components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/17/2019 Components Analysis of Cognitive Strategy Instruction
1/9
Journal of Educational Psychology
1989, Vol. 81 , No. 3, 353-561
Copyright 1989 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0022-O663/89/SOO.75
Com ponents Analysis of Cognitive Strategy Instruction: Effects on
Learning Disabled Students' Compositions and Self-Efficacy
Steve Graha m and Karen R. Ha rris
Department
of
Special Education
University of Maryland
The viability of self-instructional strategy training am ong learning disabled (LD ) stude nts exhib-
iting composition deficiencies was investigated. F urtherm ore,
the
theoretically proposed incre-
mental effects of explicit self-regulation procedures were examined in terms of writing perform-
ance measures
at
posttest, maintenance,
and
generalization,
and in
terms
of
Ss self-efficacy.
Ss
were 22 LD and 11 normally achieving students in the 5th and 6th grades. Results indicated that
self-instructional strategy training produced meaningful and lasting effects on Ss' composition
skills and a significantly heightened sense of self-efficacy. Explic it self-regulation proce dures did
not significantly augment strategy-instruction effects for either writing performance or self-
efficacy. Composition performance after instruction among LD Ss did
not
differ significantly
in
terms of story grammar elements from that of a contrast group of normally achieving, competent
writers. However, normally achieving students' compositions were longer
and
received signifi-
cantly higher quality ratings.
In 1980, Hobb s, Moguin, Tyroher, and Lahey commented
that relatively few cognitive-behavioral studies had focused
on academic skills. Since that time cognitive strategy instruc-
tion in academic areas has become a major focus of educa-
tional research with the mildly to moderately handicapped
and other inefficient learners (cf. M eichenbaum, 1983; Press-
ley & Levin, 1986). Cognitive-behavioral theorists have pro-
posed that effective strategy instruction involves three major
comp onents: strategies, knowledge about the use and signifi-
cance of those strategies (metastrategy information), and self-
regulation of strategic performance
(cf.
Brown, Campione,
&
Day,
1981;
Harris & Graham, 1985).
Multicomponent strategy instruction interventions based
on th is theoretical view have pro ved efficacious in improving
performance—and frequently in o btaining generalization and
maintenance—among young children and problem learners
(Harris, 1986a; Reeve & Brown, 1985). Pressley and Levin
(1986) indicated that such interventions have frequently re-
sulted in performance among handicapped learners equiva-
lent to that obtained by their nonh andicapped peers. Previous
self-instructional strategy-training studies have incorporated
strategy instruction (using a self-instructional format), meta-
strategy knowledge, and explicit self-regulation. This ap-
This study
was
supported
by a
grant from
the
University
of
Maryland Graduate Research Board
to
Karen
R.
Harris; authorship
was determined alphabetically. Appreciation is expressed to the chil-
dren, teachers, and principals of the P rince George's Coun ty schools
participating in this project. Gratitude is extended to the strategy
instructors, Linda Artman, Cassie Chapman, Barbara
Danoff,
Tricia
Marker, Beth North,
and
Andrea Rothm an. Finally,
we
would like
to thank Michael Pressley
and the
anonymous reviewers
for
their
feedback on a draft of th is article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Steve Graham, Department of Special Education, College of Educa-
tion, U niversity of Maryland, College Park, M aryland 20742.
proach has been successful in improving written language and
mathematical problem-solving skills among learning disabled
(LD) students (Graham & Harris, 1989, in press; Graham,
Harris, & Sawyer, 1987; Harris & Grah am , 1985).
Although multicomponent interventions are frequently ef-
fective, a major issue in cognitive strategy instruction research
is determining both the relative contributions of instructional
components and the variables responsible for change. Cost-
benefit relationships of components also need to be deter-
mined (Harris, 1985; Pressley, Forrest-Pressley, & Elliott-
Faust,
in
press). Component analyses studies remain rare,
however. Elliott-Faust and Pressley (1986) demo nstrated th at
multicomponent strategy instruction, including a complete
and effective strategy embedded in a self-instruction routine
combined with self-monitoring of strategy use and effective-
ness, was superior to simply teaching children the task strat-
egy. However, no studies were located that investigated the
three theoretically-based critical elements of multicomponent
strategy instruction.
It has been theorized that explicit instruction in self-regu-
lation of strategic performance will result in incremental
effects and is critical to effective strategy deploy men t, pro duc-
tion of new metastrategy information, independent strategy
use,
and
m aintenance
and
generalization
of
effects (O'Leary
& Dubey, 1979; Pressley & Levin, 1986). Self-regulation
procedures have also been effective in increasing children's
self-efficacy (Bandura
&
Schunk, 1981). In addition, previous
research has established that LD students respond enthusiast-
ically to self-regulation procedu res and would highly recom-
men d such procedures to other students experiencing learning
problems (Graham & Harris, 1989; Harris, 1986b; Harris &
Graham, 1985). It is not known, however, if explicit self-
regulation procedures will produce incremental effects when
combined with an intervention that provides strategy instruc-
tion and metastrategy information. Thus, a major purpose of
the present investigation
was
to investigate possible increme n-
5
-
8/17/2019 Components Analysis of Cognitive Strategy Instruction
2/9
5
STEVE GRAHAM
AND
KAREN
R.
HARRIS
tal effects that are due to instruction in self-regulation of
strategic performance.
A second major purpose of this investigation was to deter-
min e the viability of a cognitive strategy instruction appro ach
among LD students exhibiting composition deficiencies.
