ebook THE GUILFORD PRESS Strategy Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities What Works for Special-Needs Learners Karen R. Harris and Steve Graham, Editors www.guilford.com/WWFSNL This series addresses a significant need in the education of students who are at risk, those with disabilities, and all children and adolescents who struggle with learning or behavior. While researchers in special education, educational psychology, curriculum and instruction, and other fields have made great progress in understanding what works for struggling learners, the practical application of this research base remains quite limited. Books in the series present assessment, instructional, and classroom management methods that have strong empirical evidence. Written in a user-friendly format, each volume provides specific how-to instructions and examples of the use of proven procedures in schools. Coverage is sufficiently thorough and detailed to enable practitioners to implement the practices described; many titles include reproducible practical tools. Recent titles have Web pages where purchasers can download and print the reproducible materials. Recent Volumes Managing Challenging Behaviors in School: Research-Based Strategies That Work Kathleen Lynne Lane, Holly Mariah Menzies, Allison L. Bruhn, and Mary Crnobori Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching Anita L. Archer and Charles A. Hughes Teacher’s Guide to ADHD Robert Reid and Joseph Johnson Vocabulary Instruction for Struggling Students Patricia F. Vadasy and J. Ron Nelson Preparing Effective Special Education Teachers Nancy Mamlin RTI for Reading at the Secondary Level: Recommended Literacy Practices and Remaining Questions Deborah K. Reed, Jade Wexler, and Sharon Vaughn Inclusive Instruction: Evidence-Based Practices for Teaching Students with Disabilities Mary T. Brownell, Sean J. Smith, Jean B. Crockett, and Cynthia C. Griffin Universal Design for Learning in the Classroom: Practical Applications Tracey E. Hall, Anne Meyer, and David H. Rose, Editors Teacher’s Guide to Effective Sentence Writing Bruce Saddler Strategy Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities, Second Edition Robert Reid, Torri Ortiz Lienemann, and Jessica L. Hagaman Promoting Social Skills in the Inclusive Classroom Kimber L. Wilkerson, Aaron B. T. Perzigian, and Jill K. Schurr Strategy Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities S e c o n d Edi t i o n Robert Reid Torri Ortiz Lienemann Jessica L. Hagaman THE GUILFORD PRESS New York  London © 2013 The Guilford Press A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc. 72 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012 www.guilford.com All rights reserved Except as indicated, no part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America This book is printed on acid-free paper. Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 LIMITED PHOTOCOPY LICENSE These materials are intended for use only by qualified professionals. The publisher grants to individual purchasers of this book nonassignable permission to reproduce all materials for which photocopying permission is specifically granted in a footnote. This license is limited to you, the individual purchaser, for personal use or use with individual students. This license does not grant the right to reproduce these materials for resale, redistribution, electronic display, or any other purposes (including but not limited to books, pamphlets, articles, video- or audiotapes, blogs, file-sharing sites, Internet or intranet sites, and handouts or slides for lectures, workshops, or webinars, whether or not a fee is charged). Permission to reproduce these materials for these and any other purposes must be obtained in writing from the Permissions Department of Guilford Publications. The authors have checked with sources believed to be reliable in their efforts to provide information that is complete and generally in accord with the standards of practice that are accepted at the time of publication. However, in view of the possibility of human error or changes in behavioral, mental health, or medical sciences, neither the authors, nor the editors and publisher, nor any other party who has been involved in the preparation or publication of this work warrants that the information contained herein is in every respect accurate or complete, and they are not responsible for any errors or omissions or the results obtained from the use of such information. Readers are encouraged to confirm the information contained in this book with other sources. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Reid, Robert (Robert Charles), 1950– t Strategy instruction for students with learning disabilities / Robert Reid, Torri Ortiz Lienemann, Jessica L. Hagaman. — Second edition.    pages cm — (What works for special-needs learners) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4625-1198-3 (pbk.) — ISBN 978-1-4625-1220-1 (hardcover) 1. Learning disabled children—Education—United States. I. Lienemann, Torri Ortiz. II. Hagaman, Jessica L. (Jessica Laurel) III. Title. LC4705.R46 2013 371.9—dc23 2013011134 Once again, to Karen R. Harris, who taught us what we needed to know About the Authors Robert Reid, PhD, is Professor in the Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. His research focuses on children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and on strategy instruction. Dr. Reid has published more than 100 articles and book chapters and has presented at national and international conferences. Additionally, he codeveloped the ADHD-IV Rating Scale. He serves on the editorial boards of five journals and actively reviews for several others. Torri Ortiz Lienemann, PhD, is District Learning Coordinator and Assistant Special Education Director at Norris School District 160, Firth, Nebraska. Her work focuses on providing teachers with the necessary tools, specifically data-driven instructional interventions, to meet the needs of all students. Currently, Dr. Lienemann is involved in researching vocabulary and reading comprehension in at-risk students; teaching undergraduate and graduate courses; grant writing; and creating new programs to assist students with special needs and their teachers. She has been a classroom resource teacher at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Jessica L. Hagaman, PhD, is Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders at the University of Nebraska–Omaha. She specializes in the education of students with learning disabilities and at-risk students. Dr. Hagaman has classroom experience at the early childhood and elementary school levels. Her research interests include early intervention for at-risk students, strategy instruction, and academic interventions. vi Preface T he first edition of this book was created to fill what we saw as a serious need for a practical, user-friendly source of information on how to teach learning strategies to students with learning disabilities and to other struggling students. We were aware of the extensive data on the effectiveness of strategy instruction; however, we were equally aware that strategy instruction was not commonly used in the schools and that often the topic was not well covered in teacher preparation programs. This lacuna was at least partly because, despite the plethora of literature on the underlying theory of strategy instruction and on individual strategies, there was little, if any, information on how to actually teach strategies successfully. The research is clear that certain fundamental instructional tasks are necessary to facilitate successful strategy instruction, but many teachers were unaware of these tasks. They simply did not have the knowledge base to teach a strategy to a student with learning disabilities or other learning problems. Our goal was to produce a volume that would provide teachers with practical knowledge of how to teach strategies to students with learning difficulties using a practical, validated instructional model—the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model—so that they could teach strategies successfully in the classroom. We include information on the theories that underlie strategy instruction and examples from research, but we focus on how the theories inform and relate to the actual process of instruction. We are able to draw on real-world examples to illustrate the process of strategy instruction because each of the authors has extensive experience in this area. All of us have conducted research on strategy instruction, taught strategies to struggling learners, and, most importantly, taught teachers how to use strategy instruction. We were heartened by the success of the first edition of this book and by the feedback we received from classroom teachers and preservice teachers. Our teachers could observe how their students exhibited the difficulties that underlie many learning problems (e.g., problems with self-regulation, lack of metacognitive knowledge, maladaptive attributions), could now understand why they occurred, and, more importantly, could now know how to deal with them. They also appreciated how SRSD could make them more effective teachers. However, we also realized that some areas needed more attention and that some new issues needed to be addressed. In this second edition, we have vii viii Preface greatly expanded our treatment of working memory, which is a key concept in strategy instruction. We have also added information on response to intervention (RTI), which is now widely used. Two new chapters have been added: one shows examples of how the steps in SRSD can be combined into lesson plans; the other provides information on handwriting and spelling. Additionally, we have updated the new edition with new strategies in the content areas and added information on using SRSD with students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Chapter 1 provides a rationale for why teachers should learn a strategies-based approach to teaching. In Chapter 2 we define a strategy, present background knowledge on critical concepts fundamental to strategy instruction, and explain common misconceptions about strategy instruction. In Chapter 3 we present the SRSD model, explaining each of the steps in the model, the rationale for each step, and the importance of each step. We stress that the SRSD model is an invaluable tool for teachers. In Chapter 4 we provide an example of strategy instruction using the SRSD model. Some tips and useful tools for implementing strategies are presented, along with a discussion of how differences between strategies affect implementation. In Chapter 5 we discuss self-regulation. The four major types of self-regulation strategies are defined and explained. Chapter 6 includes examples of how each of the major self-regulation strategies can be implemented. In Chapter 7 we show how to combine strategies and self-regulation to enable students to become self-regulated strategy users. Chapter 8, a completely new chapter, shows how content-area strategies and self-regulation strategies can be integrated into lesson plans, and it includes sample lesson plans for two strategies. Chapter 9, another new chapter, deals with handwriting and spelling—two critical preskills for written composition. Chapters 10–14 cover strategies in major content areas or reading comprehension, written expression, math, study skills, and mnemonics. These chapters focus on well-validated strategies; we have added new strategies to each chapter. The end result is the second edition of Strategy Instruction for Students with Learning Disabili‑ ties. Contents 1. Why Use Strategy Instruction? 1 What Is a Learning Disability? 2 Causes of Learning Disabilities 4 Characteristics of Students with Learning Disabilities Why a Strategy Approach? 