think before, while and after read

7/27/2019 Think Before, While and After Read

1/20

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

TWA + PLANS Strategiesfor Expository Reading andWriting: Effects for NineEourth-Grade StudentsLINDA H. MASONPennsylvania State UniversityKATIE H ICKEY SNYDE RDIANA P. SUK HRA MYORE KEDEMUmversity of Illinois. Urbana-Champaigti

ABSTRACT:: Understanding and writing a bout expository material is dijficidt for many students.Content classroom activities and assessment tasks, however, are often structured within a fram e-work o f student reading followed hy extended written response. This multiple probe design acrosssubjects study examined the expository comp rehension and informative writing performa nce o f 9fourth-grade low-achieving students, 4 with disabilities and 5 without disabilities, following Self-Regulated Strategy Developm ent (SRSD) instruction for TW A (T hink before reading, think Whilereading, think After reading) and PLAN S (Pick goals. List ways to meet goals. And, make No tesand Sequence notes). Student performance, a s measured by oral and written retells, improved andwas maintained following instruction. Students also liked the strategies as well as instruction, andbelieved that TW A + PLAN S improved their reading and writing.

ontent literacyinterpretingand applying knovi'ledge fromexpository texthas been re-ferred to as the "quiet crisis' inAmerican educat ion (Gun-ning, 2003, p. 7). National Assessment of Educa-

not perform competently in content (science andsocial studies) classes (Campbell, Homhro, &Mazzeo, 1999). Over half of 4th-, 8th-, and12th-grade students, Furthermore, have some dif-ficulty in expressing their ideas on paper (Green-wald, Persky, Campbel l , & Mazzeo, 1999).


2/20

disabilities (Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2003 ;Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999). Compoundingthe problem, many teachers teach around the textand avoid writing assignments to compensate forstudents' poor reading and writing, sending amessage to their students that reading and re-sponding in writing to textbook material is notnecessary.

The positive attitude towards learning withwhich children begin school often deterioratesduring the elementary years. The difficulties thatmany students with and wirhout disabilities havein comprehending expository text and writing in-formative responses, consequently, hegin in ele-mentary school (Harris et al., 2 0 0 3 ; Saenz &Fuchs, 2002). The resul t ing comprehensiondeficits and inability to produce written responsesto text, by and large, limit student learning andapplication of content material (Snow, Burns, &Griffin, 1998). It is essential, therefore, that ele-mentary students master expository reading com-prehension and informative writing prior tomiddle and high school, before rhe general educa-tion curriculum shifts to predominantly contenttext-based instruction (Baker, Gertsen, & Scan-Ion, 2002). Estahlishing effective interventionsfor content literacy with young low-achieving stu-dents. Including those with disabilities, has beenrecognized as a research priority (National Insti-tute of Ghild Health and Human Development,2000; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002).

Foundat ional research in teaching low-achieving students when and how to use readingand writing strategies has indicated that students'independent and successful strategy use can becultivated (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1982; Press-ley, Brown, El-Dinary, & Affierbach, 1995; Sina-tra, Brown, & Reynolds, 2002), Furthermore,teaching students to use multiple strategies forreading comprehension or for writing has provento significantly improve their reading comprehen-sion or writing performance (Harris et al., 200.3;Swanson ec al., 1999; Tracey & Morrow, 2002).Effective methods for teaching reading compre-hension strategies in tandem with writing strate-gies tor exposi tory text comprehension and

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

SELF-REGULATED STRATEGYDEVELOPMENT

SRSD provides apedagogical framework foteaching strategics to low-achieving students whostruggle with learning. SRSD instruction embedexplicit procedures for teaching students to selfregulate strategy use throughout lessons. GrahamHarris, their colleagues, and other researcherhave validated SRSD instrtiction for studentwith and without disabilities in over 25 intervention studies in the past 20 years (Graham & Haris, 2003 ; Harris & Graham, 1999). Althoughwriting has been the focus of many SRSD studiesth e use of this approach for teaching readingcomprehension strategies has also noted improvestudent understanding of what has been read andwhat is remembered.EXPOSITORY COMPREHENSION WITH TWATWA (Think before reading, think While reading, think Afi:er reading) incorporares previouslvalidated cognitive reading strategies within anine-step procedural facilitative framework topromoting text engagement before, during, andafter reading (see Figure 1). The first componenof TWA, "Think before reading," includes thresteps for stimulating the reader's prior knowledgeThe first step within this component, "Thinkabout the author's purpose," prompts students toconsider text structure (informative vs, narrativtext). The following two steps ("Think abouwhat you know" and "Think about what youwant to learn") are derived from Ogle's (1989"What I Know, what do I Want to learn, what


3/20

about rereading parts." All three steps mirror pro-cedures in Hansen and Pearson's (1983) inferencestudy with poor readers (discuss previous experi-^ence prior to reading, connect student's priorknowledge to the text, and expand knowledge bysharing ideas) and are similar to strategies devel-oped by Graves and Levin (1989) for comprehen-s ion moni toring and rereading. The l inkingknowledge step encourages students to connectwhat is known about a topic with current text.

The last component of TWA is "think Afterreading." For "Think about the main idea," stu-dents use the RAP (Read the paragraph. Askyourself, "What is the main idea?" Put the mainidea into your own words.) strategy (EIUs &CGraves, 1990). In order to "Think about summa-rizing information," students learn five rules de-scribed by Brown and Day (delete trivialinformation, delete redundant information, sub-stitute superordinate terms for a list of terms oractions, select a topic sentence, and invent a topicsentence; 1983). The final step, "Think aboutwhat you learned," asks students to retell whatthey have read and learned in the passage as if thelistener knows no thing about the topic.SRSD instruction for the TWA expositoryreading comprehension strategy has been vali-dated as effective for improving expository read-ing comprehension for students with and withoutdisabilities who struggle with reading. In an ex-perimental group design study involving 32 fifth-grade students with andwithout disabil i t ies.Mason (2004) examined the impact of TWAcompared to reciprocal questioning (RQ; Manzo,1969). Across five oral response measures assess-ing the comprehension of researcher-developedtext (main idea statement, summary, retell quality,nutnber of main ideas in tetell, and num ber of in-formation units in retell), students who receivedTWA instruction outperformed those in the RQcondition. Large to medium effect sizes were ob-tained on all posttest measures. Improvementmaintained over 3 weeks of time on three of thefive measures.INFORMATIVE WRITING WITH PIANS

F I G U R E 1TWA Chart

7WAT Think Before ReadingThink about:The Aufhor's PurposeWhat You KnowWhat You Want to Learn

