|
Article Excerpt
Relatively little is known about the potential of web-based programs to support and scaffold the writing performance of students with disabilities. In this study, an experimental and control group of students planned and organized their ideas in order to write expository papers about self-selected topics. The experimental group used a web-based environment that scaffolded performance by prompting attention to the topical organization and structure of ideas while students were in the situated act of composing their papers. Control students used similar writing tools, but in traditional paper-and-pencil print formats. The results of the quasi-experimental study revealed that the students in the web-based scaffolding condition produced lengthier pieces and received significantly higher ratings on the primary traits associated with writing quality. The greatest effects were evident in terms of experimental students' abilities to produce topic sentences and to generate more topically coherent pieces overall. These findings suggest the web-based software can be designed to offer universally available supports to improve the performance of struggling writers.
**********
Writing is a challenging cognitive process. According to the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; 2002) only 28% of fourth-grade writers attained performance levels that were judged to be at or above proficient, whereas 72% exhibited partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are considered fundamental for the fourth grade (Persky, Daane, & Jin, 2003). On the NAEP informational writing task, fewer than 17% of the fourth-grade students performed at the proficient level, as measured by students' production of texts that included main ideas and details and that displayed sensitivity to their targeted audience (Persky et al., 2003). Clearly, students have difficulty composing texts, and they manifest the greatest problems when they are asked to generate informational or expository texts.
Among school-age populations, students with learning disabilities (LD) face some of the most serious writing challenges, which affects their school performance (Graham, 2006; Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2003; Singer & Bashir, 2004; Troia, 2006). Students with LD perform more poorly than their typically achieving counterparts on nearly every measure of writing performance, including measures of text length, quality and organization, and mechanical and grammatical errors (Gersten & Baker, 2001; Troia, 2006). The research literature reveals several underlying problems that interfere with the attainment of proficient levels of writing.
First, a body of literature indicates that students with LD demonstrate difficulties in employing and regulating cognitive and writing strategies (Graham, 2006; Troia, 2006). Specifically, Graham and Harris (Graham & Harris, 1989, 1993; Graham, Harris, MacArthur, & Schwartz, 1991; Troia, Graham & Harris, 1999) noted that students with LD have difficulties in approaching text composition in planful ways, with concomitant deficiencies in their ability to establish purposes for writing or to prepare to write by activating background knowledge. Similarly, several studies indicate that students with LD do not anticipate or generate information consistent with prior topical information (Englert & Thomas, 1987; Williams, 2003), but instead tend to generate ideas in an associative fashion (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1985; Graham & Harris, 2003; Singer & Bashir, 2004). The end result is an amalgamation of rambling ideas that fail to launch, present, or advance the writers' thoughts in a coherent fashion.
A second difficulty pertains to a lack of knowledge of text structure, which informs writers about the discourse-level arrangement of ideas in text. Different types of texts are organized in different ways. Meyer (Meyer, 1975, 1977; Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, 1980), for example, identified six patterns for the organization of expository information: (a) compare-contrast; (b) problem-solution; (c) description or enumeration of traits, properties, or functions; (d) temporal or chronological sequence; (e) classification; and (f) explanation. Familiarity with these types of text structures helps writers generate the information that is required for adequate topical coverage, as well as to employ the semantic and syntactic devices that slot the required information in the appropriate textual locations (Englert, Hiebert, & Stewart, 1988; Fitzgerald & Teasley, 1986; Kamberelis, 1999).
Unfortunately, many students with LD are not conscious of the topical, semantic, and syntactic properties of these expository text structures, which negatively impacts their ability to generate organizationally sophisticated written texts (Englert & Raphael, 1988; Graham, 1990; Graham & Harris, 1989; Thomas, Englert, & Gregg, 1987; Williams, 2003; Wong, 1997). Consequently, their written texts often exclude essential information or fail to communicate the relationships among the textual ideas in a manner that satisfies the knowledge requirements of their readers (Englert et al., 1988; Thomas et al., 1987; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000; Wong, 1997; Wong, Butler, Ficzere, & Kuperis, 1996).
Third, well-written expository texts are organized at the local level through the provision of introductory statements that orient the readers to the subtopics, text structure, and purpose of the text, and that set the stage for the information that will follow (Halliday & Martin, 1993). Each of the local subtopics is further signaled by introductory or preparatory statements, which are embellished with relevant details that offer topical breadth and depth (Halliday & Martin, 1993). Recursively, therefore, written text contains introductory and concluding statements that offer a wave-like function through the text, simultaneously setting up and wrapping up the subtopical presentations of information to achieve effective communication (Halliday & Martin, 1993).
Skilled writers use this knowledge of text organization as a basis for planning, selecting, generating, organizing, composing, monitoring, and communicating their textual ideas (Meyer et al., 1980; Spivey, 1997; Vaughn et al., 2001). In contrast, students with LD have difficulty in generating text in a manner that accomplishes a wave-like progression through their ideas (Wong, 1978). Compared to their grade-age peers, students with LD tend to generate texts that are poorly organized and that fail to launch and wrap up the meaning relationships among a particular set of ideas (Englert, Raphael, Fear, & Anderson, 1988; Englert et al., 1991; Englert & Thomas, 1987). Often the legibility of their expository texts is further threatened by writing problems associated with (a) knowledge retrieval problems, resulting in shorter pieces; (b) difficulties knowing how and what to revise, resulting in incomprehensible texts; and (c) a lack of automaticity in basic skills (grammar, punctuation, writing fluency, word retrieval) (Graham & Harris, 2003; Graham et al., 1991; Harris et al., 2003; Singer & Bashir, 2004).