11 Putting Strategy Instruction into the Classroom 13 Final Thoughts 14 7 2. Building Background Knowledge 15 Introduction to Strategy Instruction 16 Information Processing 18 The Importance of Attributions 23 Metacognition 27 Final Thoughts 30 3. The Self‑Regulated Strategy Development Model 31 The Six Stages of the SRSD Model 32 Evaluating SRSD 42 Practical Considerations and Tips 45 Final Thoughts 47 4. How to Implement the SRSD Model 49 Structured Strategy Example 50 Unstructured Strategy Example 60 Final Thoughts 70 5. Self‑Regulation Strategies 71 Self‑Monitoring 72 Self‑Evaluation 79 ix x Contents Self‑Instruction 81 Goal Setting 83 Self‑Reinforcement 84 The Case for Self‑Regulation Final Thoughts 86 85 6. Implementing Self‑Regulation Strategies 87 Implementing Self‑Monitoring 87 Implementing Self‑Evaluation 97 Implementing Self‑Instruction 98 Implementing Goal Setting 105 Implementing Self‑Reinforcement 107 Combining Strategies 110 Final Thoughts 110 7. Integrating Strategies and Self‑Regulation 111 Self‑Monitoring, Goal Setting, and a Spelling Strategy 112 Self‑Monitoring and a Math Strategy 113 Self‑Instruction and a Writing Strategy 116 Goal Setting and a Reading Comprehension Strategy 118 Self‑Monitoring and a Main Idea Comprehension Strategy 120 Integrating Strategies to Solve Math Word Problems 121 Final Thoughts 122 8. Creating Lesson Plans Using the SRSD Model 124 SRSD Lessons 124 LAMPS Lessons 126 PARS Lessons 142 9. Strategies for Handwriting and Spelling Problems for Students with Learning Disabilities and Attention‑Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Prerequisite Skills 163 Instruction in Handwriting and Spelling 165 Implementation Plans 174 Final Thoughts 179 161 162 10. Strategies for Written Language Problems for Students with Learning Disabilities Prerequisite Skills 183 Instruction in the Writing Process 184 Implementation Plans 195 Final Thoughts 200 180 181 Contents xi 11. Strategies in Reading Comprehension Problems for Students with Learning Disabilities Prerequisite Skills 205 Prereading Strategies 206 During‑Reading Strategies 208 Postreading Strategies 213 Implementation Plans 216 Final Thoughts 222 202 203 12. Strategies in Mathematics Problems for Students with Learning Disabilities Prerequisite Skills 225 Instruction in Mathematics 227 Basic Math Facts Strategies 227 Computation Strategies 231 Word‑Problem‑Solving Strategies 232 Implementation Plans 238 Final Thoughts 245 223 224 13. Study Skills Strategies Problems for Students with Learning Disabilities or Attention‑Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Prerequisite Skills 249 Instruction in Study Skills 250 Note‑Taking Strategies 250 Homework/Task Completion 255 Test‑Taking Strategies 256 Classroom Survival Strategies 258 Implementation Plans 260 Final Thoughts 264 246 247 14. Mnemonics 265 Problems for Students with Learning Disorders or Attention‑Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 266 Acronyms and Acrostics: The “First-Letter” Strategies 267 Mimetics 269 Symbolics 270 Key Words 271 Pegwords 275 Final Thoughts 278 References 281 Index 299 Chap t e r 1 Why Use Strategy Instruction? S tudents with learning disabilities (LD) constitute by far the largest group of students with special needs. According to the U.S. Department of Education, in 2010 there were more than 2,400,000 students from ages 6 to 21 served in federally supported programs for LD. Students with LD constitute 44.6% of the special education population and 4% of the total school enrollment, according to most recent figures (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Although LD is by far the largest category of disability, the number of new students identified as having LD has shown a slight decrease over the last 4 years (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Whether this is due to changes in the actual number of students with LD or to changes in identification procedures is still not clear. A learning disability affects nearly every aspect of a child’s life and is a lifelong challenge (Lerner, 2000). Students with LD are often caught in a vicious spiral of school failure. Their learning difficulties lead to a slower development of academic skills and abilities, which in turn impedes new learning (Stanovich, 1986). As a result of the repeated cycle of failure, these students fall further and further behind. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2008), students with LD are at greatly increased risk for dropping out: Nearly 40% of students with LD fail to graduate from high school with a standard diploma. The academic problems also result in a lower engagement rate in postsecondary schooling, employment, or both, compared to typically achieving students (Murray, Goldstein, & Edgar, 1997). Thus, the need to address the academic achievement of students with LD is critical in order to improve their academic outcomes. The purpose of this chapter is to provide background information on LD, discuss those characteristics of students with LD that affect instruction in general and strategy instruction in particular, and provide a rationale for the use of strategy instruction. Readers who are interested in more in-­depth information on these topics should refer to Swanson, Harris, and Graham (2003). In this chapter, we first present definitions of 1 2 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES LD and briefly discuss the history of this category. Next, we describe some important characteristics of students with LD and how our conceptualization of LD has changed over time. Finally we make a case for the use of strategy instruction with students with LD. Note that the use of strategy instruction is not limited to students with LD. Research clearly indicates that strategy instruction is effective for the great majority of students who struggle in academic areas. What Is a Learning Disability? LD has been recognized as a category of disability under federal law since 1975. The current legal definition of LD is written into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); however, as Table 1.1 shows, other organizations have proposed their own definitions of LD that differ substantially, and exactly how to define LD has been, and continues to be, a controversial area. This controversy is due, in part, to the highly heterogeneous nature of the students who are defined as LD. Students with LD manifest a number of different problems in academic, behavioral, and social–­emotional areas. Moreover, students with LD may exhibit vastly different profiles both within and across these areas. For example, some students may have serious problem with reading but will excel at mathematics. Others may have difficulties in mathematics, but not in reading. Table 1.2 shows examples of the subtypes of LD currently identified by researchers. Note that the problems of students with LD are not limited to academics. Some students will have serious problems with self-­esteem or depression, whereas others have little or no problem in these areas but may exhibit serious behavior problems. Attention-­deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) also occurs in around 25% of students with LD (Reid & Johnson, 2012). Another factor that contributes to confusion in the area of LD is that the field cuts across a number of professional disciplines, such as education, psychology, medicine, and sociology. Each of these disciplines brings its own perspective to LD, and like the proverbial blind man and the elephant, each focuses on a different aspect of LD. As a result, there are differences across professional groups on the terminology that should be used to describe LD, and on which aspects of LD should and should not be included in the definition. Although there is a lack of consensus on how to define LD, there is a practical consensus on how students with LD should be identified. Despite the fact that all of the definitions of LD contain references to its causes (e.g., disorders in basic psychological processes, neurological origins, central nervous system dysfunction) and that difficulties in academic areas are often described in medical language (e.g., dyslexia, dyscalculia, dysgraphia), these factors rarely, if ever, play a role in diagnosis. In practice, LD is a category of underachievement, and students with LD are identified by their chronic and severe academic difficulties. Until 2004, discrepancy formulas were commonly used to determine if a child should be labeled as LD. Mercer (1997) noted that over 90% of states include a discrepancy component in the identification process. These discrepancy formulas assessed the difference between ability, as determined by the results of intelligence tests, and academic achievement, as assessed by standardized tests. If the difference between the child’s presumed ability and actual achievement was Why Use Strategy Instruction? 3 TABLE 1.1. Definitions of Learning Disabilities Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1977) The term “specific learning disability” means those children who have a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps; of mental retardation; of emotional disturbance; or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. Association for Children with Learning Disabilities (1986) Specific learning disabilities is a chronic condition of presumed neurological origin that selectively interferes with the development, integrations, and/or demonstration of verbal and/or nonverbal abilities. Specific Learning Disabilities exists as a distinct handicapping condition and varies in its manifestations and in degree of severity. Throughout life, the condition can affect self-esteem, education, vocation, socialization, and/or daily living activities. Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities (1987) Learning disabilities is a generic term that refers to a heterogeneous groups of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, mathematical abilities, or social skills. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual and presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction. Even though a learning disability may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (e.g., cultural differences, insufficient or inappropriate instruction, psychogenic factors), and especially attention-deficit disorder, all of which may cause learning problems, a learning disability is not the direct result of those conditions or influences. National Joint Council on Learning Disabilities (1997) Learning disabilities is a general term that refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual, are presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction, and may occur across the life span. Problems in self-regulatory behaviors, social perceptions, and social interactions may exist with learning disabilities but do not by themselves constitute a learning disability. Although a learning disability may occur concomitantly with other disabilities (e.g., sensory impairment, mental retardation, or serious emotional disturbance) or with extrinsic influences (such as cultural differences or insufficient/ inappropriate instruction), it would not be a result of those conditions or influences. large enough, the child could be identified as having a learning disability. Discrepancy formulas, though commonly used, came under scrutiny due to concerns pertaining to their validity and also because the use of discrepancy formulas required schools to wait until a student exhibited serious academic deficiencies before they could intervene (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2004). Because of concerns over the validity of discrepancy approaches and the “wait-­to-­ fail” approach inherent in their use, the latest version of IDEA (2004) made a dramatic change in the approach that schools are allowed to use in identifying students with 4 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES TABLE 1.2. Subtypes of Learning Disability Types of LD Description Reading— word level •• Problems with accurate and fluent decoding •• Related to phonological processing, rapid naming abilities, and verbal short-term memory deficits Reading— comprehension •• Problems with language comprehension, inferences, and abstraction •• May have deficits in vocabulary and syntax •• Problems with working memory •• Phonological skills, short-term memory not affected •• Problems parallel those of listening comprehension Reading— fluency •• Excessively slow rate of reading •• No decoding problems •• Comprehension problems due to difficulty with rapidly processing information Math •• Difficulty with learning, representing, and retrieving math facts •• Difficulties in learning and using problem-solving strategies required for calculations •• Normal reading/spelling Reading and math •• Deficits in both reading and math •• Memory-based deficit •• Potentially related to working memory and long-term memory access Written expression •• Problems with text generation •• Problems with spelling •• Poor handwriting Note. Data from Fletcher et al. (2002); Fletcher, Morris, and Lyon (2003); and Lyon, Fletcher, and Barnes (2003). LD. Schools are no longer required to determine whether any discrepancy exists. The approach now used in schools, response to intervention (RTI), is based on a principle of early intervention. In this approach, all students in a classroom receive effective instruction. If a student exhibits problems (e.g., fails to progress academically at an acceptable rate), the student is given additional instruction in an individual or small-­group setting. For a student to be eligible for special education services related to LD requires only that the school document that a student continues to demonstrate significant academic underachievement when provided with instruction (based on scientifically supported principles) for a reasonable period of time. Causes of Learning Disabilities The search for causes of LD has been the focus of research for more than 50 years. A number of possible causes have been put forward over the years with varying degrees of support. Table 1.3 presents some hypothesized causes of LD. No one has yet Why Use Strategy Instruction? 