Composition skills represent a significant deficiency among
these, students. Merely requiring students, whether
LD or
normally achieving, to write mo re frequently typically fails to
result in improved writing performance; practice alone does
not improve writing skills (Graham, 1982; Graham, Harris,
& Sawyer, 1988). Creative compositions written by LD stu-
dents frequently lack even the most basic story elements
(Barenbaum, Newcomer, & Nodine, 1987; Graham & Harris,
1989;
Nodine, Barenbaum,
&
Newcomer, 1985). Further-
more, judgments concerning the overall quality of LD stu-
dents' writing are significantly related to the number and
quality of basic story elements included in their compositions
(MacArthur & Graham, 1987).
Stein and G lenn (1979) noted that the gramm ar or structure
of stories
can be
reduced
to two
major compo nents: setting
and episode. T he setting typically incorporate s three elements:
introduction of the main character, a description of the locale,
and information about the time of the story. Episodes intro-
duce and resolve the plot of the story and typically include
five elemen ts: starter event (a precipitating event occurs), goal
(the main character reacts to the precipitating event and
formulates a goal), action (a planned effort to achieve the
goal),
ending
(the
results
of the
action),
and
reaction
(an
emphatic statement or a final response of a story character to
the consequences of the action). Short and Ryan (1984)
reported that story gramm ar training based on these elements
produced m eaningful gains in reading comprehension a mong
poor readers. Short
and
Ryan's training emphasized compre-
hension monitoring, through the use of five questions abo ut
settings and episodes, to select important aspects of story
information for further study. In the present study, the story
grammar strategy component of training emphasized the
generation of seven questions about setting and episode; these
seven questions include and expand upon the five questions
used by Short and Ryan. In the present investigation, how-
ever, these questions were used in a self-instructional strategy-
training intervention designed to facilitate advanced planning
an d the development of writing c ontent.
The Present Investigation
Two self-instructional strategy training groups were in-
cluded in the present study. Both groups received the story
gramm ar strategy instruction and instruction in the signifi-
cance of this strategy. One group also received instruction in
explicit self-regulation. Self-regulation procedures included
criterion setting and self-monitoring (self-assessment and self-
recording). Instruction was conducted by preservice teachers
in the schools.
Multiple measures were used to assess instructional proce-
dures and effects. The incorporation of story gramm ar sche-
mata in LD students' com positions was assessed prior to and
immediately following instruction. To determine if changes
in schematic structure were associated with improvem ent in
story quality, pre- and posttest compositions were also eval-
uated in terms of overall quality. Furthermore, changes in
individual story gram mar elements were examined to deter-
mine which aspects of narrative structure were affected by
instruction. Generalization across settings and short-term
maintenance were also assessed. In addition, a group of nor-
mally achieving, com peten t writers served as a contrast gro up
in posttest assessments, to determine if any differences in the
educational significance of the instruction existed between the
two groups. Treatmen t validity was determined by collecting
evidence
on
students' use of the story gram mar strategy both
during instruction and independently. Teacher and student
comments collected throughout instruction were helpful in
further determ ining the social validity of the two interv ention
approaches. Finally, LD students' self-efficacy for creative
comp osing w as assessed before and after instruction .
In summary, the present study addressed five critical ques-
tions: (a) Do LD students benefit from self-instructional story
grammar strategy training (in either or both conditions)? (b)
Do explicit self-regulation procedures meaningfully augment
self-instructional strategy training combined with instruction
in the significance of the strategies? (c) Can validation of
treatment procedures be provided (i.e., can treatment validity
be established)? (d) Can evidence of educational validity be
established? (e) Did either or both of the intervention ap-
proaches meaningfully affect LD students' perceived self-
efficacy?
M e t h o d
Subjects
LD .
Subjects
were
22
fifth-
and sixth-grade LD students receiving
resource room services
in
three elementary schools located
in
subur-
ban, middle-class neighborhoods outside of W ashington, DC. E ighty-
six percent of the students enrolled in these three schools were B lack.
Because of problems of validity with the LD label and the heteroge-
neity of school-identified LD populations (Harris, 1986a), all of th e
LD subjects selected
for
this study m et the following stepwise criteria:
identification as LD
by the
school district, 1Q scores between 85
and
115
on an
individually administered intelligence test, achievement
that was at least 2 years below grade level in one or more academic
areas, absence of any other handicapping condition, and interviews
with the resource room teachers indicating that significant composi-
tion problems were evident. IQ scores
for
the
LD
subjects were from
either
the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for
Children-Revised (WISC-
R; Wechsler,
1974) or the
Slosson Intelligence Test
(SIT,
Slosson,
1971). All IQ scores were taken from school files and had been
administered by school psychologists for all of the subjects within the
past 3 years. Although WISC-R scares were preferable, they were
available
for
only
6
of the 22 L D subjects. Achievement scores
for
all
LD subjects were from
the
Peabody Individual Achievement Test
(Dunn Markwardt, 1970), administered within
the
past year
by
school personnel and taken from students
1
files.
Subjects were randomly identified
and
evaluated
on the
basis
of
these criteria until
an
equal number
of
fifth-
and
sixth-grade
LD
students were selected. Fourteen of the subjects were boys and 8 were
girls. Seventeen of the subjects were Black, and 5 were White. Mean
IQ score was 95 (range = 85-113); mean chronological age was 11
years,
8 months (range = 10 years, 2 months-13 years, 7 months).
Further information
on
subject characteristics within experimental
conditions
is
presented
in
Table
1.
-
8/17/2019 Components Analysis of Cognitive Strategy Instruction
3/9
COMPONENTS ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE STRATEGY INSTRUCTION
355
Table
I
Subject
Characteristics
by E xperimental
Groups
Variable
CA
M
SD
IQ
M
SD
Race
Black («)
White («)
Sex
Female (n)
Male (n)
Grade
5th (n)
6th (n)
SIST
142.18
7.32
93.45
8.03
9
2
4
7
5
6
Group
8
SIST+SR
137.64
11.82
97.09
6.61
8
3
4
7
6
5
NA
133.60
6.01
—
—
8
3
5
6
5
6
Note.
