ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in SchoolsClinical Forum1 Jul 1999

Assessment and Intervention in Overcoming Writing Difficulties

An Illustration From the Self-Regulated Strategy Development Model
    https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.3003.255

    The progress of a 12-year-old boy with learning disabilities and severe writing difficulties is followed from initial assessment through instruction in strategies for planning, revising, and managing the composing process. A validated instructional model, Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), was used to teach these processes. With SRSD, writing strategies are explicitly taught in combination with procedures for regulating the use of these strategies, the writing process, and any undesirable behaviors that may impede performance. Recommendations are offered to speech-language pathologists for applying the SRSD model to children experiencing writing difficulties.

    REFERENCES

    • Burnham, S. (1994). For writers only. New York: Ballantine Books.
      Google Scholar
    • Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
      Google Scholar
    • De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and learning problems.Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 203–222.
      Google Scholar
    • De La Paz, S., Swanson, P., & Graham, S. (1998). The contribution of executive control to the revising of students with writing and learning difficulties.Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 448–460.
      Google Scholar
    • Englert, C., Raphael, T., Fear, K., & Anderson, L. (1988). Students’ metacognitive knowledge about how to write informational texts.Learning Disability Quarterly, 11 , 18–46.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S. (1982). Composition research and practice: A unified approach.Focus on Exceptional Children, 14, 1–16.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students’ compositions.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing difficulties.Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223–234.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S. (in press). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review.Learning Disability Quarterly.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach.Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170–182.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S., Berninger, V., Weintraub, N., & Schafer, W. (1998). The development of handwriting fluency and legibility in grades 1 through 9.Journal of Educational Research, 92, 42–52.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S., De La Paz, S., & Fink, B. (1998). Planning and writing informative text: A comparison of students with learning disabilities and normally achieving students. Manuscript submitted for publication.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1993). Self-regulated strategy development: Helping students with learning problems develop as writers.Elementary School Journal, 94, 169–181.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1994). The role of self-regulation in the writing process.In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 203–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1996a). Self-regulation and strategy instruction for students who find writing and learning challenging.In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 347–360). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1996b). Teaching writing strategies within the context of a whole language class.In E. McIntyre & M. Pressley (Eds.), Balanced instruction: Strategies and skills in whole language (pp. 155–175). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997a). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally: Myths and realities in writing instruction.School Psychology Review, 26, 414–424.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997b). Self-regulation and writing: Where do we go from here?.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 102–114.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing and writing instruction with students with learning disabilities: A review of a program of research.Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89–114.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230–240.
      Google Scholar
    • Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237–249.
      Google Scholar
    • Hammill, D., & Larsen, S. (1988). Test of Written Language–2. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
      Google Scholar
    • Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
      Google Scholar
    • Harris, K. R., Schmidt, T., & Graham, S. (1998). Every child can write: Strategies for composition and self-regulation in the writing process.In K. Harris, S. Graham, & D. Deshler (Eds.), Teaching every child every day: Learning in diverse schools and classrooms (pp. 131–167). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
      Google Scholar
    • Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grade.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.
      Google Scholar
    • Larsen, S., & Hammill, D. (1986). Test of Written Spelling–2. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
      Google Scholar
    • MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing with three methods: Handwriting, dictation, and word processing.Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42.
      Google Scholar
    • MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 201–210.
      Google Scholar
    • Masterson, J. J., & Crede, L. A. (1999). Learning to spell: Implications for assessment and intervention.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 10, 243–254.
      Google Scholar
    • McCutchen, D. (1988). “Functional automaticity” in children’s writing.Written Communication, 5, 306–324.
      Google Scholar
    • Palincsar, A., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 211–225.
      Google Scholar
    • Thomas, C., Englert, C., & Gregg, S. (1987). An analysis of errors and strategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students.Remedial and Special Education, 8, 21–30.
      Google Scholar
    • Wong, B., Wong, R., & Blenkinsop, J. (1989). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of learning disabled adolescents’ composing problems.Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 310–323.
      Google Scholar
    • Woodcock, R., & Johnson, M. (1990). Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery: Tests of Achievement. Chicago, IL: Riverside.
      Google Scholar

    Additional Resources