5 presented conclusive or compelling evidence to support any particular cause of LD, though researchers continue to make progress. In part this lack of clear etiology is due to the problems inherent in studying LD. Given the highly heterogeneous nature of LD, the differing theoretical orientations of researchers, and the problems with defining and accurately identifying a child as having an LD, this should not be too surprising. There are some clear trends in how LD has been approached that have direct implications for educators involved with instructional decision making for students with LD. Medical Perspectives Historically, LD have been viewed as brain-­based disorders. That is, the learning problems evidenced by students were thought to be due to some specific neurologically based deficit or disorder. For example, James Hinshelwood (1917) coined the term word blindness to describe a child who had an inexplicable inability to learn to read, despite apparently normal intelligence and normal functioning in other areas. Hinshelwood speculated that the child’s problem was due to a defect in the angular gyrus. Another early researcher, Samuel Orton (1937), noticed that many students who experienced difficulty in reading also tended to reverse letters such as b and d, or p and q. Orton termed this phenomenon strephosymbolia (twisted symbols) and attributed it to the failure of some individuals to develop “cerebral dominance” (i.e., neither of the brain’s hemispheres was dominant). He hypothesized that reversals were due to mirror images of words or letters stored in the nondominant brain hemisphere. TABLE 1.3. Hypothesized Causes of Learning Disabilities Cause Example Central nervous system abnormality Abnormal brain hemispheric symmetry; nerve cell anomalies in areas of the brain involved in language Central nervous system damage Prenatal: maternal drug use, smoking, fetal alcohol syndrome, fetal alcohol effects Perinatal: prematurity, anoxia, complications during labor, injury during delivery Postnatal: brain injury due to stroke, high fever, meningitis, encephalitis, or head trauma Genetic Evidence suggests that reading disabilities may have a strong genetic component. Conditions caused by chromosomal abnormalities, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, or fragile X syndrome, can result in learning difficulties. Environmental Exposure to environmental toxins such as lead or other heavy metals Biochemical abnormalities Imbalances in neurotransmitters (e.g., dopamine, serotonin, acetylcholine) 6 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES This work was continued by researchers such as Kirk Goldstein (1936) and Alfred Strauss (Strauss & Lehtinen, 1947). Goldstein worked with soldiers who had suffered brain injuries during World War I. He noted that these soldiers commonly exhibited perceptual problems, impulsivity, distractibility, and hyperactivity. Strauss noted that students with mental retardation exhibited many of the same characteristics and theorized that the problems were due to brain injury. As a result, terms such as brain-­injured child and minimal brain dysfunction were used to refer to students we would today call learning disabled. Strauss hypothesized that perhaps some extremely subtle brain damage was the root cause of a child’s failure to learn. These labels were, understandably, unpopular with parents, and their relevance was also questioned. The medical influence on the field of LD is still strong. For example, use of medical terminology such as dyslexia or dyscalculia to refer to problems in reading and math is common. Current research on the brain and LD now uses extremely sophisticated tools and is beginning to shed further light on the relation between the brain and LD (e.g., Shaywitz, 2003). Learning Disabilities as an Academic Problem In 1963, a watershed event in the history of LD occurred at a meeting of concerned parents in Chicago (Mercer, 1997). The parents met to air their displeasure with medical practitioners who described their children as brain-­injured or as having minimal brain dysfunction. Samuel Kirk, a psychologist with years of experience working with students with academic problems, coined the term learning disabilities to describe those students who had difficulty in learning to read. This relabeling shifted the prevailing perspective on learning problems. Rather than being attributed to organic damage to the brain, these problems were seen as related to underlying cognitive processes. That is, the students were neurologically intact but had difficulties with psychological processes (i.e., perceptual problems, as evidenced by difficulties with visual and auditory discrimination) that prevented them from receiving visual and/or auditory stimuli correctly and resulted in difficulty learning. This perceptual–­motor approach shifted the focus from the medical aspects of LD to the academic, resulting in the creation of assessment instruments designed to measure underlying deficits, and of intervention programs designed to remediate them. The idea was that, if the hypothesized underlying deficit in perceptual processing were corrected, then the child would be able to progress academically in a normal fashion. Numerous programs were designed and implemented. Students learned to walk balance beams to improve motor skills, and to trace shapes to improve perceptual skills. Unfortunately, the training programs designed to remediate process deficits were found to be ineffective, and the assessment instruments were not reliable (Hammill & Larsen, 1974). However, the perspective on LD as a problem rooted at least in part in instruction remained and served to change LD practice. Behavioral and Cognitive Approaches During the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, new, influential perspectives on LD began to emerge. The first of these was behaviorism. This approach, developed by B. F. Skinner, was Why Use Strategy Instruction? 7 based on the theory that a functional relation exists between behavior (e.g., reading) and the environment. Behaviorists stressed direct observation and ongoing collection of objective (i.e., verifiable) information. Learning was viewed as a hierarchical process in which a child must master skills in a prescribed order. In this approach academic tasks were broken down into their component parts, and each part was taught in sequence. The application to LD lay in the notion that academic problems would be best addressed by effecting changes in the instructional environment. From the behaviorist perspective, a highly structured instructional environment that directly addressed the problem area was necessary for academic progress. Thus, if a child had reading problems, the solution was to directly teach the skills needed to read, by using appropriately sequenced, highly structured instruction. Several extremely effective instructional approaches, such as DISTAR (Engelman & Bruner, 1974) and Precision Teaching (Lindsley, 1964), were developed based on behavioral approaches. In the 1970s, cognitive approaches to teaching and learning began to influence the LD field. The cognitive perspective focuses on the role of the individual in the learning process (Mercer, 1997). From this perspective, the key is the relation between demands of the learning environment (e.g., the task, instructional materials) and how the learner processes information. Learning problems may result from deficits in cognitive processes such as memory, failure to process information efficiently (e.g., failure to use an appropriate or effective strategy), or a combination of both. Metacognition (knowledge of one’s own cognitive processes) also became important. During the 1980s, cognitive approaches became very influential, and a great deal of basic research was done to identify the cognitive characteristic of students with LD. Memory researchers developed new models for addressing how cognitive processes work. Perhaps the most important of these was the information-­processing model, which envisioned cognitive processing as analogous to a computer with input, storage, and processing components. The information-­processing model was extremely influential because it focused attention on the processes involved in memory and learning. Curriculum materials such as the University of Kansas learning strategies approach, which utilized cognitive approaches, were developed and implemented effectively. The work done on behavioral and cognitive approaches resulted in progress in our understanding of the nature of the problems encountered by students with LD and in the development of effective teaching techniques. The field of LD is still building on and refining the advances that occurred during this period. Characteristics of Students with Learning Disabilities It is important for educators to be knowledgeable about the characteristics of students with LD. Important characteristics of these students span emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social domains of development. We focus on the information that is needed for teachers—­whose job is to successfully educate students with LD. For this reason, the discussion of LD characteristics is limited to those that directly affect academic performance and that are thus relevant to strategy instruction. 