SIST = self-instructional strategy training; SIST+SR = self-
instructional strategy training plus self-regulation training; NA =
normally achieving; CA
=
chronological age.
a
n —
11 for each group .
LD subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two self-instruc-
tional strategy-training conditions (self-instructional strategy training
or self-instructional strategy training plus self-regulation training).
Separate univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAS) were performed to
determine if there were any significant differences betwen the two
groups on important subject variables. No significant differences were
found on IQ , F (1 , 20) = 1.36, p = .26, chronological age, F (1 , 20)
= 1.18, p = .29, pretest self-efficacy, F(\, 20) -
.38,
p = .55, pretest
quality ratings, F ( 1, 20) = .02, p
—
.90, and pretest story grammar
elements, F (1 , 20) = .16, p = .70. Procedures for assessing self-
efficacy, quality,
and
story grammar elements
are
described
in the
next section.
Normally
achieving. The normative comparison group consisted
of
11
randomly selected students who attended
the
same schools
as
the LD subjects. IQ testing of normally achieving students was not
allowed
by the
school system. Although normal performance
is
commonly defined at plus and minus one standard deviation from
the mean (equivalent to
a
percentile rank range
of 16 to
84), we used
a more conservative definition of the lower end of the range. The
normally achieving subjects scored between the 29th and 81st per-
centiles (M
—
64.0) on the Cognitive Abilities Test (Thorndike &
Hagen, 1978) and above the 29th p ercentile on the following subtests
of the C alifornia A chievement T ests (1979): reading vocabulary (M
=
59.2), reading comprehension (M = 65.6), language m echanics
(M
=
76.2), and language expression
(M
= 67.4). These students received
no special education services
and
were capable writers according
to
their classroom teachers. Composition of this contrast group was
equivalent to that of the tw o LD training groups in terms of sex, race,
and grade (see Table 1).
Instruments and Materials
Story grammar elements.
We developed a scale for assessing the
schematic structure of w ritten stories. The scale was designed so th at
students' stories could be assessed in terms of the inclusion and
quality of the eight story gram mar elements identified by Stein and
Glenn (1979): main character, locale, time, starter event, goal, action,
ending,
and
reaction.
For each story element, a score of 0 was assigned if the element
was not present in the story, and a score of 1 was assigned if the
element w as included. Elements tha t w ere highly developed received
a score of 2. For the goal story element, a score of 3 was awarded if
tw o or more goals were present. Similarly, for the action story
element, scores of 3 or 4 were assigned if the actions or events
happened in a logical manner or if there was more than one well-
defined episode (or both). Scores were determ ined for each element
separately; in addition, by totaling the scores for the individual
elements, a total story grammar element score was calculated (a total
of 19 points was possible).
All stories written by a subject were scored both by their instructor
an d by a second trained examiner who was naive to the student's
group assignment and the purpose and design of the investigation.
For all scores (individual element scores and total score), the ratings
of the instructor and second exam iner were averaged. Interobserver
reliability between the instructors and the second examiner for the
total story grammar element score was .80. Interrater agreement on
presence of the element for each of the eight story elements was as
follows: .95, for main character, .94, for locale; .96, for time; .64, for
starter event; .95, for goal; .93, for action; .84, for ending; and .96,
for reaction.
Evidence on the validity of the story grammar element scale was
obtained by correlating the total scores of 26 normally achieving
sixth-grade students with (a) their scores on the Thematic Maturity
subtest of the
Test
of
Written Language
(Hammill & Larsen, 1983)
an d (b) a measure of written fluency (i.e., the number of words
written). Students' scores on the scale were moderately correlated
with thematic maturity (/• = .40) and number of words w ritten (r =
.32). In addition, MacArthur and Graham (1987) reported that LD
students' total scores on this scale were significantly correlated with
measures of story length (« = .8O-.85) and story quality (rs = . 7 1 -
.86).
Holistic
rating
scale.
A holistic rating scale was used to
assess
the
quality of subjects' stories following Gra ham 's (1982) recommenda-
tions. Examiners were directed to read each story attentively but no t
laboriously in order to obtain a general impression of quality. Ex-
aminers were told that aptness of word choice, grammar, organiza-
tion, sentence structure, and imagination should all be taken into
account in forming a
single
judgment about the overall quality of the
writing sample and that no one factor should receive un due weight.
Compositions were then scored on a 7-point scale, with 1 representing
the
lowest quality
of writing, and 7 representing the
highest quality.
Examiners were provided with a representative sample of a low,
medium, and high scoring composition to use as a guide or anchor
point in scoring the subjects* compositions. The high, medium, and
low com positions were obtained from a regular sixth-grade class; all
students in this class not receiving special services wrote a story, and
two trained graduate students selected the best, the middle, and the
poorest story on the basis of the scoring criteria noted above.
Two elementary-school teachers unfamiliar with
the
purpose
and
design of the study independently assigned holistic quality scores to
the stories written by the L D students during the pretest and posttest
writing probes and to the stories written by the normally achieving
students. Prior
to
scoring
the
students
1
stories, both examiners
re-
ceived considerable training and practice in using the holistic scoring
procedure. Interobserver reliability between
the two
examiners
was
.76. For each story, the ratings of the two examiners were averaged.
Self efficacy
measure.
