Teaching writing strategies and self-regulation procedures to middle school students with learning disabilities

Focus on Exceptional Children, Jan 1999 by De La Paz, Susan

In 1992, the U.S. Department of Education awarded a major grant to the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and the International Reading Association (IRA) to define content standards for the English language arts, grades K-12. After more than 3 years and the involvement of thousands of contributors (including teachers, parents, administrators, researchers, and policy analysts), a set of 12 standards was established, defining what the IRA and NCTE believe students should know and be able to do with language by the time they complete their secondary. schooling (NCTE/IRA, 1996). These standards, though listed as a set of 12 interrelated ideas, can be subgrouped into areas of understanding (via reading and appreciating text from a variety of cultures, ethnic groups, and so on), language use (including spoken, written, and "visual" language), conducting research (to pose and answer problems via a variety of informational sources), and lifelong learning (as a member of a literate community and foi individually set purposes). Three of the English content standards relate -directly to written language proficiency, although each was written more broadly to include other forms of language use as well.

1. Students are expected to communicate effectively for a variety of audiences and purposes (Standard 4).

2. Students are expected to use different writing process elements strategically (Standard 5).

3. Students are expected to apply knowledge of structure, conventions, genre, and so on to create and analyze texts (Standard 6).

Thus, competent writers "are sensitive to the needs of different audiences and to the ways in which the purpose of a communication shapes the kind of ideas and information they choose and the way in which they present them" (NCTE/IRA, 1996, p.34). Moreover, proficient writers have learned to "vary their organizational strategy" depending on whether they are explaining something, arguing, persuading, or telling a story. Students are expected to learn more than individual elements of the writing process, as they should use writing techniques flexibly, knowing when to proceed methodically and when to adopt alternative strategies. Finally, students are charged with having a working knowledge of accepted English language conventions, including grammar, punctuation, and spelling, so readers understand the writing.

Despite the emergence of these and other high national standards for English language arts, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) longitudinal data from 1984 to 1996 indicate that the overall writing achievement of American students seems to be declining, or, at best, remaining the same over time (Campbell, Voelkl, & Donahue, 1997). In general, fourth and eighth grade students' writing has remained constant while eleventh grade students' average writing scores have diminished over the past decade. Further, the percentage of students who receive the highest ratings for "effective, coherent" writing remains quite low (0%-2%) at each of the tested grade levels, and those writing "complete, sufficient" texts is only slightly higher ( 16% of eighth graders and 31% of eleventh graders).

Although the majority of secondary students receive ratings of "beginning focused, clear writing" (66% of eighth graders and 83% of eleventh graders), this rating indicates that if, for example, a given writing task involves persuading one's audience, students at this level are not able to provide a convincing argument. The NAEP longitudinal data also indicate that students at all three grades are writing more often than students did in the past, that teachers currently focus more on reacting to students' ideas and feelings and less on correcting mistakes, that computers are used more frequently at home and at school, and that at the higher grades, students are writing more for their own enjoyment outside of school (Campbell et al., 1997).

These data, though based on summaries of students' performance and responses to written questionnaires, clearly indicate that students' current level of writing proficiency cannot be attributed solely to a "teaching crisis" (c.f., Graham, 1982), limited opportunity to engage in writing, inadequate access to technology, and so on. In accordance, proponents of the new English content standards also react to these outcomes without blaming schools and teachers for "failing to fulfill their responsibilities." Rather than proposing that these outcomes mean fewer and fewer students are able to write well, they believe that the current state of affairs reflects a mismatch between students' achievements and educators' increased expectations for students' literacy. Thus, while students (including those in special education programs) are expected to reach higher levels of performance, teachers are counted upon to make it possible for all students to attain such high standards.

Given these charges and their students' current skill level, where are teachers to begin? One beginning seems to be the use of long-term, contextually relevant cognitive strategy instruction as a complement to content-area teaching (Pressley et al., 1995). This approach may be especially relevant for the following reasons.