8 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES Attention Teachers who work with students with LD commonly note that “Things seem to go in one ear and out the other,” or they remark on the need to “jog” students back after their attention has wandered. Attention is a critical aspect of successful learning. It is also a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. There are three important aspects of attention. First, there is task engagement. To succeed in school, students must be able persist at tasks. Students with LD are often off-­task in the classroom. Research shows that, when left to their own devices, students with LD are on-­task only around 30–60% of the time (Bryan & Wheeler, 1972; McKinney & Feagans, 1983). This has obvious educational implications. For example, students who do not complete practice tasks may fail to develop necessary fluency in important skills. Students who stop work when they encounter difficulty will learn less and are more likely to have negative classroom experiences. Maintaining focus is a common problem among students with LD (Hallahan, Kauffman, & Lloyd, 1996). Students with LD are often described as “spacey” or “not with it” or “distractible.” Failure to maintain focus has serious consequences. Students whose minds wander while reading a passage will have difficulties remembering information. Students who are daydreaming and, as a result, don’t attend to their teacher may not be aware of assignments or may miss important directions. Finally, difficulty with selective attention—­the ability to identify important or meaningful information—­is also common among students with LD (Brown & Wynne, 1984). As a result, students with LD may attend to unimportant components of a task and ignore relevant information. Exactly why students with LD experience these problems is still unclear, but we do know that much can be done as a part of strategy instruction to improve all aspects of attention. Memory One common concern among teachers who work with students with LD is that one day the child can readily remember important information—­he or she “got it”—but the next day, for no apparent reason, it’s gone. The ability to remember information is obviously critical to academic success. For example, if students cannot remember basic math facts, how commonly used words are spelled, or content-­area facts (e.g., Civil War battles or the parts of an atom), they will have difficulty progressing academically. Students with LD exhibit just these types of problems. Research shows that students with LD do have more problems with memory than students without LD (e.g., Gettinger, 1991; Swanson, Cochran, & Ewers, 1990). Research also shows that memory deficits are linked to problems in academic areas (e.g., Ceci, Ringstorm, & Lea, 1981). Historically, these deficits were seen as due to a lack of innate capacity. To use an example, if we were to see memory as one of the “underlying psychological processes” with which students with LD exhibit deficiencies, we might use the metaphor of a bucket to describe the memory problems of these students. For these students it would seem, at least on the surface, as if their bucket were smaller (i.e., have less capacity) and very leaky (more forgetting, problems with retaining information). However, this is a case where appearances are deceiving. Why Use Strategy Instruction? 9 Several factors affect how well a person can remember information. First, the amount of background knowledge, or the knowledge base, can affect memory. Individuals with background knowledge in an area will have an easier time remembering new material in that area than individuals without it. Being familiar with material can enhance memory (Swanson, 1996b). This is a problem for students with LD, as they generally tend to have lower levels of background knowledge. Second, the problem with recall exhibited by students with LD may not be related to a memory deficit, but rather may be a function of their failure to use processes that would allow them to remember. For example, if skilled learners were faced with the task of remembering a series of 10 random numbers, such as 3014056488, they would, almost automatically, use one of several methods for remembering. They might repeat the numbers to themselves several times (i.e., verbal elaboration). Or they might rearrange the information, using “chunking” to group the numbers into fewer components that would be easier to remember (e.g., 30, 14, 05, 64, 88). Both of these processes would improve ability to remember the 10 digits. In contrast, students with LD are unlikely to apply any sort of strategy spontaneously (Swanson, 1996b). In other words, students with LD may lack or not use strategies that would help them remember information. Strategies for improving memory are commonly part of strategy instruction. Attributions The term attributions refers to the manner in which students explain the cause of academic outcomes. For example, if we asked a successful student, “Why did you get an A on the science test?”, the answer would probably be, “I got an A because I studied hard.” In other words, the student attributed the cause of the good grade to his or her own effort to study hard—­a controllable, internal factor. Attributions are extremely important because they can affect expectations for success, academic behaviors, and students’ reactions to success or failure (Weiner, 1979). Students who attribute a good grade to studying hard have a healthy attribution pattern. Unfortunately, students with LD tend not to exhibit this pattern. These students often attribute success to external factors that they do not control, such as luck or the test being easy. Moreover, students with LD often attribute failures to internal, uncontrollable factors such as lack of ability or task difficulty (Chapman, 1988; Kistner, Osborn, & LeVerrier, 1988; Stipek, 1993). Think for a moment about the ramifications of this pattern of attributions. No credit is taken for academic success, only for failure. Any academic success is outside the student; in contrast, failure is internalized. This is an unhealthy or maladaptive pattern that can affect students’ academic motivation and performance. Strategy instruction is sensitive to this problem and fosters the development of positive attributions. Learned Helplessness Learned helplessness refers to a belief that efforts are unlikely to lead to success. In other words, students believe that no matter how hard they try, they simply won’t succeed, so there is no reason to try in the first place (Dweck, 1975). A previous history of 10 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES school-­related failure has led them to “know” they can’t do it. As noted in the preceding section, for many of these students, the source of failure is perceived to be lack of ability (“I can’t do this”). Even when they do succeed, these students are likely to attribute the success to outside factors (“The teacher was easy on me”). This pattern has a corrosive affect on academic motivation. Why strive for success if failure is inevitable? Research suggests that the problem of learned helplessness is common among students with LD. Kavale and Forness (1996) found that as many as 70% of students with LD may exhibit learned helplessness. Lack of Coordinated Strategies Imagine the following scenario. It’s late at night and you are studying for an exam. You’re reading a very difficult portion of your text, so you are reading much more slowly than normal. Suddenly you realize that you have no recollection of what you just read on the last two pages. You sigh and begin to carefully reread the section of the text. Though this vignette looks simple, there are several processes going on under the surface. First, you knew that the purpose of reading was to understand the text, so you adjusted your reading speed because you realized that in difficult sections, you need to read more slowly if you are going to remember important information. Second, you realized that you had experienced a lapse in concentration and had no recollection of what you had just read. This realization occurred because you were engaged in ongoing monitoring of your comprehension. Third, after you recognized the lapse, you realized that it was necessary to correct the situation because if you did not, you would miss important information. Finally, you used an appropriate method (going back to reread) to correct the problem. This scenario has probably happened to you a number of times; it is common among skilled learners. In fact, there is good reason to believe that this sequence of events describes a skilled learner. However, this scenario is rare among students with LD; they are unlikely to respond appropriately to the demands of an academic task by using an effective set of cognitive strategies. For example, they will spend less time studying and will not realize that it is necessary to slow down for difficult sections (Bauer, 1987; Wong & Wilson, 1984). They may be unlikely to recognize that they have experienced a problem because they will not be actively monitoring their comprehension (Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr, 1988; Harris, Graham, & Pressley, 1992). And if they do realize they need to correct the problem, they are unlikely to use an effective method to do so. Students with LD commonly exhibit problems in four areas (Swanson, 1993): 1. They have difficulty accessing, coordinating, and organizing mental activities that occur simultaneously or in close succession. 2. Even when they have an idea of appropriate strategies, students use them ineffectively. 3. They fail to engage in self-­regulation of mental activity (e.g., planning, monitoring, revising). 4. They have a limited awareness of the usefulness of specific strategies for a given task. Why Use Strategy Instruction? 11 In short, it seems as if students with LD neither do things spontaneously that would improve their learning, nor in some instances are even aware that such efforts are necessary or appropriate. Why a Strategy Approach? The federal definition in the IDEA notes that LD is the result of a “disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes,” and the National Joint Council on Learning Disabilities definition states, “These disorders [learning problems] are intrinsic to the individual, [and] are presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction.” As we noted earlier, the cause of LD has not yet been clearly proven; however, even if we accepted these conceptualizations, they would provide very little in the way of guidance for educators who are charged with teaching students with LD. For example, we can do very little about central nervous system dysfunction. However, at least in part the problems experienced by students with LD are due to difficulties with effective use of strategies. Swanson (1999a) noted that poor academic performances across all ages in students with LD can be seen as a problem in the use of efficient strategies. Students with LD tend to develop fewer strategies and to use strategies less often than typically achieving students (Stone & Conca, 1993). Exactly why this occurs is not certain at present. However, what is well known is that strategy instruction can meaningfully improve performance among students with LD and other struggling learners as well. Therefore, it makes sense to treat strategy use–­disuse just like any other academic problem. If students with LD lack effective strategies for an academic task, then we should teach them effective strategies. What about problems with maladaptive attributions or learned helplessness? Strategy instruction addresses these problems by directly using an approach advocated by Licht. In a very influential paper, Licht (1983) argued for a new definition of “ability” that was “incremental.” From this perspective, what makes you “smart” is not some unchangeable entity such as intelligence, but rather “an accumulation of knowledge and skills that can be increased through effort. . . . The harder you try, the more you’ll learn, and the smarter you’ll get” (p. 487). From Licht’s perspective, problems such as maladaptive attributions or learned helplessness can be addressed through instruction. If students have unhealthy patterns of attributions, they can be taught appropriate, positive attributions—­failure and success depend on effort. If students have developed learned helplessness, they can learn that success can be obtained through the use of effective strategies. Swanson (1996a) aptly summarized the advantages of the use of the strategy approach: A focus is placed on what is modifiable. That is, differences between ability groups are conceptualized in terms of cognitive processes that are susceptible to instruction, rather than to fundamental or general differences in ability. Thus, rather than focusing on isolated elementary memory processing deficiencies, the types of questions . . . are more educationally relevant. For example, a focus is placed on what students with LD can do without strategy 12 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES instruction, what they can do with strategy instruction, what can be done to modify existing strategy instruction, and what can be done to modify