An
individually administered scale assess-
ing self-efficacy—or judgments of one's capability to perform given
activities—for creative writing was developed and administered ac-
cording to procedures detailed by Bandura and Schunk (1981). The
efficacy scale ranged from 10 to 100 in 10-unit intervals; the higher
the scale value, the higher th e perceived self-efficacy. Verbal descrip-
tors occurred
at the
following points: 10
{not sure),
40
(maybe),
70
-
8/17/2019 Components Analysis of Cognitive Strategy Instruction
4/9
356
STEVE GRAHAM
AND
KAREN
R.
HARRIS
{pretty sure), 100
{real
sure). Practice with the efficacy assessment
procedure was provided by having subjects judge their capability to
jump progressively longer distances, from
a few
inches
to
several
yards. Following this introduc tion, subjects were read 10 items prob-
ing self-efficacy
for
writing
a
made-up story."
The
first
9
questions,
all introduced with the phrase Can you write a story
that,**
were as
follows:
(a)
tells ab out
the
main character's feelings?
(b)
clearly tells
about the setting? (c) has a good beginning? (d) tells who the main
character
is? (e)
tells about several things tha t h appen
to the
main
character? (f) tells when the story takes place? (g) tells where the story
took place?
(h)
tells w hat
the
main character wants
to do? (i) has a
good ending? The 1 Oth question was (j) Can you w rite a
good,
creative
(made-up) story? Subjects were asked
to be
honest
and to
mark
privately the appropriate num ber on the scale or each item. Subjects
understood these procedures
and did not
experience difficulty com-
pleting their judgments. The summed magnitude scores divided by
the total number
of
questions provided
the
measure
of
strength
of
self-efficacy.
Coefficient alpha
for the
self-efficacy scale was determ ined
to be
.80 among 26 normally achieving sixth-grade students prior to this
study.
In
addition,
the
internal-consistency reliability (coefficient
alpha)
of
the self-efficacy measure among
the
22
LD
students
in
this
study
at
pretest was .76.
Writing
stimuli. Fou r black-and-white pictures were used
as
writ-
ing stimuli for four different writing probes: pretest, posttest, gener-
alization (administered
in the
student's resource room following
treatment), and maintenance (administered 2 weeks after the termi-
nation
of
treatment). Pictures were selected
to be
interesting
to
elementary-school-age children, to be fairly easy to write about, and
to be similar in natu re (showing only one character). The four pictures
were (a) a boy walking across a field, (b) a scuba diver in the water,
(c)
an
Indian
on a
horse,
and
(d)
a man in a
boat. The pictures were
randomly assigned to the pretest, posttest, generalization, and main-
tenance probes. Pictures were administered to all subjects in the sam e
order, because several researchers(cf. Englert & Thom as, 1987) have
demonstrated that similar writing stimuli produce similar results
(thus,
randomly ordering stimuli for each subject appeared unneces-
sary). Additional, similar black-and-white pictures served
as
writing
stimuli for practice stories written du ring training.
General Procedures
Six senior-level undergraduate students
who had
extensive field
experience and were majoring
in
special education served as instruc-
tors; each instructor worked with an equivalent number of students
from both of the instructional groups. Instructors were blind to the
specific theoretical issues examined by the study so as not to predis-
pose them
to
either approach. Th e instructors were introduced
to all
subjects
as
"special writing teach ers" who would
be
working
at
their
school. Instructors received considerable training
and
practice
in the
application of the instructional procedures, until they were able to
role-play the lessons without error. Detailed lesson plans containing
step-by-step procedures for each phase of instruction were provided
in
a
notebook. Each step of the daily lesson plan was checked
off
as
it was completed;
we
monitored these notebooks closely
and
talked
with each instructor frequently throughout the study
to
ensure stand-
ard training procedures across instructors.
Instructors worked with small groups of tw o or three students at
their schools; instructors
met
with each group
for
approximately
45
min,
2 to 3
days
a
week,
for 2 to 3
weeks. Because instruction
was
criterion-based (students were required to master each lesson before
proceeding to the next), the number of sessions and amount of time
required varied slightly for each instructional group. The number of
sessions required for the strategy instruction groups ranged from five
to seven, with instructional tim e ranging from
5 to 6 hr in
total.
For
the strategy instruction plus self-regulation groups, the number of
sessions ranged from five
to
eight; total instructional time ranged
from 4 to 6.5 hr. Thus, the self-regulation components were easily
incorporated into the instructional procedures and did not necessitate
either extra sessions or longer instructional times. All of the subjects
mastered each
of the
instructional steps,
and
none
of the
subjects
found the instruction to be particularly complicated, perhaps because
of the criterion-based n ature
of
instruction.
The two pre- and posttests (writing probe and self-efficacy measure)
were administered individually by the writing instructors on different
days
(to
avoid carryover effects)
at the
subject's school,
as was the
maintenance writing probe. The short-term maintenance probe was
administered
2
weeks after
the
termination
of
instruction;
a
second,
longer term maintenance probe was not possible because of the
conclusion of the school year. The generalization-across-settings writ-
ing probe was collected in the resource room by the resource room
teacher w ithin
1
week after instruction.
The
writing probe
for nor-
mally achieving subjects was administered by an instructor congruent
with the time of posttesting for LD subjects. At no time during any
of these sessions were subjects provided feedback on their perform-
ance. When
the
pretest, posttest, maintenance,
and
generalization
writing probes were administered, the following standardized instruc-
tions were given:
Look at this picture and write a story to go with
it.
Use everything
that
you
have learned about writing stories
to
help you. Please
remember that I cannot help you write the story. However, if
you
do not
know how to spell
a
word,
I
will write
it out for
you.
