Cognitive and Metacognitive Aspects of Learning Disabled Adolescents' Composing Problems

Abstract

This study investigated the cognitive and metacognitive aspects of writing problems in learning disabled adolescents. Twenty-one learning disabled eighth and eleventh graders constituted the target population. The comparison groups included 15 normally achieving eighth graders and a reading-age control group of 23 normally achieving sixth graders. The participants wrote two reportive essays and one argument essay, and answered a questionnaire designed to probe their metacognition about the writing process.

Results indicated that normally achieving eighth graders consistently and clearly surpassed their learning disabled counterparts in both quality and quantity of essay writing. Adult judges rated normally achieving eighth graders' essays to be substantially more interesting, much clearer in communicating the goals, and to contain a substantially more felicitous word choice than those of learning disabled eighth and eleventh graders. Moreover, they wrote longer essays with much fewer spelling errors than learning disabled eighth and eleventh graders. Finally, they possessed more mature and articulate conceptions of the writing task, and were more aware of the relevance of planning and audience in writing.

In striking contrast, the learning disabled eighth and eleventh graders were comparable to the normally achieving sixth graders in their performances across a broad front. This comparability occurred in the three categories of holistic ratings of essays (interestingness, clarity in communication of goals, and word choice), structural ratings of paragraphs, and metacognition about the writing process. Interestingly, learning disabled eighth and eleventh graders were superior to normally achieving sixth graders in length of essays. However, the consistent, broad picture was that the learning disabled adolescents performed at a very similar level to that of younger normally achieving children. These findings permit the conclusion that the learning disabled adolescents in this study showed a developmental delay in the cognitive and metacognitive aspects of writing.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

P. L.

(1982). A preliminary study of syntax in the written expression of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 359–362.

Applebee

A. N.

(1984). Writing and reasoning. Review in Educational Research, 54, 577–596.

Backman

J. E.

Mamen

Ferguson

H. B.

(1984). Reading level design: Conceptual and methodological issues in reading research. Psychological Bulletin, 96 (3), 560–568.

Barenbaum

Newcomer

Nodine

(1987). Children's ability to write stories as a function of variation in task, age, and developmental level. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10 (3), 175–188.

Bereiter

Scardamalia

(1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bereiter

Scardamalia

(1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In Glaser

(Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Vol. 2 (pp. 1–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

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 (2), 93–105.

Englert

C. S.

Raphael

T. E.

Fear

K. L.

Anderson

L. M.

(1988). Students' metacognitive knowledge about how to write informational texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11 (1), 18–46.

Flower

L. S.

Hayes

J. R.

(1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In Gregg

L. W.

Steinberg

E. R.

(Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

10.

Flower

Hayes

J. R.

Carey

Schriver

Stratman

(1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37 (1), 16–53.

11.

Goldman

Fristoe

Woodcock

R. W.

(1970). Test of auditory discrimination. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

12.

Graham

Harris

K. R.

(in press). Cognitive training: Implications for written language. In Hughes

Hall

(Eds.), Handbook of cognitive behavioral approaches in educational settings. New York: Guilford Publishing Co.

13.

Hammill

Brown

Larsen

C. S.

Wiederholt

J. L.

(1980). The test of adolescent language. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

14.

Harris

K. R.

Graham

(1984 April), Improving learning disabled students' composition skills: A self-control strategy training approach Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

15.

Hayes

J. R.

Flower

L. S.

(1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In Gregg

L. W.

Steinberg

E. R.

(Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

16.

Humes

(1983). Research on the composing process. Review of Educational Research, 53, 201–216.

17.

Licht

B. G.

Kistner

J. A.

(1986). Motivational problems of learning disabled children: Individual differences and their implications for treatment. In Torgesen

J. K.

Wong

B. Y. L.

(Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 225–255). New York: Academic Press.

18.

Moore

M. C.

(1988). Word processing to aid revision in the writing of learning disabled adolescents Unpublished master's thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B. C., Canada.

19.

Moran

M. R.

(1981). Performance of learning disabled and low achieving secondary students on formal features of a paragraph writing task. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4(3), 271–279.

20.

Myklebust

H. R.

(1973). Development and disorders of written language. Vol. 2. Studies of normal and exceptional children. New York: Grune & Stratton.

21.

Newcomer

Barenbaum

Nodine

(1988). Comparison of the story production of learning disabled, normally achieving, and low achieving children under two modes of production. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 167–175.

22.

Nodine

B. F.

Barenbaum

Newcomer

(1985). Story composition by learning disabled, reading disabled, and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8 (3), 167–179.

23.

Poplin

Gray

Larsen

Banikowski

Mehring

(1980). A comparison of components of written expression abilities in learning disabled and non-learning disabled children at three grade levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 46–53.

24.

Poteet

J. A.

(1978). Characteristics of written expression of learning disabled and non-learning disabled elementary school students. Diagnostique, 4, 60–74.

25.

Reynolds

C. J.

Hill

D. S.

Swassing

R. H.

Ward

M. E.

(1988). The effects of revision strategy instruction on the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21 (9), 540–545.

26.

Scardamalia

Bereiter

(1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In Rosenberg

(Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 142–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Siegel

L. S.

(in press). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities.

28.

Stanovich

(1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, XXI(4), 360–407.

29.

Torgesen

J. K.

Houck

(1980). Processing deficiencies in learning-disabled children who perform poorly on the digit span task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 141–160.

30.

Weiner

E. S.

(1980). The diagnostic evaluation of writing skills (DEWS): Application of DEWS criteria to writing samples. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3 (2), 54–59.

31.

Zigmond

Vallecorsa

Silverman

(1983). Assessment for instructional planning in special education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.