W While ReadingThink about:Reading SpeedLinking KnowledgeRereading Parts

A After ReadingThink about:The Ma in IdeaSummarizing Information

What You Learned

This lack of guidance, combined with students'inattention to organization and underdevelopedrhetorical goals, often results in ineffective writing(Bereiter & Scatdamalia, 1982). PLANS-SRSDinstruction helps students by teaching them tobreak wtiting tasks into manageable subtasks(Grahatn, MacArthur, Schwartz, & Page-Voth,1992). Figure 2 presents the three-step PLANSprocess: (1.) "Do PLANS: Pick goals. List ways tomeet goals, And, make Notes and Sequencenotes"; (2.) "Wtite and say more"; and (3.) "Testgoals." Students begin the prewriting process byselecting goals ftom a potential list of writinggoals or by developing theit own personal goalsfor improving their wtiting. They then develop aplan for meeting these goals. Students write plan-


4/20

F I G U R E 2Three Steps for Planning andWriting

1 . Do P Pick GoalsL List W ays toMeet GoalsA AndN Make NotesS And Sequence Notes2. W rite and Say More3. Test Goals

writ ing throughout the writing process withPLANS, students can establish personal goals forwriting products and can evaluate their own per-formance.

Graham et al. (1992), in a multiple probe de-sign across subjects study, evaluated PLANS with4 fifth-grade students with learning disabilities.Students were taught to use PLANS while plan-ning and writing a persuasive essay. Following in-struct ion, s tudent performance improved asmeasured by the length of time spent planningand writing essays, che number of words written,the number of persuasive essay parts, and essayquality. Effect sizes for posttest and maintenance(number of essay parts) performance using per-centage of nonoverlapping data were 100%, and88% for generalization to story writing (numberof story parts; Graham & Harris, 2003). Therewas also a shift in student perspectives regardingwhat constitutes good writing, from a perspectivefounded in writing mechanics to a perspective fo-cused on planning and content generation.

sion and informative writing (writing a summaror retell of what has been read). The interventioincluded two instructional pbases. In the first instructional phase, students read a passage, completing the before, during, and after componenof TWA. TWA instruction was extended from thprevious study (Mason, 2004) by asking studento write outline notes using the main idea ansummary strategies learned in TWA. In the seond instructional phase, TWA + PLANS, students used their TWA notes and components oPLANS to write an informative retell essay. Tcombined TWA + PLANS approach has foundtions in three strands of cognitive theory (prioknowledge acquisition, Pressley et al., 199prepositional theory, Kintsch, 1983; dual codintheory, Sadoski & Pavio, 2001) that are criticfor supporting student acquisition and facilitatiofor comprehension and writing. It was expectethat reading comprehension and writing perfomance of underachieving students with and without disabilities would be improved by integratinreading and writing processes. This procesteaches students to reformulate and extend thethinking about what has been read through wriing outline notes for reading comprehension icombination with developing planning and wriing goals for an essay.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Students in an urban elementary school in a Midwestern university city participated in this studForty-nine percent ofthe school's student popultion (57% Wh ite, 16 .3% African Am erica23.1% Hispanic, and 3.7% Asian) was from lowincome households. Seventy-one percent of astudents in the school met state standards acroali testing. The 9 study participants were selectby the principal, three fourth-grade classroomteachers, and a special education teacher, whidentified fourth-grade students who could decode fourth-grade reading material but we


5/20

Reading Inventory'3, Leslie &Caldwell, 2001)were used to corroborate the accuracy of identifi-cation criteria. Four of the 9 students scored atthe instructional decoding level on the fourth-grade passage (i.e., 7-14 reading errors) whereas 5students scored at the independent level on thefourth-grade passage (i.e., no more than 6 readingerrors). Five students scored at the Jrustrationallevel when answering open-ended oral readingcomprehension questions (i.e., answer less thanfive out of eight questions) at the third-gradelevel, whereas 4 students scored at ihe Jrustra-tional \cvc\ on fourth-grade material.

Students' special education status was ob-tained from their most current lER The school'sIEP team determined disability status and specialeducation eligibility based on state and local pro-cedures. Testing information and othe r relevantIEP documentation for the 4 students with dis-abilities were not available.

By self-regulating their writing throughoutthe writing process with PLANS, studentscan establish persona l goals for writingproducts and can evaluate their ow nperformance.

The 9 students were randomly assigned toone of three instructional groups (see Table 1 forindividual student demographics). Three maleswere inGroup 1: Noah, aWhite male with anIEP for emotional/behavioral disorder (EBD);Robert, a White male with an IEP tor a learningdisability (LD) and a speech and language impair-ment (SLI); atid John, an African American tnalereceiving Title I reading services. Kelly, a Whitefemale with an IEP for SLI; Amber, aWhite fe-male receiving Title 1 reading services; and Ned, aWhite male currently being screened, were inGroup 2. Group 3 also had three participants:Meredith, a Wh ite female; M ichael, a W hite malewith an IEP for LD; and Charisse, aWhite fe-male receiving Title I reading services. There were

INSTRUCTION

The students' TWA + PL/VNS instructor, a metn-bet of the research team, followed procedures fun-damental tothe SRSD approach. Lessons werefocused, structured, explicit, and individualized toaddress the cognitive, affective, and behavioralchatactetistics of each student (Hatris et al.,2003). Six strategy acquisition stages fostered stu-den t a t t a inmen t of strategy usage: developpreskills, discuss the strategy, model the strategy,memorize the strategy, guided practice, and inde-pendent practice. Lessons included direct instruc-tion in sel f - regula t ing learn ing throughself-instruction, goal setting, self-monitoring, andself-reinforcement. Students in each instructionalgtoup were taught until they met a criterion of in-dependently using TWA + PLANS above baselineperformances. Independence for TWA (readingcomprehension) was documented first when thestudents identified and wrote four or more mainideas with supporting detail in their TWA out-lines, and provided an otal retell with at leastthree main ideas frotn memory. Independence forPLANS (writing performance) was documentedwhen the student met writing goals by includingfour or more main ideas in the wri t tensumtnary/retell essays.

7~U^ Lessons. Tbe instructor introduced andtaugh t TWA first, before introducing TW A +PLANS strategies. Detailed lesson plans and sup-porting reproducible materials ate available athttp://www.ed.uiuc.edu/sped/twaplans.