Instructional
Procedures
The self-instructional strategy training steps and c ompon ents were
developed and validated previously (cf. Graham & Harris, in press;
Graha m, H arris, & Sawyer, 1987; Harris
&
Graha m, 1985).
In
both
conditions, Instruction emphasized the student's role as an active
collaborator
and
emphasized interactive learning between teacher
and students, with responsibility for recruiting an d applying strategies
gradually placed upon
the
student. Principles
of
interactional
scaf-
folding and Socratic dialogue were incorporated; instructors were
enthusiastic
and
responsive
to
each child
and
provided individually
tailored feedback. Strategies were explicitly and overtly modeled in
context;
the
goal
and
significance
of
the strategies were also made
clear. Finally, all instruction was criterion-based rather than time-
based, and previously taught skills/strategies were routinely reviewed.
The strategy instruction
and the
strategy instruction plus
self-
regulation groups received the same instructional program except
that
the
strategy instruction plus self-regulation groups received
in-
struction and practice in (a) self-monitoring their performance (re-
cording
and
graphing
the
number
and
kind
of
story grammar
ele-
ments contained
in
their practice stories)
and (b)
criterion setting
(establishing goals for the number of elements to be included in
subsequent practice stories). Instructional steps for the two groups
were as follows (all steps were conducted in groups of tw o to three
students).
1
Step
1: ^retraining. Pretrainin g focused on defining, identifying,
and generating story grammar elements using
a
mnemonic; this
1
Five lesson plans were developed to incorporate the seven training
steps.
Lesson Plan 1 covered T raining Steps 1 and 2; Lesson Plan 2
covered Training Steps 3,
4, and 5;
Lesson Plan
3
covered T raining
Steps 5
and
6; Lesson Plans
4 and
5 covered Training Step 7. Lesson
plans were typically completed in one or two training sessions. Copies
of these lesson plans are available from the authors.
-
8/17/2019 Components Analysis of Cognitive Strategy Instruction
5/9
COMPONENTS ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE STRATEGY INSTRUCTION
357
mnemonic was then used
in
the writing strategy tau ght
later.
A small
chart provided the mnem onic for the seven story gramma r questions:
W-W-W; What = 2; How = 2. T he questions were (a) Who is the
main character, who else is in the story? (b) When does the story take
place? (c) Where does the story take place? (d)
What
does the main
character want to do? (e)
What
happens when he or she tries to do
it? (f)
H ow
does the story end? and (g)
Ho w
does the main character
feel? After discussing the meaning of each element, students practiced
until they could recite the m nemonic and its meaning from m emory.
Students then identified story grammar elements in existing stories
and generated story elements while looking at a picture.
Step
2:
Review current performance level
and
training ration-
ale.
Once students had mastered the story grammar elements, the
instructor and students discussed students' pretest performance in
terms of their ability to incorporate the elements into their composi-
tions. The instructor and students also discussed the goal of instruc-
tion (to w rite better stories), why this is important, and how inclusion
and expansion of the story grammar elements improve a story.
Subjects in the strategy instruction plus self-regulation conditio n
received a graph depicting their performance on the pretest, and
graphing procedures were explained.
Step 3: Describe th e learning
strategy. A small chart was used
to
introduce and discuss afive-step writing strategy. Th e five steps w ere
(a) look at the picture; (b) let your mind be free; (c) write down the
story part reminder (W-W-W, What = 2, How = 2); (d) write down
story-part ideas for each p art; and (e) write your story: use good parts
and m ake sense. The instructor also modeled and then discussed with
the students three creativity self-statements helpful in thinking of
good story parts (e.g., "Take my time, good parts will come to me";
"Let my mind be free, think of new, fun ideas"; and "What ideas do
I see in this picture?"). Students then generated tw o or three of then-
own, preferred self-statements, recorded them o n paper, and practiced
using these self-statements to generate story parts.
Step 4; Model the strategy a nd
self-instructions. The mnemonic
an d five-step strategy charts, the list of creativity self-statements, and
a new stimulus picture were set out. The instructor modeled the use
of the writing strategy by w riting a story while "thinking out loud."
Consistent with Meichenbaum's (1977) self-instructional training
guidelines, the instructor modeled four additional types of self-in-
structions while composing: problem definition (i.e., "What is it I
have to do?"), planning (i.e., "Now I'd better write down my story-
parts reminder"), self-evaluation (i.e., Am I using all my parts so
far?"),
and self-reinforcement (i.e., "Good , I like these parts "). A
modeling script was provided in the lesson plans. After the modeling,
instructor and students discussed the importance
of
what we say
to
ourselves while we work. Students generated and recorded their ow n
examples of the four types of self-instructions.
Step
5:
Mastery
of
strategy steps.
Students were required to
practice the five-step writing strategy until
it
was memorized. Para-
phrasing was allowed as long as meaning rem ained in tact.
Step
6:
Controlled
practice.
The
instructor
and
students
con-
jointly planned one story following the first four steps of the five-step
strategy, each student then wrote the story independently. The mne-
monic andfive-step strategy c harts, as well as t he student-generated
self-instruction lists, were available a s prom pts. Although the instruc-
tor directed and monitored the process, she did not write the stories.
In both conditions, the teacher and students reviewed each student's
story as a group; if any of the story elements were missing, the g roup
discussed how
and
where they could
be
added.
For
students
in the
strategy instruction plus self-regulation groups, the students and
instructor initially set a goal to include all of the story grammar
elements. After the stories were written, each stude nt in these groups
and the instructor independently counted the number of story ele-
ments included in the story, compared counts, graphed the number
on the student's chart, and compared performance to the criterion.
