 12, 37-47.

Welch, M., & Link, D.P. (1989). Write, PL.E.A.S.E.: a strategy for efficient learning and functioning in written expression (video cassette). Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Department of Special Ed- ucation, Educational Tele-Communications.

Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler intelligence scale for children - revised. New York: Psychological Corp.

Woodcock, R.W., & Johnson, M.B. (1977). The Woodcock-Johnson psychoeducational battery. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources.

Wong, B.Y.L. (1985). Metacognition and learning disabilities. In D.L. Forrest-Pressley, G.E. MacKinnon, & T.G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (Vol.2, pp.137-180). Or- lando, FL: Academic Press.

Wong, B.Y.L., Wong, R., & Blenkinsop, J. (1989). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of learning disabled adolescents' composing problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 300-322.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Marshall Welch, University of Utah, Department of Special Edu- cation, Milton Bennion Hall Room 221, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.




the please strategy: a metacognitive learning strategy for improving the paragraph writing of...

Documents