The purpose of the first lesson was to intro-duce TWA and to discuss each before-, while-,and aftet-reading step. The instructor-led discus-sion of what good readers do when reading wasfollowed by introducing a "trick" or strategy thatwould help with reading. The mnemonic TWAchart was then introduced (illustrated inFigure1). Students were told that, like a pilot in controlof a plane, they could use TWA to "control" theirreading throughout the process. For example, "apilot always checks the plane's speed and rereadsinstruments if he/she does not understand them."The students and the instructor signed a learning


6/20

TABLE 1Student Demographics

StudentsGroup 1

Noah

RobertJohn

Group 2KellyAmberNed

Group 3MeredithMichaelCharisse

Se x

Male

MaleMale

FemaleFemaleMale

FemaleMaleFemale

Ethnicity

White

WhiteAfricanAmerican

WhiteWhiteWhite

WhiteWhiteWhite

Age

10.3

10.3

10.1

10.310.29.6

10.010.210.2

Disability/Other Services

EB D

LD/SLlTitle I

SLITitle IScreeningpotentialEBD

noneLDTitle I

Q_RI-3Decoding

Instruction 4th

Independent 5 thInstruction 4th

Independent 4thInstruction 4thIndependent 4th

Independent 4thInstruction 4thIndependent 4th

QRI-3Comprehension

Instruction 3rdFrustration 4th & 5 thInstruction 3rdFrustration 4th & 5thFrustration 3rd, 4th. & 5t

Frustration 3rd, 4th, & 5tFrustration 3rd, 4th, & 5tFrustration 3rd, 4th, & 5t

Instruction 3rdFrustration 4th & 5thFrustration 3rd, 4th, & 5tInstruction 3rdFrustration 4th & 5th

Note. QRI-3 = Qualitative Reading Inventory-3; EBD = emotional/behavioral disorder; LD = learning disabilitSLI = speech and language impairment.students to practice memorizing the nine steps.Students were told that they would be asked toshare the steps from memory in the next sessionand were taught to write the following remindermnemonic to facilitate metnorization practice:

TWAThe second lesson began with the initial ac-

tivity of al! lessons by asking the students to wtiteout the TWA mnemonic and orally state the ninesteps. Following this memorization practice, theteacher cognitively modeled (modeled whilethinking out loud) how to use the strategy, anddemonstrated how atid when to use TWA supportmaterials (checksheet for self-monitoring, TWAgraphic organizer for writing notes, rocket graph

After modeling the before-read ing and whilereading steps, the instructor modeled how tcomplete the after-reading steps {develop maiideas, summaries, and retells). To promote visuaprocessing while developing main ideas and summaries, the instructor used markers to highlighthe sentences in the passage that related to thmain idea (yellow), important details (blue), antrivial details (pink). The instructor modeled RAsteps (Ellis & Graves, 1990) and the five rules fosummarization (Brown & Day, 1983) throughoutbe process of developing main ideas and summaries for each paragraph. After rereading anhighlighting each text paragraph, the instructomodeled how to write notes on the TWA graphiorganizer for main ideas and details, followed botal rehearsal of paragraph summaries. For thlast step, the teacher modeled how to complete a


7/20

now." "Think about it."), and after reading ("Ilearned something." "I did a good job today.").

In lesson three, the instructor guided the stu-dents through completing the nine steps of TWA.The lesson included explicit instruction followedby gtoup discussion in developing main ideas,summaries, and writing outline notes to help stu-dents in selecting important text details. Studentswere encouraged to use the highlighters and thesupport materials. This lesson was repeated withgroup and peer collaborative practice until stu-dents demonstrated that they could use TWAwith the supporting materials. Authentic scienceand social studies text material replaced re-searcher-developed text as students' main idea andsummary development skills improved.

Students were told that, like a pilot incontrol of a plane, they could use TWA to"control" their reading throughout the

process.

The focus of all remaining TWA guidedpractice lessons was to scaffold instruction untileach student could independently implement allstrategy steps without instructor or materialprompts. The use of markers was gradually re-placed by teaching the students to write "MI" formain ideas and "D" for details alongside the ap-propriate passage sentences, and by teaching themto cross out trivial details. Instructional supportmaterials were replaced with student products(i.e., students wrote their own TWA checksheetand outline on blank paper).

In the group setting, each student's ability tomeet the study's reading comprehension criterionof independently reading a passage and writing aTWA outline with a minimum of four main ideaswas evaluated. Students practiced oral retells, witha minimum criterion of three main ideas.PLANS Lessons. Prior to the first PLANS les-son, students participated in individual one-to-one sessions to document their current readingcomprehension performance and to examine pre-

ing each student to model TWA using a samplescience passage. The student's ability to state aminimum of three main Ideas in retell was veri-hcd and recorded. The instructor praised studentsfor their reading, outline, and oral retell growthand discussed how the next "trick" to be learnedwould help improve writing.

Next in this individual session, the instructorand student evaluated the student's prior writingperformance by examining a student written retellprobe and discussing how TWA could help im-prove writing. The instructor introduced the con-cept of establishing writing goals using steps inthe PLANS chart (Figure 2). At this time, the stu-dent selected or developed three goals for writing,recording the goals and methods for meetinggoals on a goal sheet. Robert, for example, wrotethe following goal: "Put a main idea for eachparagraph with important details" and describedhow he would meet the goal: "Use TWA to helpwith w riting. Do the steps." The student-ins true-tor contract completed in the first lesson was re-visited and updated to include goals for thePLANS strategy.

In the subsequent group lesson, the instruc-tor discussed and modeled using the threePIANS steps for writing an essay. Then the stu-dents read a passage using TWA and wrote an in-formative essay using PLANS. This lesson waseasy for most students; the difficult work of plan-ning the essayreading/understanding the pas-sage and writing the outHtiehad been practicedand mastered using the TWA outline format. Stu-dents wrote essays using the PLANS strategy tomonitor their use of the individual goals devel-oped in the prior lesson. Prior to writing, the in-structor encouraged students to add detail to theirTWA outlines, and to add to their essays whilewriting and revising. After the student's essay wascompleted, the student and instructor checkedthe essay to see if goals had been met. Studentswere permitted to revise the essay so that all goalswere met. This lesson was repeated until students


8/20

INSTRUCTIONAL TRLA/MFNT

The research instruLtor received exten.sive trainingin implementing thf TWA lessons (including les-son practice and videotaping a practice modelinglesson), and had prior experience in teachingTW A + PLANS to 'i fifth-grade students (Mason,Snyder, Jones, & Kcdcm, unpublished data). Theinstructor used detailed lesson plans with samplescripts for each instructional group and lesson,and checked off each instrticrional step as it wasimplemented. Thirty percent of ali lessons weretape-recorded. The third author listened to andrecorded the pcrccntagf ol .steps completed in thelessons. Fidelity of treatment was 99% for thenumher of steps checked by the instructor and97% for the tape-recorded steps.READING PASSAGESThe research team selected 20 reading passages,250 to325 words in Ictigtii, photocopied in hlackand white trom ftfth-gradc science (Cohen, DelGiorno, Harlan, McC^ormack, & Staver, 1986)and social studies {Clarcia, Gelo, Greenow,Kracht, & White, 1997) textbooks. The selectedpassages were self-contained; in other words, theydid not refer toprior material in the text or to thepictures/charts in the textbook. The Dale-Challreadability formula was used to corroborate afourth-grade reading level (Chali, Bissex, Conard,& Harris-Sharpies, 1996). Because this study oc-curred during the spring .st-mcster,fifth-gradepas-sages were selected to tninimize the effect ofmaterial being presented ihat had recently beenstudied in the students' science or social studiesclass. A fourth-grade general etlucation teacherand an ave rage-achieving fourth-grade student ex-amined the passages hir acceptability. Eight pas-sages, 250 to 275 wortis in length, were chosenand then randomly assigned and coimterbalancedacross assessment sessions. The remaining pas-sages were used for instruction.MEASURI-S