Step :
Independent
performance. Students independently com-
posed two stories using the five-step strategy and self-instructional
statements. Positive and corrective feedback was provided as needed;
as in Step 6, the instructor and student reviewed each story (in both
conditions) and discussed how missing elements (if any) could be
included. Transition to covert self-instruction was encouraged. Stu-
dents were allowed
to
use the charts and self-instruction list only
for
the first of the two stories written. Students in the strategy instruction
plus self-regulation group followed
the
same goal-setting
and self-
monitoring procedures described in Step 6.
Throughout the instructional sessions, students were asked to share
what they were learning with their teachers and parents. Students
discussed with their instructors how what they were learning could
be used in their resource and regular classrooms; spontaneous com-
ments made by students during these discussions were recorded by
the instructors. Both
the
instructors
and the
investigators discussed
the interventions with the students and the resource room teachers
and recorded their comments.
It
should also be noted that any paper
that students wrote on during the writing probe sessions (pre, post,
maintenance,
and
generalization) was collected, because this could
provide evidence concerning strategy usage (i.e., Were the seven story
grammar questions
and
their responses written
out
prior
to
story
generation?).
Results
Story Elements: Total Score
A 2 (instructional groups) x 4 (trials) repeated measures
ANOVA
design was used to examine the effects of the two
instructional conditions (strategy instruction vs. strategy in-
struction plus self-regulation) on LD subjects' total scores on
the story grammar element scale and to determine if these
scores differed significantly at pretest, posttest, generalization,
and maintenance. The F ratio for trials was significant, ^ 3 ,
60) =
20.85,
p
-
8/17/2019 Components Analysis of Cognitive Strategy Instruction
6/9
358
STEVE GRAHAM AND KAREN R. HARRIS
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of Total Story Grammar
Elements
Score
as a
Function
of Training
Group
and
Writing Probe
Condition
Pretest
M
SD
Posttest
M
SD
Generalization
M
SD
Maintenance
M
SD
SIST"
6.05
2.32
9.82
1.01
9.86
2.52
9.05
1.29
Group
SIST+SR-
5.68
1.95
9.23
1.06
7.95
2.39
8.36
2.06
Combmed
b
5.86
2.10
9.52
1.05
8.91
2.59
8.70
1.72
Note.
SIST = self-instructional strategy training; SIST+SR = self-
instructional strategy training plus self-regulation.
instruction the performance of the normally achieving stu-
dents was significantly higher than the average pretest per-
formance of the two instructional groups of LD students (M
= 5.86). As noted previously, the pretest performance of the
two groups did no t differ significantly.
Neither the LD nor the normally achieving students scored
near the max imum possible on total story grammar elements
(to avoid ceiling effects, the scale was designed so that 19
points were possible only for unusual, exemplary stories).
However, the change in the writing of the LD students was
clearly educationally significant. Nodine et al. (1985) indi-
cated that the minimal essential components of a creative
story are a ma in charac ter, goal, action, and end ing. Although
only
36%
of the LD su bjects' stories at pretest m et this criteria,
91 , 73%, an d 73% of their stories met this criteria at posttest,
maintenance, and generalization, respectively. Among the
normally achieving subjects, 83% of stories met this criterion.
Furthermore, none of the LD subjects evidenced any debili-
tative effects from training. Total story grammar element
scores improved from pre- to posttest for 20 of the 22 LD
subjects, but scores for the other 2 subjects, who had attained
the two highest scores on the pretest, remained unchanged
from pre- to posttest. Finally, 86% of LD students' posttest
stories contained seven of the eight story gram mar elements
possible; only 36% of pretest writing probes met this criteria.
Individual E lement Scores
The scores for each of the separate story gramm ar elements
were analyzed using a one-way multivariate analysis of vari-
ance with the four trials as a factor. Because previous analyses
indicated no significant differences between the two groups
of LD students on total story gramm ar elemen ts score, effects
of group mem bership were no t analyzed. R esults were eval-
uated based on Rao's approximation of WUks's lambda. A
mu ltivariate effect for trials was obtained, F (24, 163) = 3.05,
p < .01. Separate univa riate analyses revealed that significant
trial effects were obtained for the following story grammar
elements: time, F(3, 63) = 9.07, p
-
8/17/2019 Components Analysis of Cognitive Strategy Instruction
7/9
COMPONENTS ANALYSIS
OF
COGNITIVE STRATEGY INSTRUCTION
359
Table 3
Learning Disabled Students' Mean
Scores
and
Percentage
of Stories
Incorporating
Each
Story Grammar Element
Story grammar
element
Main character
Locale
Time
Starter event
Goal
Action
Ending
Reaction
Pretest
M
1.02
1.02
.64
.27
.73
1.25
.59
.36
100
91
73
36
50
86
64
36
Posttest
M
.95
.95
1.25
.77
1.82
1.93
1.02
.77
%
95
91
95
82
100
95
91
77
Generalization
M
.93
1.14
1.23
.59
1.39
1.77
1.00
.91
91
100
91
64
77
86
91
82
Maintenance
M
.98
1.00
1.14
.48
1.64
1.98
.95
.70
95
100
91
64
86
95
86
68
Note. These values are based on the 22 students from the self-instructional strategy training and self-
instructional strategy training plu s self-regulation training groups.
Strategy Usage
Evidence on strategy usage provided validation of instruc-
tional manipulations. E xamination of the papers that students
wrote on during the writing probes revealed that the story
grammar mnemonic and responses were generated by 91%,
91%, and 100% of the subjects during the posttest, generali-
zation, and m aintenance probes, respectively.
