What Does Research Tell Us About Effective Writing Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities? Sara Mills, Geo

1. What Does Research Tell Us About Effective Writing Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities?Sara Mills, George Mason University • Abstract • There is mounting concern about the writing skills of students at the national level (Rogers & Graham, 2008) prompting a focus on evidence-based interventions for writing. Meta-analyses and narrative reviews summarize bodies of research to provide information about instructional strategies with high, moderate, and small effects. This mega-analyses of writing research combines results of 11 research syntheses of writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. Results indicate that strategy instruction, instruction in the structural elements of text, revision instruction, and reinforcement are highly effective interventions for students with LD. Furthermore, moderate effects were found across meta-analyses for grammar instruction, word processing, and handwriting and spelling instruction. Limited information is available about empirical studies focused on beginning writers and writers at the secondary and post-secondary levels. • Background Literature • There are several writing intervention programs with lines of research supporting their effectiveness for students with learning disabilities, such as Graham and Harris’s self-regulated strategy development, Englert’s cognitive strategy instruction in writing, and Wong’s interactive dialogues (Mason & Graham, 2008). • A number of meta-analyses of writing intervention research for students with LD have been conducted over the years, which have a variety of purposes, focus on different age groups, and analyze different primary studies. • Research Questions • What information is available from the writing meta-analyses and narrative reviews of writing for students with LD? • What interventions are consistently identified as having large • (ES > .80, PND > 90%), moderate (ES = .50, PND = 70-90%), and small (ES = .20, PND = 0-70%) effects on improving the writing skills of students with LD? • Method • Search Procedures: (a) PsychINFO and ERIC databases searched in September 2009 using keyword terms written expression, writing, special education, learning disability, meta-analysis, research synthesis, and review; (b) Ancestry searches of meta-analyses and other relevant studies • Inclusion Criteria: (1) Focus on writing intervention research; (2) Include students with LD; and (3) Focus only on writing • Exclusion Criteria: (1) Reviews of characteristics of students with LD in writing (e.g., McMaster & Espin, 2007; Pajares, 2003); (2) Primary studies included students with disabilities, but no analysis of findings by disability status was provided (e.g., Graham & Perin, 2007); (3) Reviews focused on multiple curricular areas (e.g., Fitzgerald, Mitchem, & Koury, 2008; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000); and (4) Narrative reviews of authors’ own lines of research (e.g., MacArthur, 2009; Schumaker & Deshler, 2003) • Final Sample: These search procedures yielded 42 articles and book chapters. Of these, 11 met the inclusion criteria. The final sample included 9 journal articles and 2 book chapters. Five focused exclusively on students with LD. Six were meta-analyses and 5 were narrative. Nine of 11 reviews were published within the last 10 years; 5 were published within the last 5 years. • Highly Effective Strategies (ES > .80, PND > 90%): • Strategy instruction: Effects reported across meta-analyses ranged from ES = .93 to 2.51, and PND = 84-100% • Strategy instruction has high maintenance (ES = 1.32) and generalization (ES = .93-1.13, PND = 85%) effects • Peer support and teacher-implemented instruction are beneficial for transfer • The importance of including self-regulation components within strategy instruction was rated as “modest” to “critical” across research syntheses • Findings were consistent across grade levels and writing genres • Teaching text structures: ES = 1.11 • Revision instruction: ES = .9, PND = 83-100% • Reinforcement: PND = 96% (Note that this finding was reported in only one meta-analysis.) • Discussion • What Works for Students with LD • Strategy instruction is effective for both elementary- and secondary-aged students across different genres of writing. It involves teaching students explicit strategies for learning the steps of the writing process, and provides modeling, guided practice, and independent practice to master these skills. Strategy instruction programs for writing often include explicit instruction in text structures. • Instruction in text structure elements is highly effective.For example, the structure of opinion essays includes a topic sentence, reasons, explanations, and an ending. Each writing genre has a text structure that can be explicitly taught (e.g., story writing, compare-contrast). • Instruction in all parts of the writing process – planning, drafting, and revising – is effective. • Results • Description of Research Syntheses: • Purpose: 4 reviews examined writing strategies for students with LD across age levels, 3 reviews focused on specific age groups, and 4 focused exclusively on strategy instruction • Types of studies: 2 reviews included group experimental and quasi-experimental designs, 1 included only single-subject studies, 7 included both types of research (n=1 and experimental), and 1 review did not specify the types of studies included • Number of primary studies: 6 reviews included 1-25 primary studies, 4 reviews included 26-50 primary studies, and 1 had more than 51 primary studies • Student population: 5 reviews included only students with LD, 2 included students with and without LD, and 4 specifically included the full range of writers (i.e., high-, medium-, and low-achieving, and LD) • Intensity and duration: Only De La Paz (2007) analyzed information about intensity and duration of interventions, concluding that longer interventions resulted in larger effects • Types of measures: 7 reviews analyzed results of criterion referenced test, 3 reviews looked at both criterion and norm reference test. Gersten & Baker (2001) found higher ES for standardized measures than for experimenter-developed measures (ES = 1.17 vs. ES = .74). • Instructional Strategies with Small Effects (ES = .20, PND = 0-70%; Note that these findings were reported in only one meta-analysis): • Prewriting activities (PND = 52%) • Self-monitoring (PND = 51%) • Moderately Effective Strategies (ES = .50, PND = 70-90%): • Instruction in grammar (PND = 83%) and mechanics. This finding is in contrast to results from meta-analyses of writing for students without disabilities that have found grammar instruction to have little effect on students’ writing skills (e.g., Graham & Perin, 2007) • Word processing (ES = .79, PND = 70%) • Research on spelling and handwriting is limited, but suggests that it is useful for students with LD at elementary grades • Examples of strategy instruction programs in writing: • Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) for Writing: Includes strategies for explicitly teaching sentence writing, paragraph writing, error monitoring, and using word-processing spell checkers to remediate specific skill deficits • Self-regulated Strategy Development (SRSD): Combines strategy instruction in writing with instruction in self-regulation skills (i.e., goal setting, self-instruction, self-monitoring, and self-reinforcement) • Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing: Teaches text structures and provides think sheets to promote self-instruction throughout the planning, organizing, writing, editing, and revising phases of the writing process. • Interactive dialogues: Utilizes student-student dialogues during the planning and revising phases and/or student-teacher dialogues during revising to enhance the strategic writing process. • Understudied Areas • Writing instruction for kindergarten-aged students • Writing instruction for secondary students with LD • Empirical studies of writing interventions for college-age students with LD • Optimal intensity and duration of intervention, and differences in results based on size of instructional group • References • For a full list of references cited on this poster, please see the back of the handout or email Sara Mills at smills5@gmu.edu