To establish criterion performance for TWA read-

says for each student were examined. One of theauthors tested students, telling them that therewas no time limit for testing, and to do their beswork. Testing for each probe data point was completed in one to three 30-min sessions.Outlme. TWA instruction included teachingstudents to write an outline; students could thenapply this skill during TWA + PLANS instructionfor the planning and goal setting components ofPLANS. At independent performance for TWAand TWA + PLANS, in either group or individualsessions, students read the passage and used thetaught strategies to either write an outline (TWA)or oudine/essay (TWA + PLANS) without assistance from the instructor or peers (with the exception of John, who was provided supplementavocabulary support throughout instruction andgroup probing sessions). The outlines providedevidence of student learning following both IWAand TWA + PLANS instruction, and were criticain establishing that students met criterion perfor-mance. In both before- and after-instructionprobing sessions, when students were told towrite notes (see below), they often did not do sotherefore, the outline measure lacks experimentacontrol.Oral Retell. Scripted directions that asked thstudent to write notes and state an oral retell wereread out loud by the assessor at each probing ses-sion. Following these directions, the student re-ceived a randomly assigned and counterbalancedassessment-selected science or sociai studies pas-sage. Before the student read the passage, the assessor provided a mini-sight word iesson for three

predetermined researcher-identified unfamiliarchallenge words (e.g., proper nouns not found ongrade-level readability lists). The assessor read thewords out loud, led choral practice, and told stu-dents that they could ask the assessor to read thewords on the cards at any time. Students had access to a yellow marker, a blue marker, a pinkmarker, pencils, and lined paper. Students wereasked to read the passage silently or out loudwere told that they could use any of the materialsprovided, and were asked to write notes. The assessor encouraged students to use everything they


9/20

knew nothing about the passage topic, withoutlooking at the passage or any written notes. Theassessor collected the passage and notes when stu-dents indicated tbey were ready to state the oralreteli. Student orai responses at baseline and afterinstruction were transcribed on lined paper, tape-recorded for accuracy, and typed later.

Written Retell. After completing the oralretell, the assessor gave students tbe same passageand any written notes, and asked them to writean essay that told everything that was read andlearned in tbe passage, as if the assessor knewnothing about the passage topic. Once again, theresearch assessor encouraged students to use ev-erything tbey had learned tohelp them write tbeiressay; they could use any of the materials pro-vided, and were asked to write notes. There wasno time limit for student writing. If a studentneeded time beyond the allowed 30 min from theclass, the assessment was continued tbe followingday. Students read their completed essays to theassessor, who made notes for any writing that wasunreadable. Reteiis were typed iater by tbe asses-sor, who corrected speiling, capitalization, andpunctuation.

Treatment Acceptability. To eliminate effectsof students' seif-reporting opinions directiy to tbeinstructor, the noninstructional authors con-ducted postinstruction oral interviewing. Stu-dents were asked six questions regarding theirimpress ions of ins t ruc t ion and tiie TWA +PLANS strategies: (1.) "Has using the TW A +PLANS strategies helped you to become a betterreader? How?" (2.) "What have you learned sinceworking witb Katie [the instructor]?" (3.) "Howdo you tbink this wili belp otber chiidren?" (4.)"If you were the teacher, what wouid you changein the lessons? Why?" (5.) "If you were theteacher, would you add anything to help childrenlearn to read and write?" (6.) "From these lessons,what things have most helped you become a bet-ter reader and writer?" Interviewers recorded stu-dents' oral responses on a questionnaire form.Interviews were tape-recorded to ensure accuracyand integrity, and transcribed and typed later.

performance before and after instruction. Ninestudents were randomly assigned to three instruc-tional groups of three students. Students' readingcomprehension and informative writing perfor-mance was evaluated based on ability to orallyretell as well as write an essay after reading a pas-sage. Baseline performance for each student wascollected prior to instruction. Additional baselinedata for both oral and written retelhng were col-lected for instructional Groups 2 and 3 followinginstruction for Group 1. In addition, a probe foreach student in Group 3 followed instruction forGroup 2.

Immediately foliowing each group's TWA in-struction, student achievement as noted in theirability to write a IWA outline with a minimumof four main ideas for three passages was docu-mented to reflect the stability of postinstructionperformance. During the individual one-to-onesession following TWA instruction, each studentprovided one orai retell. Students had three per-formance opportunities for written retelling im-mediately following TWA + PLANS instruction.

Instruction for Group 2 began only afterGroup 1 students achieved the criterion fot I'WA+ PLANS was achieved and verified. This processwas repeated for Group 2 prior to instruction forGroup 3. Four to 6 weeks after instruction, weconducted additional oral and written retell short-term maintenance of performance probes for thestudents (two probes for Group 1 and onc probefor Group 2). These were collected at a time con-sistent with postinstructional probes taken forotber groups. Due to t iming (the end of tbeschool year), students in the third group receivedonly one short-term maintenance probe. A long-term maintenance {12 weeks following finalsbort-term maintenance probe) oral and writtenreteli probe, taken during the first week of schoolfollowing tbe summer break, was obtained for tbesix students who had returned to the school.SCORING AND RELIABILITY

Research assessors typed outlines and oral andwritten retells for scoring. Reteiis were assigned a


10/20

inscruction. Scorers received a 2-hr training ses-sion to ensure accuracy and reliability in scoringeach measure. The first author conducted this ses-sion, which included presenting procedures, an-chor points and rubrics for scoring each score;controlled practice for each score; and indepen-dent practice for each score. In addition, scorersreceived the full text of each assessment passage.Scorers worked independently to complete scor-ing the outlines and retells.Outline. During the intervention, to establishthat students met criterion performance in TWAinstruction, the instructor examined student writ-ten outlines. A student met criterion when he or

she noted four main ideas (four out of five to sixphrases or sentences previously identified by thefirst author and two elementary teachers). Afterthe intervention, two advanced university stu-dents who were unaware of the probe, student,and school scored all written outlines, includingthose used for criterion as well as those written bystudents during subsequent probing. The first au-thor and two elementary teachers developed andcompiled six potential main idea anchors for eachpassage for use during scoring. All outlines werescored twice, one time by each scorer. Reliability,calculated at 100%, was established by dividingthe scorer's agreements by the total number ofdisagreements and agreements ofthe measure.

