Examining Effects of Writing Interventions

Taft, Raol J.; Mason, Linda

doi:10.1177/0741932510362242

Cited by 29 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The gains were maintained for at least 3 months. As pointed out by Taft and Mason (2011), research that focuses on writing instruction for LLD is still emerging. It also is worth mentioning that most prior studies combined planning and revising strategies into a whole intervention package instead of teaching revising as a separate aspect of the writing process within the SRSD framework; we have located only a single study that taught planning and revising strategies separately (Schnee, 2010), which included typically developing students who struggled with writing.…”

Section: Teaching Compare-contrast Text Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching Children With Language-Learning Disabilities to Plan and Revise Compare–Contrast Texts

Shen

Troia

2017

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children need to demonstrate sufficient writing skills to meet curriculum demands for writing and to succeed in their classes, as well as to deepen understanding of themselves and the world (Graham & Perin, 2007). However, writing often is a difficult and complex task that requires children not only to have the cognitive resources for producing varied texts, such as topic, genre, and linguistic knowledge and specific writing skills and techniques, but also to have adequate meta-cognitive abilities to monitor their writing-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and to maintain a positive attitude toward writing (Troia, 2006). Children with language-learning disabilities (LLD) who display normal nonverbal cognitive abilities but experience oral and written language difficulties that adversely affect their academic performance (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities [NJCLD], 1990) have been found to demonstrate difficulties in many aspects of writing (Dockrell, Lindsay, & Connelly, 2009). Compared with their same-age peers, children with LLD compose shorter texts (Dockrell et al., 2009); demonstrate a limited ability to generate and organize their ideas; display many errors in grammar, spelling, and other writing conventions (Dockrell & Connelly, 2009); and write papers with poorer overall quality (Fey,

show abstract

Section: Teaching Compare-contrast Text Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching Children With Language-Learning Disabilities to Plan and Revise Compare–Contrast Texts

Shen

Troia

2017

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to the 2013 review of CBGOs, researchers have suggested that a graphic organizer, when applied within a technology tool, can improve student writing (Englert, Manalo, & Zhao, 2004; Graham, MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007; Lorenz, Green, & Brown, 2009), and computers have been recommended as an integral part of writing instruction (Cutler & Graham, 2008). However, there is a limited integration of technology in the evidence-based writing interventions identified for students with disabilities (Baker et al, 2009; Cook & Bennett, 2014; Gersten & Baker, 2011; Gillespie & Graham, 2014; Taft & Mason, 2011). In addition to the limited scope of research in this area of writing research, one challenge to integrating technology with existing instructional strategies is teacher reluctance (Applebee & Langer, 2011).…”

Section: Strategy Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emphasizing Planning for Essay Writing With a Computer-Based Graphic Organizer

Evmenova

Regan

Boykin

et al. 2015

Exceptional Children

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors conducted a multiple-baseline study to investigate the effects of a computer-based graphic organizer (CBGO) with embedded self-regulated learning strategies on the quantity and quality of persuasive essay writing by students with high-incidence disabilities. Ten seventh-and eighth-grade students with learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and autism spectrum disorder participated in the study. The authors collected data on the number of words, sentences, transition words, essay parts, and holistic writing quality score across (a) baseline (writing on the computer without the CBGO), (b) CBGO-use phase (writing on the computer with the CBGO), and (c) maintenance (writing on the computer without the CBGO). In a visual analysis, all participants improved the quality of their writing, and the majority of students also increased the quantity of their writing. Student interview data are presented to discuss the social validity of this innovative technology-based intervention.

show abstract

“…On average, 17-year-olds with ED exiting high school achieved W scores of 500 and 510 on comprehension and word reading, which represents the reading level of the average fifth grader (Wei et al, 2011). In addition, students with ED demonstrate underachievement in vocabulary and written language in addition to word reading, and comprehension (Taft & Mason, 2011). A recent large-scale study that included more than 185,000 typically developing students and 2,146 students with ED (Wanzek, Al Otaiba, & Petscher, 2014) demonstrated that underachievement begins early.…”

Section: Grim Reality: Characteristics and Underachievement Of Studenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advanced Reading Comprehension Expectations in Secondary School

Ciullo

Ortiz

Otaiba

et al. 2015

Journal of Disability Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate around recent implementation of the Common Core Standards (CCSS) has perplexed many policy makers, practitioners, and researchers; yet there remains broad agreement for the need to improve reading outcomes and college and career readiness for all students, including students with disabilities. One of the most vulnerable populations with disabilities in terms of college and career readiness is students with emotional disorders (ED). A considerable percentage of students with ED encounter unfavorable academic and long-term outcomes, often due to reading difficulties and behavioral variables that impede learning. To date, the impact of rising expectations in reading on the education of students with ED has been absent from this conversation about CCSS. In this article, we consider the implications of new reading expectations in the critical period of Grades 6-12 for students with ED. First, we summarize grade level expectations of the standards. Then, we describe the characteristics and underachievement of students with ED. Next, we evaluate challenges in meeting the expectations based on extant research, and provide recommendations for practice based on the intervention literature. We conclude by prioritizing a research and policy agenda that advocates for increasing the likelihood of success in reading for students with ED in middle school and high school.

show abstract

Examining Effects of Writing Interventions

Cited by 29 publications

References 36 publications

Teaching Children With Language-Learning Disabilities to Plan and Revise Compare–Contrast Texts

Teaching Children With Language-Learning Disabilities to Plan and Revise Compare–Contrast Texts

Emphasizing Planning for Essay Writing With a Computer-Based Graphic Organizer

Advanced Reading Comprehension Expectations in Secondary School

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About