existing classroom materials to improve instruction. It [the strategy-­oriented approach] allows for the child to be actively involved in the instruction. Students can participate in the analysis of which cognitive strategies work best for them . . . [and] . . . materials can be developed which maximize strategy use. (p. 301) There are several significant advantages of the strategy approach. First, it assumes that many of the problems experienced by students with LD are due to the lack of, or failure to use, strategies. Thus, from this perspective, past academic problems were not due to an innate lack of ability or capacity, but rather to an ineffective use of abilities. Second, it assumes that if students learn effective strategies, there will be a significant increase in academic performance. Evidence for the strategy deficit hypothesis has been well documented. For example, in the area of memory, Torgesen (1984) found that when students with LD are directly taught memory strategies, there were no differences in recall between students with and without LD on selected tasks. Third, it assumes that strategies can be directly taught and effectively learned. There is now compelling evidence that students with LD can be taught to utilize strategies. Note that this approach directly empowers both students and educators; it places the control of learning in their hands. Students can always learn new strategies, and educators can always teach them. Finally, and most importantly, the strategy approach has a 30-year track record of success. Students’ performances can improve markedly as a result of strategy instruction (e.g., Graham & Harris, 2003; Graham & Perin, 2007a; Rogers & Graham, 2008). Furthermore, strategy instruction has also been used successfully within an RTI framework (e.g., Harris et al., 2012). The last point is undoubtedly the most important. In a time when there are more and more demands for accountability, educators can no longer continue to adopt educational regimens that are not evidence based. Recall the perceptual–­motor approach, which appeared logical but was also a complete failure in terms of helping students with LD progress academically. Given the number of students with LD who are at risk for academic failure, we simply cannot afford to use anything less than the best methods we have; and we have a very good idea of which methods are most effective at improving academic learning. Two studies (Swanson, 1999b; Swanson & Sachs-­Lee, 2000) using meta-­analysis evaluated the effectiveness of numerous teaching methods for students with LD. Meta-­analysis allows researchers to combine the results of numerous studies and to test which instructional approach is the most effective. The two studies conducted by Swanson and his colleagues are the most comprehensive investigation of instructional methods for students with LD ever conducted. All told, Swanson’s meta-­ analysis included a total of 163 separate studies with over 1,000 comparisons, encompassing all the basic skill areas: reading, math, and written language. The results were clear-­cut. The most effective methods were those that incorporated most of the following elements: • Explicit explanations, elaborations, and/or plans to direct task performance. • Verbal modeling, questioning, and demonstration by teachers. Why Use Strategy Instruction? • • • • • 13 Cueing, reminding, and/or teaching students to use strategies or procedures. Step-­by-­step prompts or multiprocess instructions. Teacher–­student dialogue. Questioning by the teacher. Assistance provided only when necessary. What instructional method typically incorporates most or all of these components? You have probably guessed. Students taught via the strategy instruction method showed the most improvement compared to other methods. Furthermore, the degree of improvement was impressive. In sum, we can say with confidence that strategy instruction approaches are highly effective for students with LD. Putting Strategy Instruction into the Classroom By now you may be wondering why strategy instruction isn’t widespread. After all, if strategy instruction is effective, and we’ve known this for decades, shouldn’t everybody be using it? Unfortunately it’s not that simple for a number of reasons. Educators may choose to use one method over another based on a number of factors: (1) acceptability, (2) effectiveness, (3) time and resources, (4) theoretical orientation of the intervention, and (5) intrusiveness (Witt, 1986). Note that effectiveness is only one of the factors that influence what may be used in the classroom. Another factor could be termed inertia. In many cases, educational practices seem to develop a life of their own, independent of their effectiveness. As Heward (2002) noted, teachers sometimes become wedded to ineffective approaches and continue to use them, regardless of whether or not they are effective. Poor communication between researchers and classroom teachers is also a factor (Pressley & Woloshyn, 1995). Researchers often do a poor job of presenting the results of their research in a manner that teachers can grasp and, more importantly, immediately apply. All of these factors have probably inhibited the use of strategy instruction, to some extent. However, we believe that there is an even more fundamental explanation. Few educators (either inservice or preservice) are provided with any degree of systematic professional development in strategy instruction approaches. This is a critical omission for two reasons. As Kauffman (1996) suggests, practices that are accompanied by systematic professional development are more likely to be adopted and used correctly. Unfortunately, few teachers are given more than a brief exposure to strategy instruction approaches. Training in strategy instruction may be limited to a video or one lecture in a methods course. Although strategy instruction is a very powerful tool, effective strategy instruction requires specialized knowledge on the part of the teacher, an investment of time and effort to acquire that knowledge, and an effective model for teaching strategies that addresses the cognitive, self-­regulatory, and motivational problems of students with LD. In short, learning to use strategy instruction requires some work up-­ front. However, the time and effort are not exorbitant, and in our experience, teachers who invest in this training to learn how to effectively teach strategies find it time well spent. 14 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES The purpose of this book is to help teachers develop a practical, working knowledge of proven strategies and how to effectively implement strategy instruction in the classroom. Note that although we focus on students with LD, the same basic approach can be used with any child who needs help mastering a specific academic task (e.g., long division, writing an essay, comprehending a story). One particular group of students that can profit from strategy instruction is the subset with attention-­deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). ADHD is particularly relevant in the case of LD because there is a considerable overlap (20–40% of students with ADHD also have LD) (Schnoes, Reid, Wagner, & Marder, 2006). For this reason we include information on strategy instruction for students with ADHD when appropriate. The strategy instruction model that we use—­the Self-­Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model—­is based on well-­ established theory and has been validated in over 30 years of research. There are many models for strategy instruction. However, few are as well researched and “user-­ friendly,” and few focus on both academic and motivational aspects of students’ learning problems. Final Thoughts The approach that we use in this book mirrors the actual instructional model that we teach. We have discussed why strategy instruction is an important skill for you to learn. Next, we provide the necessary background knowledge to conduct strategy instruction and explicitly explain the components of the SRSD model. We then provide examples of how you might implement various steps in the strategy instruction process in general, and examples of specific, validated strategies for use in major content areas. Our intent is to provide teachers and teacher educators with detailed, practical, step-­by-­step information on strategy instruction. Moreover, the model contains many components that are useful, in and of themselves, aside from their use in strategy instruction. In closing we emphasize that the method we present is not the only way to instruct students with LD. No single method is that powerful. However, mastery of the techniques we present can improve instruction and academic achievement for all students. Chap t e r 2 Building Background Knowledge I n Chapter 1 we noted that to effectively use strategy instruction in the classroom, teachers need specialized knowledge. Strategy instruction is a powerful tool, but to gain any value from a tool you must know how to properly use it, and what it is good for. For example, a hammer is great for driving nails, but a hammer only works if you know which end to grab and which end to hit with. And hammers are not much use if you need to tighten a screw. One of the most dangerous misconceptions about teaching is that “anyone can do it” and that no special knowledge or set of skills is necessary. This is half right. Anyone can do a poor job. But to do an optimal job of instructing students, especially students with special needs such as those with LD, you need to know how to use tools—­such as strategy instruction—­correctly and appropriately. Strategy instruction may fail if teachers lack critical knowledge of the theory or process behind it—­if, in other words, they don’t understand the “why” behind the activities and steps used in the strategy instruction process. Understanding why you do a step in the strategy instruction process sensitizes you to the need to do the step and helps you to do it correctly. To do strategy instruction well, teachers need basic knowledge about how students learn because instruction will need to take this learning process into consideration. Additionally, effective strategy instruction goes beyond the academic realm. It involves affective components as well. Motivational problems such as maladaptive attributions or learned helplessness must also be addressed. The best strategy in the world is useless if students won’t even try to use it. For these reasons, simply sharing strategies with students is unlikely to result in any real improvement. In this chapter we provide you with some of the salient background knowledge that you will need to effectively implement strategy instruction for students with LD in the classroom. First, we provide both formal and practical definitions of the term 15 16 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES “strategy” and discuss major aspects the definition. Second, we discuss the information-­ processing model, which is useful for understanding the rationale behind some steps in the SRSD instructional model. Third, we continue the discussion of attributions and provide more information on why attributions must be considered when using strategy instruction. Finally, we introduce the concept of metacognition (literally, thinking about thinking), which is critical to successful strategy instruction. We would stress that although gaining this background knowledge does require some time and effort, it is not a herculean task. In fact, in our experience, many teachers already have some or even most of the knowledge they need. What they don’t have is a framework for the knowledge to help them apply it to instruction. Introduction to Strategy Instruction What Is a Strategy? Everyone uses strategies. Adults write themselves notes. Students are taught familiar spelling strategies: i before e except after c, or in words like neighbor or weigh. In fact, strategies are so integrated into our everyday life that we are usually not even aware that we are using them. This tendency toward strategy use is a critical component of academic success. Evidence suggests