Retells. Three scores from each oral retell andfour scores from each written retell were derived.The number of main ideas (MI) was used for pri-mary analysis. The MI score assessed the student'sability to find and write or remember key pointsin a passage. Four out of five to six phrases ot sen-tences previously identified as noted previouslywere provided as MI anchors, lo determine thescore of MI told or written, the number of MIgiven in the student's response was counted. Asecondary analysis was completed using a holisticquality score (Q) and the number of informationunits (IU). In addition, the number of words (W)was obtained for the written retell. The holistic Qscore evaluated the student's ability to cluster in-formation from the passage in an organized man-ner. Q scores ranged from 0 point to 6 points: (a)

called one MI or a cluster of unrelated details, (da retell in which the student attempted to recaone or more chunks of related details earned score of 3, (e) a retell in which the student produced fairly well-organized but less complete recall containing two or more organized chunks oinformation earned a score of 4, (f) a score of was obtained for a retell in which the student recalled groups of MI and details from several partofthe passage, and (g) a score of 6 was assigned ithe response completely captured the gist of thpassage. Researcher-developed anchor retells werprovided for each scoring point and passage during training and actual scoring. The number oIU, counted regardless of importance to meaninor text structure, was calculated by counting thnumber of phrases or sentences that captured onidea or piece of information^described by Trabasso, Secco, and Van Den Broek (1984) a"event meaning." All measures were scored twiceone time by each scorer. Reliability for each tneasure was established by dividing the scorer's agreements by the total number of disagreements anagreements of the measure. Where differences occurred scores were averaged. Reliability for eachmeasure was calculated to be as follows: M I =95%, Q = 82% , IU ^ 93%, and W = 100%.

R ES U L.TS

MI IN OUTLINEAlthough asked to write notes and to use everything they had learned to help them remembewhat was read, no student wrote outline notes ithe first three baseline probes. Interestingly, ththree students in Group 3 did demonstrate somnote-taking awareness prior to instruction; botMichael and Charisse each wrote two sentenceprior to their fourth-probe oral retell, each capturing one MI. Neither student wrote notes during the fifth preinstruction probe. During hefifth preinstruction probe, Meredith asked if shcould write notes, saying that "it helps me remember"; when told she could do so, however


11/20

ther four or five MI independenriy on three our-iines for passages read following TWA instruc-tion. Michael and John wrote only three Mi onthe third postinstruction TWA outline. AfterTW A + PLANS instruction, all students wrotefour to five MI on the two mdependenc groupsession writing probes, with the exception ofMeredith {who wrote six Mi on one outline) andCharisse (who vi'rote three MI on one outline).

Noah, Keiiy, and Ned did not write outlinenotes during any individuai retell probing session.Robert, Meredith, and Charisse continued writ-ing an outline throughout ail probing phases,maintaining four to five Mi in each outline. Inhis final one-tO'One writing probe, John wrote anoutline with two MI. Although Amber did notwrite an outline for her second individuai writingprobe, she did write six Mi and five Mi on thefirst and third individual probes. Michael de-creased performance to three MI on the first indi-vidual probe; he did not write an outline on hislast probe.ORAL MI

Prior to instruction, baseiine orai retell probes forindividual students were relatively stable, with nostudent scoring above two oral MI per probe (seeFigure 3). After TWA instruction, ail studentsmet the criterion by orally stating at ieast threemain ideas m an oral retell, as documented hyteacher notes. Mi in the first orai retell probe fol-lowing instruction (ranging one to five Ml) indi-cated that all students except Michael improvedperformance above their individual best baselinescore. John and Kelly returned to baseline perfor-mance during later probing; both, however, im-proved scores in subsequent probing. Long-termprobing for Robert, Kelly, Amber, Meredith, andCharisse was maintained above baseline, with arange of two to four oral Mi's. Miciiael returnedto his best baseline score during his fina l probe.WRITTEN MI

During baseline probing, ai! students with the ex-ception of Amber, Meredith, and Charisse wrote

Robert and Charisse increased MI written duringtheir best postinstruction performance by five;Kelly, Ned, and Michael increased MI by four;and Noah and John increased by three. Amherand Meredith increased Mi by three, reaching theceiling of six possible MI. Both John and Ned re-turned to haseiine performance during the firstindividual probing session. Throughout subse-quent probing, all students in Groups 1 and 2maintained or continued improving performanceabove baseiine performance {Group 3 was un-available). All students participating in long-termmaintenance probing maintained performanceabove their baselines with a range of two to sixM I.SECONDARY ANALYSIS

Table 2 reports quality, information units, andwords written for the oral and written reteiis bygroup means (M) and standard deviations (SD)for probing phases (baseline, postinstruction, andlong-term maintenance). Due to student attri-tion, iong-term measures, although indicatingmaintenance of sidlls learned when compared tohaseiine for each group, lacic the consistencyneeded to discuss group M and SD in a meaning-ful way.

The quality results, both orai and writtenretell, indicated similar growth for all groups. Dif-ferences in means from baseiine to postinstruc-tion ranged 2.17 M to 3.00 M points higher atpostmstruction for both measures. Variability inthe quality of both oral reteiis and written reteiisincreased after instruction; standard deviationsranged from the lowest change of .65 SD to 1.04SD for Group 3 oral retells to .60 SD to 1.45 SDfor Group 1 orai reteiis. When compared to othergroups at baseiine. Group 2 had greater variabilityin the quaiity of their written retells (1.11 SD) atbaseiine; postinstruction variabiiicy (1.19 SD) in-dicated iittie change.

Information unit mean differences, baselineto postinstruction, was quite different for the oralreteiis (range of 5.34 M to 5.86 M point growth)and written retells (range of 8.23 M to 17.87 M


12/20

F I G U R E 3Main Ideas in Oral Retell

B as din c Probes T icatrocnt PostinsttuctioD ProbesCr i tn ion Uuig-Terai Maintenance

Week Week Week)I 2 3

NoahRobertJohn

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

Kelly Amber NedKellvAmberNed

nno7 r , 1 < 1M.I

.3 .1 .3. 5.5.4

Week Week Week Week! I Week Week | W eek1 2 3 7 L 12

\ \

Week Week Week Week Week1 2 3 7 12

\

16

* I

26

Week Week16 26

Meredith Michael Charlsse

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

Criterion of independence inwriting at least 4 main ideas in3 outlines and orally stating atleast 3 main ideas in 1 oral retell