Self-Efficacy
A 2 (instructional groups) x 2 (trials) ANOVA with repeated
measures design was used to examine the effects of strategy
instruc tion an d strategy instruc tion p lus self-regulation on LD
students' self-efficacy scores and to determine if pre- and
posttest scores differed significantly. A lthough
the F
ratio
for
trials w as significant, F{\
t
20) = 43.5, p
-
8/17/2019 Components Analysis of Cognitive Strategy Instruction
8/9
360
STEVE GRAHAM AND KAREN R. HARRIS
mately half the length of those of their normally achieving
peers.
Thus, further instruction could emphasize writing
longer stories (e.g., adding more detail) while maintaining
schematic integrity.
A control group was not included in this study because it
was not allowed by th e scho ol system for ethical reasons, and
a wait-list control group
was not
possible because
of the
approaching end of the school year. Practice effects might
therefore
be
suggested
as
a counterexplanation of he improve-
me nt in L D subjects* com positions. T his is unlikely, however.
Significant com position deficits are well-substantiated am ong
LD students, and practice alone is unlikely to result in im-
provement (Barenbaum et aL, 1987; Graham & Harris, in
press;
Nodine
et al.,
1985). Furthermore,
in
another study
using the same pictorial writing prompts, G raham et al. (1988)
found that LD subjects' writing performance actually de-
creased slightly in a practice-only condition. In addition, no
significant differences existed between the instructional
groups on important subject variables such as IQ and pretest
performance, thus strengthening experimental control.
Fi-
nally, evidence was obtained that subjects used the strategy
both during and after instruction, thus strengthening the
argument that instruction mediated performance.
Incremental E ffects
Interestingly, no incremental effects due to explicit self-
regulation of strategic performance were found in terms of
the schematic structure of LD students' compositions, the
quality of stories, the educational significance of their im-
provem ent, or th eir judg me nts (self-efficacy) concern ing th eir
capability
to
write stories.
It
should be noted that we
did not
compare
the
presence
of
self-regulation with
the
absence
of
self-regulation. Rather, the comparison made was between
strategy instruction combined with instruction in and use of
explicit self-regulation procedures (goal setting, self-assess-
ment, and self-recording) and strategy instruction alone. It is
likely, however, that th e strategy instruc tion include d implicit
self-regulation information and may thus have induced less
formal self-regulation procedures. Theorists have noted that
a self-regulation fun ction is inhere nt in strategy interventions
such as self-instructional training (Meichenbaum, 1983; Press-
ley et al., in press). Indeed, it would be difficult to conceive
of any meaningful strategy instruction and acquisition pro-
cedures in which self-regulation is neither implicit nor
induced. It has been argued, however, that explicit self-
regulation instruction will significantly augm ent strategic per-
formance
and is
particularly impo rtant
in
obtaining general-
ization and maintenance (cf. Brown et al., 198 1; Pressley et
al.,
in press; Pressley & Levin, 1986).
Clearly, both replication of the results of this study and
further com ponents analysis research are needed. Future stud-
ies, however, might profitably focus on the characteristics as
well as the components of instruction. Noteworthy here is
that instruction focused on a meaningful academic task,
emphasized interactive learning, was provided by preservice
teachers in the students' schools, and was criterion-based
rather than time-based. Any or all of these characteristics may
be related
to the
lack
of
incremental effects
due to
explicit
self-regulation in this study. Furthermore, future research
should explore the possibility that explicit self-regulation en-
hances regulation and effects of succeeding strategies tau ght
or acquired. Finally, the inclusion of explicit self-regulation
procedures was in no way "costly," and students frequently
mentioned "the graphs" as one of their favorite instructional
components (consistent with
our
earlier work;
cf.
Graham
&
Harris, 1989). Explicit self-regulation appears to have strong
social validity.
Self-Efficacy
A major issue in the pres ent investigation w as the effects of
the two-strategy intervention conditions on subjects' self-
efficacy. Self-efficacy is postulated to have a causal effect on
performance as it mediates choice of activities, expenditure
of effort, and persistence in the face of difficulty. Furth erm ore,
explicit, proxima l goal-setting procedures, su ch as those used
in the present inv estigation, have been effective
in
increasing
children's self-efficacy (Bandu ra & Sch unk, 1981). Th us, aug-
mental effects of explicit in struction in goal setting and self-
monitoring appeared likely. Such effects were not realized;
self-efficacy increased significantly among subjects in both
conditions.
Equally as notable as the lack of augmen tal effects was the
relatively high level of self-efficacy among LD students at
pretest. The ability to assess on e's own capabilities, and par-
ticularly the ability to know that one has a problem, is an
important metacognitive skill (Brown et al., 1981; Harris,
Graham, & Freeman, 1988). A growing body of research
indicates that young children and pro blem learners experience
significant difficulties with predicting or assessing their per-
formance
(cf.
Brown
et
al., 1981; Harris
et
al., 1988).
In the
present study, LD students consistently overestimated their
composition abilities. Bandura and Schunk (1981) noted the
same problem of overestimation among children making
judgm ents of ma them atical self-efficacy; such o verestimation
was attributed to misperceptions of task demands, faulty self-
knowledge, and selective atten tion to mastered, as opposed to
unmastered, task elements. Unreatistically high pretask ex-
pectancies may also be due to comprehension deficiencies,
use of a self-protective coping strategy, or a developmental
delay in the ability to match task demands to ability level
(Harris et al., 1988). Thus, further research on pretask expec-
tancies may be important in understanding problem learners.
Although
the
need
for
further research is evident,
the
present
study adds to a growing body of research that indicates th at
sound strategy instruction produces meaningful results.
References
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-
efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation.
Journal of Personality an d Social
Psychology,
41 ,
586-598.
Barenbaum,
E.,
Newcomer,
P., &
Nodine,
B.