that the most effective learners possess a large repertoire of strategies that range from simple to complex, and that they can be combined to meet different task demands (Pressley & Woloshyn, 1995). Thus, the fact that you are reading this book suggests that you are an active strategy user. But what exactly is a strategy? The term “strategy” has been used in many ways. As with many terms, exactly what people mean by “strategy” may vary. In fact, there are several definitions of what constitutes a strategy. There are some differences across these definitions, but for the most part they are quite similar. Alexander, Graham, and Harris (1998) listed a number of important aspects of strategies. First, strategies are facilitative and essential. The purpose of strategies is to improve—facilitate—performance. We use a strategy to do a task better, more easily, or more quickly. In this sense, a strategy is much like a tool. Tools help us accomplish tasks to a higher standard with much less effort. Strategies do the same. We would stress that it is important to understand that, like tools, strategies serve a purpose. We teach students strategies to improve their performance; students don’t learn strategies just to learn them. Essential refers to the fact that strategy knowledge and use are what distinguish good students from the less competent students. Second, strategies are willful and effort‑ ful. Students must make a conscious decision to use a strategy, and must commit time and mental effort to do so. The fact that the use of a strategy is a conscious decision is important. If students could not be made aware that they were using a strategy and control its use so that the strategy could be employed when needed, then strategy instruction would have little practical use. To continue the tool analogy, if we can’t learn how to properly use our hammer, or our hammer is never around when we need it, then it’s not very useful. Finally, it is important to realize that strategies and task requirements are linked. Strategies must be matched to an appropriate task. For example, one strategy that many of us are familiar with is “ROY G. BIV,” a simple mnemonic technique to help Building Background Knowledge 17 remember the order of colors in the rainbow. However, ROY G. BIV wouldn’t be too useful if the task were to write a term paper. Again, strategies are like tools, and some tools have a very narrow range of uses. The term “strategy” can also refer to cognitive processes that occur inside our head. For example, while driving in a strange city, you might mentally visualize a map to help you find your way (a visual imagery strategy). Or, if you had to remember an address, you might repeat it over and over to help maintain it in your memory (a verbal rehearsal strategy). The act of managing your activities or monitoring progress, attention, or understanding can also be called a strategy. For example, making sure that you have all the materials you need before starting a task would be a planning strategy. Stopping periodically while reading to ask yourself what you just read and how well you understood it would be a comprehension monitoring strategy. Strategies are typically used in combinations. For example, in the comprehension monitoring example, every time you stop to check comprehension, you might create brief summaries of what you just read and then write them down—­thereby combining summarization and rehearsal strategies with a monitoring strategy. For our purposes, we use a practical definition: A strategy is a series of ordered steps that helps a student perform a task. For example, Figure 2.1 shows a very simple strategy used for two-­digit-­by-­one-­digit multiplication with regrouping, with the handy acronym MAMA. It outlines a four-­step process to follow to solve a multiplication problem. The strategy helps to structure the student’s efforts (i.e., to do the steps in order) and to remind the student what to do at each stage of the process. Now look at Figure 2.2—we’ve added a new wrinkle. Now the student is asked to track the use of the strategy by placing a checkmark on the appropriate line. This step combines a self-­monitoring strategy with the multiplication strategy. Note that strategies aren’t limited to describing steps to use in performing a task. Strategies can also be used to cue students’ cognitive processes. For example, the second step in MAMA serves to cue students to determine whether regrouping is needed, and requiring students to check the line after performing each step cues them to monitor whether they’ve performed the steps of the strategy. This looks pretty simple and straightforward, doesn’t it? If a strategy is just a series of steps, all you need to do is break down a task into its component parts and teach the steps directly to the student. This approach would actually be fairly effective for some To multiply, remember MAMA: Multiply—Multiply the 1’s columns. Across?—Is my number more than 9? If so, I regroup. Multiply—Multiply the 10’s column. Add—If you regrouped, add the number to the 10’s. FIGURE 2.1. MAMA multiplication strategy. Developed by Robert Reid. Used with permission. 18 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES To multiply, remember MAMA: Multiply—Multiply the 1’s columns. Across?—Is my number more than 9? If so, I regroup. Multiply—Multiply the 10’s column. Add—If I regrouped, add the number to the 10’s. Remember to check off each step in MAMA as you do it.    Multiply 1’s    Multiply 1’s    Multiply 1’s    Across?    Across?    Across?    Multiply 10’s    Multiply 10’s    Multiply 10’s    Add    Add    Add   87   29    15 × 5 × 2 × 7 FIGURE 2.2. MAMA multiplication strategy with self-monitoring. Developed by Robert Reid. Used with permission. students. Unfortunately, as we will see in the next sections, the students who might profit from this approach are the ones who would need it the least because they are already good strategy users. For students with LD or other struggling learners, simply teaching the steps would be unlikely to have any meaningful effect because cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational problems of students with LD haven’t been accounted for. In the next sections we provide additional information about these areas. Information Processing One of the reasons the strategy instruction approach is so successful is that it incorporates knowledge about how our memory and cognitive processes work into the teaching process. The information-­processing model uses the computer as a model of how our mind works on new information or attacks problems such as academic tasks. It’s not an exact comparison for many reasons, not the least of which is that our minds are infinitely more complex than a computer! However, at a very basic level it is both useful and informative. In this section we discuss information processing and its implications for strategy instruction. We draw our discussion from Lerner (2000) and Swanson (1996a). Figure 2.3 shows a simplified model of information processing. As Figure 2.3 shows, the information-­processing model divides the flow of information into three stages. This division is analogous to how a computer is divided into different components that perform different operations: Building Background Knowledge 19 Information processing Computer Sensory register—hearing, vision, touch. Input devices—keyboard, mouse. Short-­term memory—information from the sensory register is stored here for a brief interval. Unless the information is acted on in some way, it is lost forever. Random access memory (RAM)—temporary storage. Unless transferred to permanent memory, information is lost. Working memory—information is stored briefly and processed or manipulated in some manner. This store is limited and temporary. As soon as information is not being used, it disappears. Random access memory (RAM)—the portion of memory used to process information. Long-­term memory—information is stored permanently. Information stored here may be transferred to working memory when needed. Permanent memory—hard drive, optical disc. Information stored here is permanent. Information may be transferred to RAM. Executive functions—control how information is processed and stored. Operating system—the code that tells the computer how to transfer information and allot memory for various functions. External Stimulus Information lost within 0.25 to 2 seconds. Limited capacity. Information lost within 30 seconds unless rehearsed or elaborated. Huge capacity. Information stored for minutes to years. Information may be lost if not used. Sensory Register (vision, hearing, touch) Short-Term Memory Working Memory Executive Processes (monitoring, planning, error detection, error correction) Long-Term Memory FIGURE 2.3. Simplified information-processing model. 20 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES Here is how it might work in practice. First, our senses perceive a stimulus. For example, we might see a printed word or hear a sentence. This information is stored in the sensory register. It is stored for only a very brief period of time—­a fraction of a second. Our sensory register is bombarded with information, so information can’t stay too long. From here, the information goes to short-­term memory. There are two important aspects of short-­term memory. First, short-­term memory is quite limited. Estimates are that short-­term memory can hold only around seven “chunks” of information at one time. Second, short-­term memory is a temporary holding area. Information will remain in short-­term memory for only a matter of seconds. When information is in short-­term memory, we are consciously aware of it. For example, you are consciously aware of the sentence you just read. It’s in your short-­term memory, but it will be replaced with the next sentences you read and will fade from your memory. We want to remember information such as the sentence we just read, but it doesn’t happen automatically. Our memory isn’t like a videotape that faithfully records an exact representation of everything. If the information in our short-­term memory isn’t acted on (or processed), it will be lost (i.e., forgotten). Information that is processed in some manner, such as rehearsal (repeating the information to yourself), will then be transferred to long-­term memory, where it can be stored permanently. Once information is stored in long-­term memory, the question becomes one of retrieval (remembering). Although the information has been stored, it may decay (i.e., decrease in strength) if not utilized. When information is utilized regularly, the strength of the memory increases. For example, you would have little trouble rattling off your present phone number or address. However, it would probably take you much longer to call up the address or phone number you had when you were in junior high school. And some information that was once strong may have faded almost entirely (can you recite the quadratic equation?). Retrieval also refers to being able to recall information when needed. It’s entirely possible for information to be stored in long-­ term memory but not to be available on demand. For example, we have all had the experience of trying and failing to recall a name, only to suddenly remember it at a later time. One of the important factors in how easily information can be retrieved is how the information is stored. Short-­term memory has a number of “control processes” that are used to process information in a way that makes it easier to remember (Swanson, 1996a). These include: • Chunking—grouping information into smaller units. For example, changing a series of 10 digits into a phone number, or taking a group of unrelated words and creating a sentence. • Clustering—placing a information into meaningful categories. For example, grouping a list of words into animals, colors, or verbs. • Mnemonics—organizing material in a manner that enhances recall. For example, ROY G. BIV forms an acronym that helps us to remember the colors of the spectrum in the correct order. • Relating information to known material—using analogies to already existing Building Background Knowledge 21 knowledge. For example, the game of cricket is much easier to understand if you have a working knowledge of baseball. • Tagging information—setting up retrieval paths to help remember information. For example, to remember that ranid means frog, you might connect the term ranid with an image of a frog in the rain. Another part of memory that is critical for information processing is called working memory. There are three components of working memory: • Phonological loop. This deals with spoken or written verbal information. It has two subcomponents (1) the phonological store, which holds information in speech-­ based form (e.g., spoken words), and (2) the articulatory control process, which stores and rehearses information from the phonological store (e.g., inner voice). • Visuospatial sketch pad. This stores spatial information (e.g., planning a route for a shopping trip). • Central executive. This coordinates the actions of the phonological loop and the articulatory control process. It also deals with planning, organizing, and coordinating effort, and with problem solving. Working memory is where information is temporarily stored, processed, and manipu‑ lated. It differs from short-­term memory in that short-­term memory involves only temporary storage of information. Here’s an example of how short-­term memory and working memory differ. Take a look at the numbers on the line below, then cover them with your finger. 