Instructional Interventions
The research literature has yielded some consistent results pertaining to the instructional practices that address the writing difficulties of students with disabilities. Chief among the instructional recommendations is an emphasis on direct instruction of the expository text structures, together with the use of teaching methods and tools that highlight the organization of ideas into patterned relationships (Baker, Gersten, & Graham, 2003; Englert et al., 1991; Gersten & Baker, 2001; Vaughn et al., 2000).
The provision of organizational frameworks (semantic webs, graphic organizers), for example, helps make text structures more visible to students, enhancing their abilities to identify, organize, and generate a structured set of ideas (Berkowitz, 1986; Idol, 1987; Idol & Croll, 1987; Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei, 2004; Meyer, 1995; Scanlon, Duran, Reyes, & Gallego, 1992; Sinatra, Beaudry, Pizzo, & Geisert, 1994; Sinatra, Berg, & Dunn, 1985; Wong, 1997; Wong et al., 1996). Organizational frameworks scaffold performance by eliciting the types of information that is expected for a given text structure, and by prompting writers to adopt a hierarchical approach to topical presentation. Relatedly, teachers who model the writing process by thinking aloud about the cognitive strategies that inform the planning, organizing, transcription, and monitoring processes have a positive effect on their students' writing performance (Baker et al., 2003; Englert et al., 1991; Englert & Mariage, 2003; Vaughn et al., 2000; Wong & Berninger, 2004). Development of students' text structure knowledge through a combination of teaching and learning techniques offers the best prospect for improving their performance by increasing students' abilities to adopt a strategic and planful approach as they gather, organize, and compose their expository ideas.
However, the provision of organizational frameworks and strategies is not always sufficient. Often students' uses of text structure and strategies must be further prompted and supported in the situated context of writing activity. A meta-analysis performed by Gersten and Baker (2001) showed the benefits of prompted writing performance through the provision of procedural facilitators or scaffolds. Procedural facilitators, which can include mnemonics, questions, prompts, think sheets, or simple outlines of important learning structures (Baker, Gersten, & Scanlon, 2002; Baker, Gersten, & Graham, 2003; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1985; Rummel, Levin, & Woodward, 2003), aid cognition by supporting and reminding students to activate and employ the strategies during the planning, composing, and revising process (Baker et al., 2003; Singer & Bashir, 2004; Wong & Berninger, 2004; Wong et al., 1996). De La Paz (De La Paz, 1997, 1999; De La Paz & Graham, 2002), for example, used printed prompts to cue students to plan, write, monitor, evaluate, and revise their texts based on expert writing strategies and criteria. With the anchoring support of such procedural facilitators, students with LD were guided to use strategic actions that they otherwise might not have employed (Baker et al., 2002; De La Paz & Graham, 2002), resulting in an overall enhancement of their writing proficiency (Baker et al., 2003; De La Paz, 1999; De La Paz & Graham, 2002).
Technology as a Scaffolding Environment
Incorporating scaffolds into the fabric of the writing process remains an instructional challenge. By its very nature, writing is often private, whereas scaffolds imply a social or cognitive relationship between the user and the procedural facilitator (Stone, 1988). In this regard, technology may have a critical role in supporting learners in performing the writing process. Technologies can be designed to offer scaffolds that lead cognitive functions that are newly emerging, and to prompt routines and processes in a timely way just as a tutor might prompt students to employ particular writing procedures and actions. Thus, the National Commission on Writing (2003) offered its opinion that "new technologies can advance both the teaching and learning of writing" (p. 31). The report called for further investment in technology research that might aid students' writing.
Two types of organizational tools may support writing performance through the provision of technology-assisted devices: (a) graphic organizers and mapping tools, and (b) assistive technologies.
Graphic organizers and mapping tools. This type of scaffold enables writers to organize what they know into relational databases that facilitate information generation and retrieval (Jonassen & Carr, 2000). For example, Inspiration (Inspiration, 1994) is a software program that allows students to organize their ideas into a number of possible structural arrangements, such as compare-contrast, explanation, flowchart, and so on. The software extends writers' capabilities by offering mapping tools that support students as they organize their ideas. Similarly, Anderson-Inman (Anderson-Inman, Redekopp, & Adams, 1992; Anderson-Inman & Tenny, 1989; Anderson-Inman & Zeitz, 1994) developed computer-based outlining programs for improving the text comprehension and study strategies of students with LD. Studies showed that the computer-based outlining programs were effective in improving the test performance of students with LD (Anderson-Inman, Knox-Quinn, & Horney, 1996). Provided textual representations and graphic organizers of the underlying structure for a writing topic, students with LD were more successful at including the essential elements of the expository text structure (Anderson-Inman et al., 1996; Anderson-Inman et al., 1992). Similarly, mapping tools facilitated performance by advancing students' use of cognitive operations that were otherwise underemployed in reading and writing. In this manner, students could distribute or offload some of the cognitive strategies and representational work onto the technology, freeing up their memory and cognition for other generative and productive processes.
Assistive technologies. This type of organizational tool offers discourse-level prompts that help students stage their ideas and develop the macrostructure of their expository papers through the provision of cognitive frameworks. TELE-Web...
|