13/20

FIGURE 4Main Ideas in Written Retell

Baseline Probes Treatment

APoslinstrvction Probes Long-Tenn M aintenance

Week Week WeekI 2 3 Week Week W eek W eek Week" 6""! 6 7 12 16

7z :Week Week Week Week

1 2 3 7Week I Week Week Week

-.^1 j II 12 16

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

NoahI Robert

Week26

Noah 1.2.1.4.5,4,3,3Robe n 0.0.0. 5.5.5. 6.4.4John 0.1.1.3.4.1.2.2

KellyI Amber Ne d

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

Week26

Week Week Week Week Week1 2 3 7 12Week Week Week Week

15 15 16 26


14/20

TA BLE 2Secondary Analysis: Means and Standard Deviations (SD)

InstructionalMeasure GroupOral Retell

Quality Group 1Group 2Group 3

Information Units Grou p 1Group 2Group 3

Written RetellQuality Group 1

Group 2Group 3

Information Units Group 1Group 2Group 3

Words W ritten Group 1Group 2Group 3

BaselineMeans(SD)

.89(.60)1.33(.65)1.33(.72)4.22

(1.30)4.33(2.27)3.47(4.21)

1.00(.71)1.17

(1.11)1.67(.82)3.44

(1.59)5.08

(3.75)4.80

(5.33)28.33(12.58)36.42

(29.84)29.20(25.39)

PostinstructionMeans(SD)

3.11(1.45)3.50

(1.04)4.33

(1-53)9.56

(4.92)10.17(4.17)9.33(4.04)

3.47(1.19)4.17

(1.19)4.44(1.24)11.67(4.97)18.58(8.63)22.67(9.60)81.80

(31.46)129.67(49.33)136.67(59.34)

Long- TermMaintenance Means

(SD)

4.00 (1 student)4.50 (2 students)(.71)

2.33 (3 students)(1.53)

12.00(1 student)12.50 (2 students)(3.54)10,33 (3 students)(8.50)

4.00 (1 student)5.50 (2 students)(.71)4,00 (3 students)(2.00)

14.00(1 student)23.50 (2 students)(6.36)19,00 (3 students)

(12.77)77.00 (1 student)

146.00 (2 students)(2.83)123.00 (3 students)(104.65)

from 1.30 SD co 4.92 SD whereas Group 2 in-creased from 2.27 SD to 4.17. Group 3 had asmall decrease in variability (4.21 SD to 4.04SD). Standard deviations (baseline to postinstruc-

The mean difference for number of wordwritten baseline to postinstruction ranged from53.47 M (Group 1) to 107.47 M (Group 3) poingrowth. Standard deviations for each group reflec


15/20

SOCIAL VALIDITY

All of the stu den ts indicated that the TWA +PLANS strategy had helped them become betterreaders and writers. Amber responded; "Like nowin the classroom I go back and read and I'll gobacic and reread, I think about my reading speedand what the author is trying to teil me." Robertstated, "Now I know not just to write the mainidea in the paragraph but also the details." Noahand Charisse related what they had learned:"How to write 3 or more paragraphs." "Learnedto reread, to think before I read, link my knowl-edge." When asked how TWA could heip otherchildren, John responded: "If they are kind of badat reading it can heip them more at reading andwriting. TWA will help them."

All students responded that they would addnothing to heip children iearn to read. Ned re-sponded, "No, Katie [the itistructor] has donegood!" John and Keily had the following com-ments regarding changing the lessons: "I wouldn'treally want to change anything because it's goodhow it is." "Maybe about the writing part, writeless because changing rhe writing part your handgets tired when youre writing long." When askedwhat most helped them, students responded, "Mewriting hetter details atid the main idea in a para-graph," "Reading speed, l inking knowledge,rereading parts." "Rereading parts," " i WA, sinceI know it so well it's helped me with reading andwriting and getting through problems with read-ing," "i really don't know because most of it hasheiped tne. Now I icnow how to read booics andfuily understand them."

D I S C U S S I O NStudent performance in providing an orai reteiland written retell after reading a science or socialstudies passage prior to and after SRSD instruc-tion for TWA + PLANS was evaluated in thisstudy. Baseline performances revealed no observedmeaningfui text engagement, planning, or outlin-ing, resulting in orai reteiis and written retells thatdid not clearly demonstrate understanding of

strated improvement in reading comprehensionhy producing more correct text main ideas in oralretelling, outlining, and written retelling. Gains inthe numher of information units orally recalledfrom the text reflect an increased memory fortext. Reflecting a hetter understanding of text,students' ahiiity to organize information for bothoral and written retelling improved as noted inthe quaiity scores. Written retell essays werelonger, containing more units of information andnumber of words written. It is equally impressivethat student performance, for hoth orai retells andwritten reteiis, maintained above-haseline perfor-mance after the 3-month summer break fot thosestudents who returned to the school (Noah, John,and Ned did not return).

Students were fairiy consistent in their abili-ties to give an oral retell across measures (mainidea, qualiry, numher of information units) priorto instruction; after instruction, however, perfor-mance gains varied across students and groups.For oral retell Mi, Noah, Robert, Meredith, andAmber achieved a high ievei of performanceabove haseiine immediately following instruction;however, both Noah and Roberts oral retell per-formance declined over time. Ned's MI perfor-mance in oral retelling increased over time. John,Kelly, Michael, and Charisse made smaller gainsfor main ideas in orai reteiling when comparedwith their peers. These differences and variabilitywere also reflected in the group performance re-suits for quality and the numher of informationunits. Oniy Amher and Meredith maintained ahigh level of stable performance in oral retellingacross measures over time .The inconsistency for some students' oralreteii performance was noted throughout instruc-tion and parallels students' outlining performance.According to instructor notes during instruction,John, Michael, Charisse, and Kelly, althoughdemonstrating verbally that they had correctlyidentified main ideas, were inconsistent in inde-pendently meeting the criterion of writing fourmain ideas in an outline and often required verbalreminders to write more. On the other hand,Robert, Meredith, and Amber, who consistently


16/20

outlining indicated that rhey had learned to iden-tify main ideas immediately following both TWAinstruction and subsequent TWA + PLANS in-struction, not all studenrs chose to write outlinenotes during later maintenance probing. For thestudents iti this study, it appears that writing notesin outline format supported a stable postinstruc-tion oral retell performance.