6 4 9 7 2 Can you remember the order of the numbers? That is a short-­term memory task. It only involves storing and retrieving the information. Now, add the first and last numbers together; when you are finished, subtract the second number from the sum. This is a working memory task because it requires you to process the information. Did you notice that this task was more difficult? In this task you had to maintain the order of the digits in memory while you selectively processed the digits (i.e., added and subtracted them). Like short-­term memory, working memory lasts for only a short while. For example, once you have used a math fact, it will disappear quickly because it is no longer needed. Additionally, if the teacher’s instructions are lost from working memory, they are lost for good. Because they were unlikely to have been stored in long-­term memory, they would not be retrievable. Like short-­term memory, working memory is also limited. Thus, we couldn’t call up all our math facts simultaneously. It would be impossible to maintain that much information in working memory. To return to the computer analogy, if we try to load a file that’s too big for the available memory, the computer will either freeze up or give an error message. Similarly, if we try to hold too much information in working memory or have to process information in working memory 22 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES because we can’t apply it fluently, our ability to process information will suffer and our performance begin to decrease. It’s important to understand that even simple tasks can place heavy demands on working memory. Here is an example of the working memory tasks involved in a simple task that occurs frequently in the classroom: copying a sentence from the board. Task Working memory component Maintain the words in the sentence in order in working memory while information is being processed and new information called up. Phonological loop Block out distractions that could cause the information stored in working memory to be lost. Central executive Call up the spelling for the first word from long-­term memory. Central executive Maintain the spelling of the first word in working memory. Phonological loop Call up the orthography (form) of the letters in the first word. Central executive Maintain the orthography of the letters in the correct order in working memory Visuospatial sketch pad Write each letter of the word. Visuospatial sketch pad Monitor that the letters are formed correctly and written in the correct order. Central executive Call up the next word in the sentence from working memory and repeat the process. Phonological loop Note that all the components of working memory are called on for this simple task, and a breakdown in any of them will result in failure to complete the task. How Knowledge of Information Processing Helps Strategy Instruction Knowing how memory operates can help teachers. We need to teach in a manner that will help students process information efficiently and effectively. For example, to help students get new information into long-­term memory you need to teach in ways that encourage them to process the information through elaboration, rehearsal techniques, or mnemonics. This is especially true for students with LD. Knowledge of working Building Background Knowledge 23 memory is particularly important. There is evidence to suggest that students with LD or ADHD have deficiencies in working memory (Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood, & Elliott, 2009; Martinussen & Tannock, 2006; Swanson, 1999a). If working memory is overloaded, then there is insufficient processing space for new information. We see examples of this insufficiency in the classroom every day. For example, every teacher has had experience with students who read a passage by painfully sounding out each word. At the end of the passage they can’t remember anything they read because all their working memory processing was devoted to decoding—­nothing was left to process information. To be able to read and comprehend, a student needs to be able to use decoding skills fluently so that working memory isn’t overloaded. Working memory also is associated with the ability to remember and follow directions (Martinussen & Major, 2011). Students with working memory deficits often can’t follow directions because they cannot hold all the information in working memory and have literally forgotten the directions. They also may have difficulty because the processing demands of the task are too difficult for their working memory. For example, in the exercise above, imagine if you were required to multiply the first two numbers, then multiply the product times the third number and so on. Most people’s working memory would quickly be overloaded. Thus it’s important for teachers to consider the processing demands a task places on working memory. As the previous example illustrates, even a task as seemingly simple as copying a sentence from the board can place serious demands on working memory of some children. As we will see later, reducing demands on working memory is a critical aspect of strategy instruction. The Importance of Attributions In Chapter 1 we discussed the problem that many students with LD due to a maladaptive attribution style. Weiner (1979) developed a useful model of causal attributions that separates attributions into three dimensions: 1. Internal versus external. This dimension refers to whether students see the causes of success or failure as being inside or outside themselves. Examples of internal causes would be ability, effort, aptitude, or mood. External causes could be task difficulty or actions by another (e.g., “She helped me do it”). 2. Controllable versus uncontrollable. This dimension refers to how strongly students believe that the causes for success or failure are under their direct control or influence. Examples of controllable causes are effort or strategy use. An example of uncontrollable causes is luck. 3. Stable versus unstable. This dimension refers to the extent to which the causes of success or failure have remained consistent or unchanging over time. Stable causes are those not likely to change. Unstable causes are those that are due to temporary factors or those that can be changed or modified. Table 2.1 shows examples of possible attributions for each of the three dimensions. 24 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES TABLE 2.1. Examples of Attributions Classified by Weiner’s Dimensions Attribution Dimensions Comment “I practiced what the coach told me for 3 weeks and my freethrow shooting got lots better.” Internal, controllable, stable Success is due to effort and use of an effective technique. “My free-throw shooting sucks. I’m just no good at basketball.” Internal, uncontrollable, stable Failure is due to a lack of ability that will not change. “I didn’t really study enough for the test because I couldn’t get organized.” Internal, controllable, unstable Failure is due to a circumstance that could be corrected. “I hurt my leg and couldn’t practice for the game.” Internal, uncontrollable, unstable Failure is due to a chance injury that is not permanent. “Doctor Graham’s tests are so hard I’ll never pass them.” External, uncontrollable, stable Failure is due to an external factor (difficult exam) that is not likely to change. “I got an A on the test, but it was really easy.” External, uncontrollable, unstable Success is due to an outside factor that may change. How Knowledge of Attributions Helps Strategy Instruction A knowledge of attributions is important for a number of reasons. Research shows that a student’s attributional style can directly affect academic performance (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Students with maladaptive attributional styles often won’t persist in, or even try, tasks that they perceive as difficult. Unfortunately, teachers tend to react negatively to this “won’t even try” behavior (Weiner, 1992). In turn, these negative reactions make academic tasks even more threatening and aversive, making it more likely that the student will continue to avoid tasks. Students who have maladaptive attributional styles will tend to attribute failures to internal, uncontrollable factors (“I’m dumb”) and success to uncontrollable, external factors (“I was lucky”). As a result these students are at risk for developing a negative attitude toward academics and anxiety when faced with academic tasks. They will make more negative statements to themselves (“I’ll never get this done”) and will develop the belief that they cannot succeed no matter how hard they may try. This in turn results in decreased effort, or in simply avoiding tasks that they perceive as difficult. As a result, their performance declines. This overall scenario captures what is referred to as the helpless orientation. In contrast, students who attribute success and failure to internal, controllable factors such as effort will remain positive in the face of a difficult task and will persist in their efforts much longer. They will not avoid challenging tasks and will actively work to improve their problem-­solving skills. This is called the mastery Building Background Knowledge 25 orientation. The implications of these two orientations for classroom teachers are obvious. We want students to adopt a mastery orientation rather than maintain a helpless orientation. Research shows that this approach of directly addressing attributional style can be effective for students. For example, Dweck (1975) taught students with learned helplessness to attribute failure to insufficient effort. These students then showed increased persistence. Other studies have provided students with verbal praise for attributing success and failure to effort (e.g., Andrews & Debus, 1978). These students also increased the time that they would persist at a task. Attribution training also combines well with strategy instruction. For example, Borkowski and colleagues (1988) found that attribution training in combination with strategy instruction resulted in a 50% gain on a reading task. The researchers also suggested that for strategy training to be effective with students who had maladaptive attributions or learned helplessness, it was necessary to teach them a healthy, mastery-­oriented attributional style. How do we go about instilling a positive attributional style in students? Simply put, we need to teach students to attribute success and failure to their own efforts and to the use of an effective strategy. To accomplish these two goals, it’s necessary to shift students’ attributions from an ability focus (“You succeed at tasks because you’re smart”) to a