Journal of Learning Disabilities

Young children with learning disabilities typically encounter difficulty with academic tasks requiring intentional effort and effective use of metacognitive skills—qualities that competent readers and writers possess. In response to these difficulties, special educators often modify literacy instruction, isolating the “basic skills” of literacy (such as decoding and penmanship) from meaningful reading and writing activities. Such instruction contributes to impoverished notions of literacy and exacerbates problems of metacognition. The two research programs reported here challenge the conventional literacy instruction provided to many young students with LD. The programs are rooted in developmental and cognitive theory and research, as well as emergent literacy theory. The social nature of learning is emphasized, with a focus on the role of the teacher, the form of discourse, and the role of text in literacy instruction. Results show that children with learning disabilities benefit from strategy instruction occurring within classroom cultures that support collaborative discourse, the flexible application of comprehension strategies, and appropriate, meaningful opportunities for reading and writing.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, weather forecasting requires even more tentativeness than elsewhere. Storms in the Gulf of Alaska, deep gorges with furious winds, and rainy valleys and sounds combined with arid high deserts all seem to ensure low success rates for meteorologists' predictions. Crafty television meteorologists have adopted a coping strategy: Discuss what you have observed to have occurred today and yesterday, rather than what you expect to occur tomorrow. Pacific Northwest weatherpersons spend many minutes each day telling their viewing audiences how cold and wet it has already been in obscure parts of the region.

This study investigated the effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of six middle school students with learning disabilities. Conditions of the multiple baseline, across-subjects design included baseline, two levels of treatment, setting and temporal generalization, and retraining. For Treatment 1, subjects received either cognitive or metacognitive strategy instruction. Treatment 2 consisted of instruction in the complementary component of the instructional program so that all subjects eventually received both cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction. This design allowed a componential analysis of the content as well as sequence of instruction. Generally, subjects improved their mathematical problem solving as measured by performance on one-, two-, and three-step word problems. Discussion focused on effectiveness of treatment, acquisition and application of strategic knowledge, error pattern analysis, and the need to tailor instruction to the learner's individual characteristics.

Recent research demonstrates the effectiveness of process instruction in academic domains for children and adolescents with learning disabilities. The articles in this series attest to the gains that have been made by using cognitive process-based instruction to teach for acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of knowledge essential to success in the classroom. However, many of these studies use individual instruction, and, while they are effective, they could not be described as efficient.

This set of articles-on the three Rs-has provided us with innovative, wide-ranging perspectives on how teachers can enhance academic performance. I could devote considerable space to emphasizing the many positive aspects in each of the three major articles. However, the commentators have done a fine job in pinpointing strengths and identifying limitations associated with each position paper. Hence, my goal is to draw the three articles into a more coherent and unified perspective, based in large part on recent advances in metacognitive theory. I will develop three themes:

(1) self-regulation as the centerpiece of strategy-based instruction;

(2) the reciprocal relationship between self-regulated learning and beliefs about the “self” as a learner; and

(3) “working models” and their role in classroom teaching. Hopefully, having stated my case as succinctly as possible, connections will emerge between my preferred metacognitive framework and the major themes in the accompanying articles.

Learning difficulties have been considered to be a symptom of childhood depression by some authors, whereas others have examined depression as a cause of cognitive difficulties, including learning disabilities (LD). This study examined the prevalence of depressive symptoms in a sample of public school elementary children aged 8 through 11, 37 boys and 16 girls, identified as LD by state standards. Of the sample of 53 children, 35.85% scored in the depressed range on the Children's Depression Inventory. Comparison of the children's self-reports and parents' reports of depressive symptoms in their children was not significant. Implications of the results are discussed relative to the role of school personnel and the assessment process in recognizing depressive symptoms in students with LD.

Mental flexibility (skill with shifting response set) and visual planning skills were examined with a group of 60 children and adolescents with learning disabilities. The sample consisted of 44 boys and 16 girls with an age range of 9 to 15. Scores from the Trail Making Test and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test were cluster-analyzed and subgroups were formulated. The results of the cluster analysis indicated a two-group solution to be most appropriate. One subtype was clearly dysfunctional on the classifying variables, while the other subgroup approached average levels. The two subtypes were compared on measures of intellectual functions, academic skills, auditory memory, visual memory, visual-motor integration, motor speed, and tactile integration. Significance was found on several different tests. The results are discussed in terms of potential cortical dysfunction evidenced by the subgroups.