The written products (outlines and essays)following TWA + PLANS instruction provide evi-dence of improved reading comprehension per-formance beyond that given in the oral retell.Furthermore, in addition to gains in reading com-prehension, students improved their writing per-formance for an expository retell essay. Writtenretell essays were longer and more organized fol-lowing TWA + PLANS instruction when com-pared to retell essays written at baseline. Sixstudents demonstrated stable postinstructionwri t t en re te l l per formance . One s tudent ,Charisse, actually improved writing performanceover time. Michael and Kelly, conversely, bad un-stable postinstruction performance over time. Aswith the oral retelling, students' written outlineproduction appeared to contribute to the stabilityof the written retell essays. Robert, Meredith,Amber (who skipped one outline), and Charissewrote outlines for each essay, resulting in betterwritten retells when compared with students whowere inconsistent in writing outline notes (Noah,John, Kelly, Ned, and Michael).The difference in maintaining performanceafter instruction for students wbo struggle withwriting when compared to average-achieving

peers is well docume nted (Graham & Harris,2003). Increased scaffolding during instruction aswell as booster sessions following instruction isoften required to support learning and perfor-mance gains over time (Harris & Graham, 1999).Although ali students tn this study had memo-rized and learned to apply the strategy steps dur-ing instruction, stability and level of performancemay have been improved by providing o ppo rtuni-ties to practice TWA + PLANS for reading, out-lining, and writing after establishing criterionperformance. Noah, John, Kel ly , Ned, and

retelling. Charisse, who was able to write an out-line (but often with only three main ideas), maybave benefited from extra support in the mainidea strategy.As noted by Graham and H arris (20 03) ,methods to enhance strategic behavior over timeneed to be developed and validated. Instructioncan be strengthened by adding components thataddress the affective behaviors of studetits wbo arehaving difficulty in maintaining the motivationfor completing the task. In tbis study, two 30-niinute writing periods were often needed for theproduction of a good w ritten outline and retellessay for the expository passages read. Sotne stu-dents had difficulty maintaining the attentionneeded co complete ail strategy components.Some students simply stopped writing tbe oudineand, as documented by instructor notes, thesestudeEits also tended to be resistant to writing.Noah, for example, became agitated when askedto extend responses on the outline or essay. AsKelly noted in postinstruction interviewing,"Change tiic writing part, write less." Futurestudies might consider supports to enhance stu-dent motivation for staying with the task.Prior research witb students with LD (Reid &Bori(owskl, 1987) and witb SRSD writing instruc-tion (Sexton, Harris, & Grahatn, 1998) bas indi-cated that combining strategy instruction withattribution instruction bas a positive effect on per-formance and adaptive attributions. Aithougiieach lesson began with a discussion of how tbestrategies would belp students' reading compre-hension and wr it ing, the TWA and TWA +

PLANS interventions in this study did not includean expiicit attribution training component. Stu-dents were not directly asked to attribute tfieir suc-cess to cither effort or strategy use. In other words,students self-monitored tbeir performance, indicat-ing that they iiad completed strategy steps; how-ever, evaluation of resuits in terms of productquality or effort expended by the student was notdone. Furthermore, aithough students' interviewcomments indicated that the strategies were help-ful, it was difficult to evaluate students' tb inking inregard to the actual appiication of ail strategy steps.


17/20

sured orally and in writing. In addition, students'writing improved across measures. StLidents likedinstruction and felt positive about its benefits forboth reading and writing. An iilustrative exampleof Robert's gains in oral and written reteii perfor-mance is provided in Appendix B.iMI't.iCAl IONSUnlike the students in the current study who weretaught and who learned a combined approach,students who were previously taught only TWAfor reading comprehension were unable to gener-alize strategies for comprebension to improvingwriting (Mason, 2004). ibe current study pro-vides evidence that teacher-directed explicit seif-regulated strategy instruction, guided practice,and independent practice tor botb reading com-prehension and writing foster growth in readingcomprehension and writing for students wbostruggle with expository text reading and writing.Although SRSD for TWA + PLANS instructionfor improving performance is documented in thisstudy, tbe benefit of combining TWA-SRSD witbPLANS-SRSD instruction to improve both read-ing comprehension and writing is not clear andshould be examined through components analysisstudy. Furtbermore, future research is needed toreplicate findin gs for a larger, more diverse sampleof students and to establish ecological validity(real classroom application) and generalizability oftbe treatment.

Inconsistent documentation of oral retellingand outline performance across all design phaseprobes limits tbe findings for botb these mea-sures. There is evidence, however, tbat TWA read-ing comprebension with outlining improved oralretell performance, and tbat TWA + PLANS witboutlining was more beneficial in improving writ-ing than rWA + PLANS when outlining was notcompleted. The results, as demonstrated in tbisstudy, reflect tbe difficulty in getting students toapply what has been learned, particularly for stu-dents v/ith special needs who are struggling aca-demically. To foster student application of learnedskills, as discussed previously, students' continued

vertently made modifications that limit tbe effec-tiveness of the strategies.

Although SRSD for TWA + P U N S instruc-tion includes validated stages of instruction neces-sary for strategy acquisit ion and effectiveprocedures for self-regulated learning, some stu-dents may require more explicit help in seeing tbeimpact of the strategies on performance (Harris,Grabam, & Mason, 2004; Harris, Grabam, &Mason, 2006). Methods may need to move be-yond the description and discussion of strategybenefits as was facilitated in tbe current study.Specific procedures for teaching students to un-derstand tile strengths and wcaioicsses of a strat-egy, and to see how individual strategycomponents support each phase of an academictask, should be embedded into instruction forthose students who have difficulties with main-taining learned skiils.

Specific procedures for teaching studentsto understand the strengths and tveaknessesof a strategy, and to see how individualstrategy components support each phase ofan academic task, should be embedded intoinstruction for those students who havedifficulties with maintaining learned skills.

Expository text, as written in commercial sci-ence and social studies textbooks, does little to nur-ture and foster students' reading comprebension(Chambliss & Calfee, 1998). Tbis lack was evidentas we watched the nine students in this study strug-gle, even though we initially used researcbcr-dcvel-oped text intended to be more student-friendly.Although instruction was individualized and ex-piicit, some students (Kelly and Michael, for exam-pie) may have benefited from additionalsuppiemental or one-to-one directed instruction.In addition, students iike John, who lack criticalprc-skills, require support and modifications toTWA + PLANS instruction. Minl-iessons support-ing vocabuiary development should be provided