skill and effort focus (“You succeeded because you used an appropriate strategy and you tried hard”). The shift toward the skill and effort focus (or the incremental view of intelligence) is important. From this perspective our intelligence continues to develop as we gain new strategies and skills, and we can always learn new strategies and skills. Evidence shows that students who have this incremental perspective are more likely to adopt a mastery orientation. To achieve this shift, there are two major tasks for the classroom teacher. First, changing instilled attribution patterns requires the teacher to be aware of why those attributions may occur and how to help students change to a healthier style. For example, one of the primary problems is that students often equate “trying hard” with having less ability. In other words, if you have to try hard to succeed at a task, then you must not be very smart. On the other hand, seemingly effortless success signals high ability. Another problem can be seeking help. Many students equate needing help with having low ability. Still another problem is the feedback we give students that may unwittingly reinforce the ability perspective. How many times have you praised a child’s success with “You’re a genius” or “You’re so smart”? Second, teachers must systematically change their classroom behavior to help inculcate a healthy attributional style. This change entails systematically working to shift students’ attributional styles from external and uncontrollable to internal and controllable. It also involves teaching the incremental perspective on intelligence. Table 2.2 provides suggestions on how teachers can approach this task in the classroom. The effort to change attributional styles should be done on an ongoing basis as part of the strategy instruction process. Note that this process will require preparation and planning just as any other instructional activity. For example, Alderman (1999) suggested that teachers might actually write out examples of appropriate feedback or praise statements in advance. 26 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES TABLE 2.2. Tips for Changing Attributions •• Provide students with feedback that stresses effort and/or strategy use. Effort: “Johnny, all that extra spelling practice you did paid off. You got a 96% on your spelling test.” Strategy: “Helen, you really learned the long-division strategy well! You followed all the steps and you got all the problems correct!” •• If a student fails at a task, relate the failure to effort or strategy use. Effort: “Well, Emma, your spelling score was only 52%. I noticed that this week you didn’t spend as much time practicing your words. I think that you need to spend extra time practicing.” Strategy: “Hepzibah, I noticed that you missed six problems on your worksheet because you didn’t regroup correctly. If you remember the steps in the 4 B’s strategy, you won’t forget to regroup. Would you like go over it again?” •• Teach children what it means to “really try.” Discuss the meaning of effort. Effort means sticking with it, not giving up. Stress that effort is important to success, and that you should always give your best effort. Teach the difference between productive effort and just getting by. For many children just handing in work, regardless of quality, is perceived as effort. •• Show how effort can affect outcomes. Link effort to success and learning. For example, have students chart the number of spelling practices and their weekly spelling scores. Show how increased practice relates to better spelling scores. Stress the relation between productive work and success. For example, children’s social studies grades improve because they worked really hard at getting all their assignments done well. •• Give students a strategy. Give students a systematic means of completing a task—a strategy. Stress that using the strategy consistently and correctly will lead to success. Treat strategies like “tools”; stress that you can always add another “tool to your toolbox.” •• Make “smart” a skill. Stress that what makes you “smart” is the number of skills and strategies you have. You can’t change ability, but you can always learn more skills and strategies. You don’t learn things because you are “smart”; you learn because of instruction, strategies, and effort, and these make you “smart.” •• Internalize responsibility for success and failure. Through feedback and modeling, stress that the reasons for success and failure are inside us. We succeed because we try hard and use the right strategy. If we fail, we didn’t put forth our best effort or use the right strategy. Note that to prevent failure, the teacher must ensure that child has the preskills to do the task and determine whether the child can do the task independently or with assistance. Building Background Knowledge 27 Metacognition What are you doing as you read this book? You almost certainly have a purpose in mind: You want to learn about strategy instruction. You might be underlining or highlighting what you believe are important passages. You may stop and verbally paraphrase a section to yourself or make notes in the margins or a notebook. You might make connections or relate information to your personal experience or other bits of knowledge about instruction. You may be reading some sections more slowly because the information is unfamiliar or difficult; however, you may breeze through others. While you read, you are probably aware of how well you understand the material. If you realize that you are confused about something you just read, you will probably stop and review the section. You may have actually done some planning before you even began to read, if you allotted time to read the chapter. If you are reading the book for a class, you may have scheduled a time to reread or look at notes. In summary, you are doing much more than simply decoding printed words on a page. You are actively engaged with the learning task at a number of levels. Students with LD would likely have a much different experience. They may have no particular purpose in mind when they read. Their main goal would be to simply “get through” the task. They would be unlikely to effectively use the activities that would help them retain the information (e.g., highlighting or paraphrasing) or to be aware of their degree of comprehension, much less use error correction techniques such as rereading. This type of unengaged performance isn’t limited to reading. It is typical of how students with LD or ADHD perform many academic tasks. Often they will make glaring mistakes or silly errors that seem so obvious that we wonder how they could be unaware of them. One reason for these errors is that students are not actively involved in the learning task due, in large part, to a problem with metacognition. “Metacognition” is defined as one’s knowledge of one’s own cognitive processes and the products related to them (Flavell, 1979). Put more simply, metacognition means “thinking about thinking.” What is the difference between cognition and metacognition? It is the difference between knowing something and understanding knowledge in terms of awareness and appropriate use (Flavell, 1979). To help understand the distinction we can use an the example of a hammer: Cognitive Metacognitive “That’s a hammer.” “A hammer is a tool I’d use to drive a nail. There are different kinds of hammers for different jobs. You need to practice a little before you can use a hammer well. You need to be careful using a hammer or you can hurt yourself.” As you can see, the metacognitive knowledge goes beyond the factual knowledge. It encompasses knowing (1) the purpose a hammer serves, (2) that it’s necessary to match the correct hammer to a given task (you wouldn’t use a sledge hammer to drive a nail), (3) that a skill set is needed to use a hammer successfully, and (4) that some monitoring is necessary when you use a hammer (if you don’t pay attention, you might 28 STRATEGY INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES end up with a very sore thumb!). The hammer example illustrates the importance of metacognition. Students without a metacognitive understanding of a task will obviously not function as well as those who do have such an understanding. This lack of metacognitive knowledge also contributes to a student’s frustration. There are three major components of metacognition: metacognitive knowledge, motivational beliefs, and the executive component, or self-­regulation (Hacker, 1998). Metacognitive knowledge refers to a person’s (1) acquired knowledge and beliefs about him- or herself as a learner, (2) task demands and how they can be met, and (3) strategies that can or should be used to accomplish a task (Flavell, 1979). Metacognitive knowledge also includes the relation between task and strategy (i.e., which strategies are appropriate to a given task) and a knowledge of how, when, where, and why to use strategy. For example: Type of knowledge Example Self as learner: This may include knowledge of your own capabilities, comparisons with others, and general knowledge of your cognition. “I’m good at math, but my spelling is terrible.” “If I don’t write something down, I’ll forget it.” “My wife is better at math than I am.” Task demands: This may include knowledge of how different tasks place different demands, and how to approach a task appropriately. Knowing that you read for detail differently than you would for the main idea. Knowing that when you read a very dense and complex passage, you need to slow down. Strategy: This may include knowledge of what type of strategy (if any) is appropriate for a task, knowledge of how best to strategically attack a given task, and knowledge that strategies enhance performance. “A paraphrasing strategy will help my comprehension, but a mnemonic would be better to remember a list.” “To write a better story, I’ll use my story grammar strategy.” “Using a strategy helps me do better.” Motivational beliefs—­which are related to attributions—­also play a role in metacognition (Borkowski, Estrada, Milstead, & Hale, 1989). Students’ beliefs about their competence and control over outcomes can directly affect their choice of strategies and how long they will persist at a task (Bandura, 1993). If students lack confidence in their skills, then they may not be able to use their skills effectively. In fact, some studies have shown that students’ belief in their abilities was a better predictor of positive attitudes toward academic tasks than actual ability (Bandura, 1993). Components of motivational beliefs include: • • • • • General competency—“How good am I as a learner overall?” Competency in specific task—“How good am I at this specific task?” Control over outcomes—“Do I have control over how well I do?” Causes of failure—“Why did I succeed or fail (internal or external)?” Benefits of strategy—Belief that a strategic approach is effective/superior. Building Background Knowledge 29 Self-­regulation refers to how learners regulate or manage cognitive and metacognitive processes. Self-­regulation is critical for a number of reasons. First, effective learners are self-­regulated learners (Butler & Winne, 1995). Students who actively regulate their cognition are more engaged in a task and typically perform better than those who don’t. Although self-­regulation is complex and there are numerous cognitive and metacognitive activities that can be monitored, there are four commonly recognized self-­regulation activities that are important for strategy instruction (e.g., Hacker, 1998). These include: • Planning—adopting a deliberate, organized approach to a task and planning next moves. • Monitoring—checking comprehension and strategy effectiveness; testing, revising, and evaluating strategies; monitoring the effectiveness of attempts. • Failure detection—“Are things going OK?” • Failure correction—“Let’s fix it.” Second, there is little use in teaching a strategy that students cannot use independently. For a strategy to be truly useful, students should be able to effectively use and maintain it without outside support or g...
Purchase answer to see full attachment