(1987). Children's
ability to write stories as a function of variation in task, age, and
developmental level.
Learning Disability
Quarterly,
10,
175-188.
Brown,
A. L.,
Campione
?
J. C, & Day, J. D.
(1981). Learning
to
-
8/17/2019 Components Analysis of Cognitive Strategy Instruction
9/9
COMPONENTS ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE STRATEGY INSTRUCTION
361
learn: On training students to learn from texts.
Educational Re-
searcher,
10, 14-21.
Th e California Achievement Tests: Technical bulletin No. 1
(1979).
Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-HUL
Dunn, L. M., & Markwardt, F. C. (1970).
Peabody Individual
Achievement Test. Circle Pines, MN : American G uidance Service.
Elliott-Faust, D . J., & Pressley, M. (1986). How to teach comparison
processing to increase children's short- and long-term listening
comprehension monitoring.
Journal of Educational Psychology,
78 , 27-33.
Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure
in reading and writing: A comparison between learning disabled
and non-learning disabled students.
Learning Disability
Quarterly,
10,
93-105.
Graham, S. (1982). Composition research and practice: A unified
approach.
Focus on
Exceptional
Children, 14,
1-16.
Gra ham , S., & Harris, K. R. (198 9). Cognitive training: Implications
for written language. In J. Hughes & R. Hall (Eds.),
Cognitive
behavioral psychology
in the schools: A
comprehensive
handbook
(pp. 247-279). New York: Guilford Press.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (in press). Improving learning disabled
students' skills at composing essays: Self-instructional strategy
training.
Exceptional Children.
Grah am, S., Harris, K. R., & Sawyer, R. (1987). Composition instruc-
tion with learning disabled students: Self-instructional strategy
training.
Focus on Exceptional Children, 20,
1-11.
Gra ham , S., Harris, K. R ., & Sawyer, R. (1988). [Improving learning
disabled students' composition skills with story grammar strategy
training: A second comp onents analysis of self-instructional strat-
egy
training].
Unpublished raw data.
Hammill, D,, & Larsen, S. (1983).
Test of written
language. Austin,
TX : Pro-Ed.
Harris, K. R. (1985). Conceptual, methodological, and clinical issues
in cognitive-behavioral assessment.
Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology,
13 ,
373-390.
Harris, K. R. (1986a). The effects of cognitive-behavior modification
on private speech and task performance during problem solving
among learning disabled and normally achieving children.
Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14,
63-77.
Harris, K. R. (198 6b). Self-monitoring of attentiona l behavior versus
self-monitoring of productivity: Effects on on-task behavior and
academic response rate am ong learning disabled children.
Journal
ofApplied
Behavior
Analysis, 19,
417-423.
Harris, K. R.,
&
Graham, S. (1985). Improving learning disabled
students' composition skills: Self-control strategy training.
Learning
Disability
Quarterly,
8,
27-36.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S.,
&
Freeman, S. (1988). The effects of
strategy training and study conditions on metamemory among
learning disabled students.
Exceptional Children, 54,
332-338.
Hobbs, S. A., Moguin, L. E., Tyroler, U.
f
& Lahey, B. B. (1980).
Cognitive behavior therapy with children: Has clinical utility been
demonstrated?
Psychological
Bulletin, 87, 147-165.
MacA rthur, C , & Grah am, S. (1987). Learning disabled students'
composing with three methods; Handwriting, dictation, and word
processing.
Journal of Special Education, 21(3),
22-42.
Meiehenbaum, D. (1977).
Cognitive behavior modification: An inte-
grative approach.
New York: Plenum Press.
Meiehenbaum , D. (1983). Teaching thinking: A cognitive-behavioral
approach.
Interdisciplinary voices in learning disabilities and re-
medial education
(pp. 1-28), Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Nodine, B., Barenbaum, E., & Newcomer, P. (1985). Story compo-
sition by learning disabled, reading disabled, and normal children.
Learning
Disability
Quarterly,, 8, 167-181.
O'Leary, S. G., & D ubey, D . R. (1979). Applications of self-control
procedures by children: A review.
Jo urnal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 12,
449-465.
Pressley, M., Forrest-Pressley, D., & Elliott-Faust, D. J. (in press).
How to study strategy instructional en richment: Illustrations from
research on children's prose memory and comprehension. In F.
Weinert & M. Perlmutter (Eds.),
Memory
development:
Universal
changes a nd individual
development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., & Levin, J. R. (1986). Elaborative learning strategies for
the inefficient learner. In S. J. Ceci (Ed),
H andbook of cognitive,
social,
an d neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities
(pp.
175-211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
Reeve, R. A., & Brown, A. L. (1985). Metacognition reconsidered:
Implications for intervention research.
Journa l of Abnorm al Child
Psychology,
13,
343-356.
Short, E. J., & Ryan, E. B. (1984). Metacognitive differences between
skilled and less skilled readers: Remediating deficits through story
grammar and attribution training.
Journal of Educational
Psychol-
ogy,
76, 225-235.
Slosson, R. L. (1971).
Slosson Intelligence
Test. East Aurora, NY:
Slosson Educ ational Publications.
Stein, N. L,, & Glenn, C. C. (1979). An analysis of story comprehen-
sion in elementary school children. In R . O. Freedle (Ed.),
Advances
in discourse processes:
Vol.
2. New directions in discourse process-
ing.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Thoradike, R., & Hagen, E. (1978).
Cognitive Abilities
Test. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Wechsler, D. (1974).
Manua l for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children-Revised.
New York: Psychological C orporation.
Received September 2, 1987
Revision received March 10, 1989
Accepted March 20, 1989 •