18/20

informative writing, and were abie to improve boththeir understanding of material and rlieir ability towrite about what had been read. As noted byMeredith {when asiced how much TWA andPLANS might help other students), "A lot becausesome don't know about reading and writing .so theyneed help."R E F E R E N C E SBaker, S., Gertsen, R., & Scanloti, D. (2002). Procedu-ral facilitators and cognitive strategies; Tools for unrav-eling the mysteries of comprehension and tiie wtitingprocess, and for providing meaningful access to thegeneral cutriculum. Learning Disabilities Research an dPractice, 17 , d^^-ll.Bereiter, C , & Scardamalia, M , {1982). From conver-sation to composition: The role of instruction in a de-velopmentai process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances ininstructional psychology (Vol, 2, pp. 1-64}. Hillsdale,NJ: E ribaum.Brown, A. L, & Day, J. D. (1983). Macro rules forsummarizing texts: The development ot expertise./owr-nal of Verbal Learning an d Verbal Behavior, 22 , 1-14.Campbell, J. R.. Hombro, C. M., & Maz7.eo, J. (1999).Trends in academic progress: Three decades of studentperformance. Education Statistics Quarterly, 2, 31-36.Chall, J. S., Bissex, C. L., Conard, S. S., & Harris-Sharpies, S. H. (1996), Qiialitative assessment of text dif-ficulty: A praetieal guide for teachers and writers.Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.Chambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (1998). Textbooks forlearning: Nurturing children's minds. Maiden, MA:Blackweii.Cohen, M. R., Del C iorno, B. J., Harlan, J. D ., Mc-Cormack. A. J,. & Staver, J. R. (1986). Sctenee. Glen-view, IL: Scott, Foresman.Ellis, E. S., & Graves, A. W. (1990). Teaching rutal stu-dents w ith learning disabilities: A paraphrasing strategj'to increase comprehension of main ideas. Rural SpecialEdueation Quarterly, 10. 2-10.Garcia, J. R.. Gelo, D . J., Greenow, L. L.. Kracht, J. B.,& White, D. G. (1997). Our United States. Needham,MA: Silver Burdett Ginn.Graham, S., &L Harris, K. R. (2003). Students withlearning disabilities and the process of writing: A m eta-analysis of studies. In H. I., Swanson, K. R. Har-

dents with learning disabilities using a strategy invoiving product and process goal setting. Exceptional Chdren. 58, 322-334.Graves, A. W., & Eevin, j . R. (1989). Comparison omonitoring and mnemonic text-ptocessing strategies inlearning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Quterly, 12, 232-236.Greenwald, E. A., Petsky, H, R., Campbeil, J. R., &Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 writing report card fothe nation and the states. Edueation Statistics Quart!, 23-28.Gunning, T. G. (2003). Building literacy in the conareas. Boston: Allyn &C Bacon.Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instructionastudy: Improving the inferential comprehension ogood and poor fourch-grade tcidcn. Journal of Educational Psychology. 75, 821-829.Harris, K. R., & Graham. S. (1996). Making the w riing process work: Strategies fo r composition and selation. Camb ridge, MA : Brookline Books.Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic intervention research: Illustrations from the evolution oself-reguiated strategy development. Learning Disabities Quarterly, 22, 251-262.Harris. K. R.. Graham. S., & Mason, E. H. (2003)Self-regulated strategy deveiopment in the classroomPart of a balanced approach to writing instruction fostudents with disabilities. Eocus on Exceptional Child35, 1-16.Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2004)Improving the writing performance, knowledge, andself-efficacy of struggling young write rs: Th e effects oself'regulated strategy development. Contemporary Edcational Psychology, 30, 207-241.Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, E. H. (2006)Improving che writing performance, knowledge, andmotivation of young struggling writers: Effects of selfregulated strategy development with and without peersupport. American Educational Research fournal, 4295-340.Hotner, R. D., & Baer, D, M. (1978). Multiple probetechnique: A variation of the multiple probe baseiinefour7ial of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189-196.Kintsch, W. (1983). Memory for text. In A. Flammer& W. Kintsch (Eds.) , Discourse processing (pp186-204). Amsterdam: North-Holland.


19/20

Mason, LH. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategydevelopment versus reciprocal questioning: Effects onexpository reading comprehension among strugglingtc^AcTs. Journal of Educational Psychobgy, 96, 283-296.Mason, L, H., Snyder, K,, Jones, D, P, & Kedem, Y,[Seif-regulating expository reading comprehension andinformative writing: Effects for five 5th-grade stu-dents]. Unpublished data.National Institute of Child Health and Human Devel-opm ent. (2000). Com prehension, Part II: Text compre-hension instruction. In Report ofthe National ReadingPanel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assess-ment ofthe scientific research literature on reading an d Itsimplications fo r reading instruction: Reports ofthe sub-groups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754), Washington,D C : U.S, Government Printing Office, Available:www. nichd, nih.go v/pub lications/n rp/report, htmOgle, D. M. (1989). The know, want to know, learnstrategy. In K. D. Muth (Ed.), Children's comprehensionof text (pp. 205-223) . Newark , DE: InternationalReading Association.Pressley, M., Brown, R., El-Dinary, P B., & Afflerbach,P. (1995). The comprehension instruction that studentsneed: Instruction fostering constructively responsivereading. Learning Dlsahilities Research and Practice, 10,215-224.RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for un-derstanding: toward an R&D program in reading compre-hension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Available: http://w w w . r a n d . o r g / p u b s / m o n o g r a p h _ r e p o r t s / 2 0 0 5 /MRl465.pdfReid, M., & Borkowski, J. (1987). Casual attributionsof hyperactive children: Implications for teachingstrategies and self-control. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 79 , 296-307.Sadoski, M., & Pavio, A. (2001). Imagery an d text: Adual coding theory of reading an d writing. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum,Saenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining thereading difficulty of secondary students with learningdisabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedialan d Special Education, 23, 3141.Sexton, M., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1998), Self-regulated strategy development and the w riting process:Effects on essay writing and attributions. ExceptionalChildren. 64, 295-311.Sinatra, G. M., Brown, K .}., & Reynolds, R. E.

Snow, C, E., Burlis, M. S,, & GHfFin, P. (1998]. Pre-venting reading difficulties in young children. Washing-ton, DC: National Academy Press.Swanson, H, L, Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Inter-ventions for students with learning disabilities: Ameta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Cullford.Trabasso, T, Secco, T., & Van Den Broek, P (1984),Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandl, N.L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning an d comprehen-sion of ext (pp. 83-11 0). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Tracey, D. H,, & Morrow, L. M. (2002). Preparingyoung learners for successful reading comprehension.In C, C, Block &C M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension in-struction: Research-based best practices (pp. 219-233) .New York: The Guilford Press.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

LINDA H. MASON (CEC PA Federation), Assis-tant Professor, Department of Educational andSchool Psychology and Special Education, Col-lege of Education, Pennsylvania State University,University Park, K A T I E H I C K E Y S N V D E R .Doctoral Student, Department of Curriculuqiand Instruction; DIANA P. SUKHRAM (CEC ILFederation), Doctoral Student, Department ofSpecial Education; and Y O R E K E D E M . DoctoralStudent, Department of Curriculum and Instruc-tion, College of Education, University of Illinois,Urbana-Champai gn.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Linda H. Mason, Department of Ed-ucational and School Psychology and Special Ed-ucation, 210 CEDAR, University Park, PA 16802(e-mdll: [email protected]).Preparation of this article was funded by the U.S.Department of Education's Office of Special Ed-ucation Programs (Crant #H324C030e49). Theopinions expressed do not necessarily reflect theposition or policy of the Department of Educa-tion, and no official endorsement should he


20/20

think before, while and after read

Documents