Components Analysis of Cognitive Strategy Instruction

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


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.


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


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.


5/9


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


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


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


8/9

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


9/9


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 •

Documents

Components Analysis of Cognitive Strategy Instruction